House Impeachment Complaints Against Marcos Insufficient in Substance

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

House Impeachment Complaints Against Marcos Insufficient in Substance

By Bing Jabadan and Wilma N. Yamzon – TheNATIONWEEK.com on February 5, 2026

MANILA, Philippines – In a widely anticipated outcome, the House committee on justice has declared two impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. insufficient in substance, effectively halting their progress.

The decision, reached on Wednesday, February 4, 2026, has been met with criticism from complainants and supporters, who allege the proceedings were a pre-determined “moro-moro” (a term referring to a staged or scripted event) due to the President’s commanding majority in the House.

The impeachment complaints, spearheaded by lawyer Andre de Jesus and a coalition of progressive leaders including Liza Maza and members of the Makabayan bloc, had initially cleared the hurdle of sufficiency in form.

However, the committee’s latest assessment found that the allegations presented lacked the necessary factual basis to warrant further consideration.

The House committee rules mandate a dual evaluation of impeachment complaints, assessing both their form and substance before proceeding to a plenary vote.

In separate votes, the committee determined that De Jesus’ complaint was insufficient in substance by a margin of 42-1, with 3 abstentions.

Maza’s complaint fared slightly better, with 39 members voting against its sufficiency and only seven in favor.

Committee chair Rep. Gerville Luistro of Batangas 2nd District emphasized the critical distinction between “ultimate facts” and mere conclusions.

She reiterated that an impeachment complaint must present concrete evidence of impeachable offenses, as defined by the Constitution, including betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes.

A Closer Look at the Allegations

De Jesus’ complaint centered on a series of accusations, including:

The Duterte ICC Surrender:

• Allegations that Marcos Jr. facilitated the surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court.

Alleged Drug Addiction:

• Unsubstantiated claims of Marcos Jr.’s alleged drug addiction.

Unvetoed Appropriations:

• Accusations that Marcos Jr. failed to veto unprogrammed appropriations.

Kickbacks and “Ghost” Projects:

• Allegations of kickbacks from budget insertions and “ghost” flood control projects.

Independent Commission for Infrastructure:

• The establishment of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure, allegedly designed to shield allies from scrutiny.

Maza’s complaint focused on the BBM (Baselined-Balanced-Managed) Parametric Formula for infrastructure budget allocation, alleging it led to a “massive misallocation of funds” and facilitated kickbacks for favored officials.

The complaint further accused Marcos of misusing discretionary power over unprogrammed appropriations and being directly involved in budgetary insertions.

Diverging Opinions Within the Committee

The committee deliberations revealed a stark divide among its members.

Some lawmakers expressed reservations about the strength of the evidence presented in Maza’s complaint, arguing that it failed to demonstrate direct involvement by the President in the alleged schemes.

Rep. Ysabel Zamora of San Juan City argued that the BBM parametric formula was not created by the President and that an imperfect policy does not constitute grounds for impeachment.

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez of Cagayan de Oro City echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the absence of factual recitals directly implicating the President.

Members of the majority bloc defended the legality of unprogrammed appropriations, arguing that they have not been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and have been utilized by previous administrations.

However, Rep. Leila de Lima of the Mamamayang Liberal party-list and Edgar Erice of Caloocan City, dissenting voices from the minority bloc, argued that the second ground for impeachment met the necessary threshold for sufficiency.

Concerns Over the Nature of the Allegations

Prior to the vote, concerns were raised regarding the nature of the allegations in De Jesus’ complaint.

Several committee members characterized the claims as primarily legal conclusions rather than factual recitals, with some allegations deemed “hearsay” and not constituting impeachable offenses.

Maza, acknowledging the uphill battle, recognized the formidable challenge of pursuing impeachment against a president with overwhelming support in the House.

Following the committee’s initial finding of sufficient form, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro stated, “That’s the process; we have to respect that.”

The dismissal of the impeachment complaints underscores the significant political hurdles involved in challenging a sitting president with a strong legislative majority. The outcome has reignited debate over the effectiveness of the impeachment process and the potential for political considerations to outweigh substantive evidence. Critics argue that the “Moro-Moro” proceedings highlight the need for greater transparency and accountability in the impeachment process to ensure that it serves as a legitimate check on executive power.