Hearings on Marcos impeachment raps to start on Feb. 2

The House Committee on Justice will start its deliberations on the impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. on February 2, Monday next week.

The schedule was stated under the House justice panel's Notice of Meeting dated January 28 and signed by the panel's chairperson, Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro. 

Luistro said in an interview that only members of the House of Representatives—not the complainants in the impeachment bids—were invited to attend.

After the call to order, Luistro said she will be delivering her opening statement, where she will lay down the ground rules for the hearing.

There were two verified impeachment complaints filed against President Marcos, Jr. namely: 

• The complaint filed by lawyer Andre De Jesus and endorsed by House Deputy Minority Leader and Pusong Pinoy Party-list Rep. Jernie Jett V. Nisay last January 19 and
• The complaint filed by Makabayan coalition members led by Liza Largoza Maza, Teodoro Casiño, Renato Reyes Jr., Atty. Neri Colmenares, and labor leader Ronaldo “Ka Jerome” Adonis, among others. 

The Makabayan complaint was endorsed by ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio, Gabriela Women’s Party-list Rep. Sarah Elago, and Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Louise Co.

The notice, addressed to Elago as one of the endorsers, said participation in the meeting is “earnestly requested,” and that the committee secretariat will handle confirmations and queries. 

Consolidation

Luistro said the February 2 meeting will start with the mandatory consolidation of impeachment complaints upon referral as provided by House justice panel rules.

“We need to consolidate the two complaints because two complaints are not possible to be heard in the Justice Committee. So, we will be doing that during our initial hearing,” Luistro said.

"By consolidation, they will be taken into consideration as one complaint. All of them [allegations in both complaints] will be deliberated upon before the Justice Committee," she added.

"For me, it should happen before the determination of sufficiency in form and substance because in as far as the Justice Committee is concerned, dapat isang impeachment complaint na lang ang pinag-uusapan natin (we should be talking about only one impeachment complaint here)," Luistro added.

Sufficiency in form

Luistro assured the public that the complainants will be asked to deliver their sponsorship speeches at the outset or before the determination if the complaint is sufficient in form, and if so, if it is also sufficient in substance.

If the complaint fails to hurdle either of these two requirements, the House justice panel cannot proceed further. 

To check an impeachment complaint's sufficiency in form, Luistro said, "We have to check if the complaint is signed either by a private individual or a House member. If it is signed by a private individual, we have to check if there is the accompanying resolution by a House member. And then in both cases, dapat verified 'yan, pinanumpaan before an authorized administering officer (And then in both cases, it should be verified, sworn before an authorized administering officer)."

"And we have to be particular about the verification. The rules are clear. Dapat based on personal knowledge and/or authentic records (It should be based on personal knowledge and/or authentic records)," she added.

In case one of the grounds for impeachment is not supported by facts, Luistro stated the said grounds will be disregarded upon a vote of the majority of the committee's members but the impeachment proceedings can move on based on the remaining grounds.

Confident

Tinio, meanwhile, expressed confidence the complaint will be found sufficient in form and substance.

“Of course, dapat lumusot both sa sufficiency in form and substance dahil ang laman noon ay ang katotohanan ng nangyari sa flood control corruption scandal at sa direktang papel ng Pangulo rito. Kaya kailangan siyang managot through impeachment,” Tinio said in an interview.  

(Of course, both sufficiency in form and substance must be present because the substance is the truth of what happened in the flood control corruption scandal and the President's direct role on the matter. So he has to be made accountable through impeachment.)

"Malakas 'yan lahat. Of course, 'yung pangatlo, 'yun 'yung nagtutukoy sa pinakadirektang partisipasyon ng Pangulo dahil siya mismo ang nag-utos ng insertion ng P100 billion sa 2025 GAA (General Appropriations Act) DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) budget. Nandoon talaga 'yung mga insertions na yon. Tapos mayroon ding mga testimonya na nagsasabi, partikular si [former] Usec. [Roberto] Bernardo, na nag-deliver siya ng at least P8 billion in kickbacks para sa Pangulo," Tinio added.

(It's all strong. Of course, the third one refers to the President's direct participation because he personally ordered the insertion of P100 billion in the 2025 General Appropriations Act for the Department of Public Works and Highways budget. The insertions are really there. Testimonies were made, particularly by former Usec. Roberto Bernardo, that he delivered at least P8 billion in kickbacks for the President.) — VAL/ VDV, GMA Integrated News