House panel junks impeachment complaints vs Marcos

A congressional panel on Wednesday found the impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. lacked merit, an outcome widely expected in a chamber dominated by his allies.  

The House Justice Committee, which voted to dismiss complaints alleging Mr. Marcos’ role in a multibillion-peso graft scandal linked to government infrastructure projects, will recommend the 318-member Legislature to also reject the charges. 

Forty-two lawmakers agreed that the first complaint was insufficient in form, while only seven voted in favor of the second complaint’s sufficiency against 39 congressmen, preventing the ouster raps from advancing to full hearings involving the President, complainants and their witnesses. 

“The grounds for impeachment are sufficient. So, it’s clear, the committee really seems determined to kill the complaints at this stage alone,” Party-list Rep. Antonio L. Tinio, who endorsed one of the complaints against Mr. Marcos, told reporters after the vote. 

Mr. Marcos still faces the risk of being impeached despite the committee’s dismissal of charges, as its findings must still be deliberated before the House plenary. The odds remain low, however, as overturning the body’s ruling will require 106 votes, or one-third of lawmakers.  

The committee’s decision to declare the complaints insufficient in substance came a few hours into the second day of hearings on their merits, with lawmakers overwhelmingly arguing that the offenses alleged against Mr. Marcos were not impeachable under the Constitution. 

“The accusations are not factual allegations,” San Juan Rep. Ysabel Maria J. Zamora told the panel. “A lot of what is written are mere speculations or conjectures arising from hearsay… just to connect the President to the charges.” 

The complaints attempted to make the case that Mr. Marcos benefited from infrastructure projects by receiving kickbacks, and institutionalized corruption through a budget allocation formula for congressional districts.  

Together, the ouster bids accused Mr. Marcos of graft, constitutional violations and betrayal of public trust – three of the five grounds for impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, alongside bribery and other high crimes. 

“To say that the Office of the President has become the command center of a criminal enterprise is not only unfounded, but is also a mere dramatic rhetoric,” said Ms. Zamora, a vice-chairperson of the House Justice Committee. – Kenneth Christiane L. Basilio