Sandro mum on House’s dismissal of impeach raps against Marcos

House Majority Leader and Ilocos Norte 1st District Rep. Sandro Marcos on Wednesday declined to comment on the House justice committee’s decision to declare the impeachment complaints against his father, President Ferdinand Marcos, Jr. as insufficient in substance.

In an interview with reporters, the younger Marcos said he lacked the moral authority to do so.

“As I said in my previous statement, I am not the right party or I have no moral authority to be discussing anything with the impeachment of the President given my familial relation with him,” the lawmaker said.

“Let’s leave it up to the wisdom of the Justice Committee and the other members of the House to comment on that. But as far as I am concerned, I think it’s best for me not to comment,” he added.

Last month, the younger Marcos said he will not participate in the deliberations on the impeachment complaints filed against his father in order to preserve the integrity of the House of Representatives.

Earlier on Wednesday, the House justice panel junked the two impeachment complaints against the President for being insufficient in substance.

House justice panel chairperson and Batangas 2nd District Rep. Gerville Luistro justified the decision of the panel, stressing that lawmakers must rely on facts, not conclusions made by the complainants. 

“It is the decision of the majority of the members of the Justice Committee that the standard of sufficiency in substance was not met. A complaint is sufficient in substance if there is a recital of facts that constitute an offense demonstrative of the jurisdiction of the Justice Committee. Simply stated, the allegations of facts must constitute an impeachable offense,” she said.

Luistro pointed out that allegations in a complaint “are not facts or are not the overt acts that we are expecting to be written in an impeachment complaint, meaning those acts executed by the impeachable official.”

“We need to link that with violation of the Constitution or other impeachable offenses. We cannot accept mere conclusions such as corruption or that he received so much money when these are based on not authenticated or not attested videos,” she said.

Luistro added: “If we are not able to establish the connection between the two, the allegation of facts and the restrictive enumeration of impeachable grounds, then it will fail in the test of sufficiency in substance.”

The first complaint was lodged by lawyer Andre De Jesus and accused the Chief Executive of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for allegedly ordering and enabling the kidnapping and surrender of ex-President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC); for his alleged drug addiction that supposedly impaired his judgment and leadership; for failing to veto unprogrammed appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions of the national budget for 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026; among others.

The second complaint was filed by the Makabayan lawmakers and endorsed by Makabayan lawmakers. This complaint alleged that Marcos 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.

Following the dismissal of the complaints, Malacañang urged the public to move forward as it stressed that the complaints were bereft of basis and merit. — JMA, GMA Integrated News