House panel postpones voting on sufficiency in substance on two impeach raps vs Marcos

The House Committee on Justice has postponed the voting on the sufficiency in substance of the two impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. 

House justice panel chairperson Gerville Luistro said the postponement of the voting from Tuesday (February 3) to Wednesday (February 4) is necessary after exhaustive discussions on the first impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Pusong Pinoy party-list Rep. Jett Nisay.

“The chair is in receipt of request to move the voting [on sufficiency in substance] tomorrow afternoon, after we are done discussing sufficiency in substance of the Maza et al complaint,” Luistro said, referring to the second impeachment complaint filed by former Gabriela Representative Liza Maza and endorsed by Makabayan bloc lawmakers.

The sufficiency in substance of the second complaint endorsed by Makabayan lawmakers were not discussed during Tuesday’s deliberations.

“We had an exhaustive discussion on the first complaint, and we want to give the committee members time to recharge  and look at the complaint with a fresh mind,” Luistro added.

The House justice panel members agreed with Luistro’s manifestation.

The two impeachment complaints lodged vs. the President include: 

• Filed by lawyer Andre De Jesus which accuses the President of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution, among others, for 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, among others and
• The Makabayan complaint alleged that the President committed betrayal of public trust over the adoption of the Baselined-Balanced-Managed (BBM) Parametric Formula in allocating infrastructure projects that allegedly led to "ghost," substandard, and overpriced flood management projects, among others. 

TIMELINE: Impeachment proceedings vs. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. 

Allegations

Ahead of the discussions on the sufficiency of substance of the de Jesus complaint, Luistro stressed in her opening statement that allegations of corruption do not automatically constitute an impeachable offense. 

 “In Francisco v. House of Representatives [Supreme Court decision], the Court emphasized that impeachment must still conform to the constitutional standards. In Gonzales v. Third [Supreme Court decision], the Court warned against equating errors of judgment or policy disagreements, especially where good faith may be inferred, with betrayal of public trust. This committee must therefore be guided by a crucial distinction,” Luistro said.

“Not every alleged irregularity in government is impeachable. Not every claim of corruption automatically implicates the official. And not every disagreement with the exercise of discretion rises to the level of a grave abuse of constitutional power,” Luistro added.

Likewise, Luistro said that sufficiency in substance is not about whether allegations are loudly made, repeatedly asserted, passionately believed, or politically resonant. 

“Sufficiency in substance is about whether the complaints allege ultimate facts, not mere conclusions, whether they show a personal culpable act or omission by the impeachable official, and whether those acts as pleaded amount to culpable violation of the Constitution, prison, bribery, draft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust, as the Constitution strictly enumerates,” she added.

“The Supreme Court has been clear that while impeachment is political in character, it is not free from constitutional limits,” Luistro added. 

Basic questions

But for House Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice of Caloocan City, both the impeachment complaints against the Chief Executive have “prima facie sufficiency” that merits further proceedings before the House Committee on Justice.

“The complaint alleges facts, not mere conclusions. Under the Constitution, that is enough to allow the presentation of evidence, testimonies, and to give the President his day before the Committee,” Erice said in a separate statement.  

Erice noted that the complaints cite specific acts allegedly committed or allowed by the President, including the failure to prevent massive budget insertions and diversions amounting to hundreds of billions of pesos in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 General Appropriations Acts.

Further, Erice noted that Marcos approved the release of billions of pesos in unprogrammed appropriations, funds without definite sources of financing, which were allegedly used for ghost, substandard, and anomalous infrastructure projects, including flood control works. 

“The complaint clearly answers the basic questions of who committed the acts, what was done, when and where they were done, and how they were carried out. More importantly, it establishes a direct link between these acts and the impeachable offense of betrayal of public trust,” Erice said. 

“The allegations are grave, affect public interest, undermine constitutional order, and erode public confidence in government. Due process requires that the complainants be allowed to present evidence and that the President be given a fair opportunity to respond. This is not persecution; this is accountability,” Erice added. 

In a press briefing Tuesday, Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said the President would continue to respect the proceedings in the impeachment complaints filed against him.

''Napag-usapan, ang sabi lang niya nandiyan ang proseso at kung ano ang proseso, igagalang niya (It was discussed, he said he would respect the process),'' she said.

Asked if the President's legal team is preparing, Castro said not yet as they want to determine first what will happen in the process. 

''Hindi pa, aalamin lang natin 'yung mangyayari sa proseso. Pag andiyan naman po 'yung proseso, sasagot na lang po ang Pangulo,'' she said. 

(Not yet, we will determine first what will happen to the process. The President is ready to respond to whatever the process will dictate.)

Malacañang previously said that it is confident that the complaints would not be sufficient in substance, as Castro maintained that the President knows he didn't commit any impeachable offense.

''Even before sinabi na po ng Pangulo na alam niya na wala siyang ginawang mali, wala siyang ginawang paglabag sa batas, at wala siyang ginawang impeachable offense. Kaya kumpiyansa siya sa sarili niya,'' she said.

(Even before, the President knows that he didn't do anything wrong, he didn't violate the law, and he didn't commit an impeachable offense. He is confident with himself.) —with a report from Anna Felicia Bajo/RSJ/VAL/AOL, GMA Integrated News