Manila: The House Committee on Justice on Wednesday overwhelmingly dismissed the two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. for failure to meet the constitutional requirement of sufficiency in substance. The committee, chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville 'Jinky Bitrics' Luistro, declared insufficient in substance the complaints separately filed by lawyer Andre De Jesus, and by a group of activists and private individuals led by former lawmaker Liza Maza.
According to Philippines News Agency, the panel approved the motion raised by committee Vice Chair Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora of San Juan City, with a vote of 42 - 1 and three abstentions, declaring the De Jesus complaint insufficient in substance. On the Maza complaint, the panel voted 39 - 7 to declare the complaint also insufficient in substance.
Before the votes took place, Luistro urged panel members to decide based on conscience, facts, and the interest of the Filipino people. Luistro emphasized the importance of the decision, urging members to vote with their conscience and consider the welfare and future of each Filipino.
In a press conference after the hearing, Luistro announced that the committee would reconvene on Monday to finalize its report for transmittal to the House plenary, subject to approval by at least one-third of all House members. The twin rulings formally terminated both impeachment complaints at the sufficiency-in-substance stage, ending the committee's constitutional review.
Both complaints accused the President of culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. The De Jesus complaint, endorsed by Pusong Pinoy Rep. Jett Nisay, cited alleged unconstitutional acts, including the surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court, misuse of unprogrammed appropriations, and claims questioning the President's fitness to serve. The Maza et al. complaint alleged betrayal of public trust over the 'BBM Parametric Formula' in infrastructure spending linked to anomalous flood-control projects, and irregularities involving PhilHealth funds and other budget allocations.
A majority of committee members stated that both complaints failed to plead facts sufficient to warrant a full impeachment hearing, relying largely on speculation, policy disagreements, and unsubstantiated claims without any direct or indirect act by the President constituting an impeachable offense. They stressed that impeachment requires factual allegations supported by evidence, not rhetoric, labels, or conjecture.
The members also warned against lowering the constitutional threshold by relying on hearsay, unverified claims, or the absence of direct evidence linking the President to corruption or betrayal of public trust.
