The House Committee on Justice on Monday declared sufficient in form two impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., even as lawmakers said a recent Supreme Court (SC) ruling on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte has no bearing on the proceedings against the President.
The committee voted 46-1, with one abstention, to declare sufficient in form the first complaint filed by lawyer Andre De Jesus.
The second complaint, filed by the Makabayan bloc, was approved with 35 votes in favor, nine against, and one abstention.
De Jesus’ complaint accuses Marcos of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution, among others, for allegedly ordering and enabling the kidnapping and surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court.
The complaint also claims the President is a drug addict whose condition allegedly impairs his judgment and leadership, and for Mr. Marcos failing to veto unprogrammed appropriations and other allegedly unconstitutional provisions of the national budgets for 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026.
The Makabayan complaint, meanwhile, alleges betrayal of public trust over the adoption of the Baselined-Balanced-Managed (BBM) Parametric Formula in allocating infrastructure projects, which it said resulted in “ghost,” substandard, and overpriced flood management projects, among other alleged irregularities.
Under House rules, an impeachment complaint is sufficient in form if it is based on personal knowledge and/or supported by authentic documents.
During the hearing, committee officials clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the impeachment case of Vice President Sara Duterte does not affect the impeachment process against President Marcos.
San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria Zamora, a vice chairperson of the committee, said the High Court’s decision pertained to the impeachment complaint filed against the Vice President under a different mode.
“The impeachment complaint then was under the second mode, or the mode which requires a one-third vote of all members of the House of Representatives,” Zamora said.
“In this case, the two complaints (against President Marcos Jr.) were filed by ordinary citizens and endorsed by members of Congress and then referred within the proper period to the House Committee on Justice,” she added.
“So, Madam Chair, there is no effect on the proceedings before this committee,” Zamora stressed.
She explained that the SC ruling dealt with the definition of “session days” in relation to the timing of the referral of the impeachment complaint against the Vice President, which the Court later found to be barred.
Committee chair Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro and vice chairpersons Bukidnon Rep. Keith Flores and Ako Bicol Party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin agreed with Zamora’s assessment.
“I agree, it has no effect because the pending impeachment complaints were filed under the first mode by private citizens and endorsed by House members,” Luistro said.
Garbin noted that the SC defined “session days” as “calendar days” and raised questions on how this would affect the timetable for the committee’s report on the complaints against the President.
Luistro, however, cautioned members against interpreting the SC ruling on impeachment timelines, saying the matter should be left to House leadership and the “proper committees” to resolve.
