Sandro Marcos won't block Dad's impeachment

House Majority Leader and Ilocos Norte 1st District Rep. Sandro Marcos of Ilocos Norte on Friday assured that the House of Representatives will not block any impeachment complaint filed against his father, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

“Dapat dinggin ng Kamara ang anumang isasampang impeachment complaint, kahit pa ito ay laban sa aking ama,” Marcos said in a statement.

He said it is the duty of the House of Representatives to act on any impeachment complaint.

“Tungkulin ng Kamara, sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas, na aksiyunan ang anumang impeachment complaint na ihahain laban sa sinumang impeachable official,” the lawmaker said.

It is Marcos' duty as majority leader to refer to the House Committee on Justice all impeachment complaints that have been included in the Calendar of Business and read in plenary.

“May constitutional duty ang Congress to refer the impeachment complaint sa House Committee on Justice sa sandaling ito ay mailagay sa Order of Business at mabasa sa plenaryo,” he said.

Congressman Marcos issued the statement four days after lawyer Andre de Jesus filed an impeachment complaint against the President.

De Jesus’ complaint, endorsed by Pusong Pinoy party-list Rep. Jett Nisay, said the President must be impeached over betrayal of public trust due to the following actions:

• ordering and enabling the kidnapping and surrender of ex-President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
• being a drug addict whose condition impairs his judgment and leadership
• failing to veto unprogrammed appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions of the national budget for 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026
• benefitting from kickbacks arising from budget insertions and ghost flood control projects
• creating the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) to shield his corrupt allies.

Two other groups attempted to file impeachment complaints against the President, but they were not received by the Office of the House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil on Thursday, January 22, since she was abroad on official business.

Justice committee head

Meanwhile, House Committee on Justice chairperson Gerville Luistro said that impeachment proceedings will continue even if complainants push through with plans to file a petition before the Supreme Court.

The group that attempted to file the third impeachment complaint said they are seriously considering filing charges against Garafil and her office.

"Well, karapatan naman yan ng bawat isa to go to the Supreme Court if they believe that there are irregularities or abuse of discretion that is happening with respect to the process," Luistro said in an online interview this morning.

"As to the effect, well for as long as the Supreme Court has no decision yet, we will continue proceeding with the impeachment process as provided under the Constitution and under the rules," she added.

Luistro also said the complainants in the second and third impeachment complaints can return to the House of Representatives on Monday, when Congress resumes session, to refile their respective complaints.

"Well, bumalik sa Monday is an option. But I am really not in a position to give any advice," Luistro said.

The complainants in the second impeachment complaint had left a copy with the Office of the Secretary General yesterday, but Luistro could not say what effect this had.

"I cannot really comment on the effect with regard to the leaving of copy because the rule does not provide as to what to do when the SecGen is not around and the staff or officials remaining in the office refuse to receive the copy of the complaint. Perhaps it is the Secretary General who can best say kung ano dapat course of action nitong mga complainants na ito," Luistro said.

'Manipulation'

Senior Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice of Caloocan City said Garafil's office is mandated to receive the complaints as provided under the Constitution and House rules.

He added that the receipt and docketing of impeachment complaints are ministerial duties and cannot be suspended due to the absence of a particular official.

“This is not about the merits of impeachment. This is about the deliberate manipulation of process to prevent the truth from coming out,” Erice said.

“Refusal to receive is not a neutral administrative act. It affects timing, docketing, and inclusion in the Order of Business, and can ultimately determine whether an impeachment complaint is ever acted upon,” he added.

Erice also said that "because the complaints were not [supposedly] received, they were not time-stamped, docketed, or included in the Order of Business, effectively preventing their consideration by the plenary."

The lawmaker warned that the deliberate refusal to receive impeachment complaints may constitute grave abuse of discretion, which is subject to judicial review under the Constitution’s expanded judicial power vested in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

“Such acts may also give rise to administrative liability for neglect of duty or conduct prejudicial to the service, while criminal liability would depend on proof of willful and coordinated intent to obstruct a constitutional process,” Erice said.

'Strict compliance'

In a separate statement, Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong defended the decision of Garafil's office not to receive the complaints.

"The receipt of an impeachment complaint is not a casual or clerical transaction," he said.

"It is a formal constitutional act that must be strictly comply with the House Rules. It cannot be improvised, delegated casually, or reduced to a mere drop-off," he added.

Adiong said accepting the impeachment complaint without the Secretary General "would expose the House to procedural challenges and claims of irregularity."

"That would be a far more serious breach of duty," he said.

GMA Integrated News has reached out to House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil but has not received any response.

The complainants in the second and third impeachment complaints have raised concerns that the first impeachment complaint, which they called weak, may be transmitted immediately to the Committee on Justice to trigger the one-year bar rule against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable official within one year.

"If we will be reading the rules, of course, there's a possibility sapagkat nauna yung isa. It's already with the Office of the Speaker. We don't know kung mag-aabot-abot ba yan sa plenary. At pagdating sa plenary, ano bang magiging judgment ng members of the 20th Congress. Kung yan ba ay mauuna din yung impeachment complaint, which will ma-refer sa Justice Committee, which you are correct, technically will bar the subsequent impeachment complaints. Or will they decide na hintayin yung dalawa at ma-refer na sabay-sabay sa Justice Committee? Pag nangyari yun, we will be prompted to consolidate the impeachment complaints before the Justice Committee," Luistro explained.

To allay these fears, House Committee on Justice Vice Chair and Assistant Majority Leader Jonathan Keith Flores of Bukidnon 2nd district said in a phone interview yesterday, "I think we should accept any and all impeachment complaints. Para at least hindi masabi ng taongbayan na sa filing pa lang pinaprotektahan na yung Presidente." — BAP, GMA Integrated News