2 months ago
33
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
MANILA, Philippines — Both impeachment complaints against President Bongbong Marcos were declared sufficient in form on Monday, February 2, paving the way for the House of Representatives to determine whether they are also sufficient in substance.
When an impeachment complaint is deemed sufficient in form, that means it was properly filed, signed, sworn under oath and endorsed by a member of the lower chamber.
The complaints include one filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Rep. Jett Nisay (Pusong Pinoy Party-List), and another by 36 complainants representing marginalized sectors, endorsed by the three-member Makabayan bloc.
What were questioned?
The House Committee on Justice's decision, however, was not unanimous. During the first hearing, several lawmakers tried to block the complaints from moving forward by raising highly technical objections.
The submission endorsed by Nisay, initially branded by some lawmakers as baseless or weak, faced minimal opposition to the ruling that it was sufficient in form. The justice committee, composed of regular members, ex officio members, and deputized non-members, voted 46-1-1 in favor of the complaint.
Rep. Bienvenido "Benny" Abante (Manila, 6th District) was the only lawmaker who was against this complaint, unsatisfied with Nisay's manifestation that the complaint was properly filed and verified.
The second complaint, meanwhile, faced several objections. Rep. Joel Chua (Manila, 3rd District) questioned the authenticity of the complainants' signatures, raising concerns that they may not actually belong to the signatories.
Rep. Leila de Lima (ML Party-List) countered that such concerns were "unnecessary," saying a presumption of regularity exists. Chua, however, said the committee had not even invited the notary public who notarized the complaint to verify whether the complainants had indeed taken their oath.
Justice Committee Chair Rep. Gerville "JinkyBitrics" Luistro (Batangas, 2nd District) said the determinations of form and substance are merely "preliminary," adding that a formal hearing on other issues could be conducted later.
"Let us confine ourselves to what appears in the impeachment complaint," she said.
Notarization issues?
Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (Cagayan de Oro, 2nd District) further muddled the deliberations by insisting that the complaint failed to comply with criminal procedure, claiming that its verification had not been notarized.
For him, the pages containing the complainants' signatures should be notarized or have the notary's signature on the same pages. Instead, it was a separate page altogether.
Other members quickly argued that the notarized verification appeared on a separate page because the complaint was filed by 36 petitioners, whose signatures and identification details were listed first.
Rep. Edgar Erice (Caloocan, 2nd District) also pointed out that the first complaint followed the same format, even though it had only a single petitioner.
Rodriguez nonetheless maintained that the second complaint was insufficient in form and initially disregarded parliamentary rules by interrupting colleagues and speaking without first addressing the chair as lawmakers tried to explain the copies they had.
"I believe this one is complete. At the end of the complaint, there is verification. They were designed by the complainants. It is two pages because they have a lot of complainants. And then after the signature, we have the jurat. The jurat is supposed to be the oath of verification," Luistro said.
'Taxpayer' issue. Meanwhile, Abante argued that the committee should first determine whether the 36 complainants are indeed taxpayers. However, every Filipino is considered a taxpayer, whether through income taxes or the value-added tax paid on goods and services purchased.
"Nakita ko siningit nila 'yung competent evidence of identity na they are indeed taxpayers. Therefore, I question if all of these 36 are taxpayers. Dapat magsubmit sila ng document dito," he said.
(I saw that they inserted a 'competent evidence of identity' to show that they are indeed taxpayers. Therefore, I question whether all 36 of them are actually taxpayers. They should submit documents to this committee).
Neither the House rules on impeachment procedures nor the 1987 Constitution require that those who file an impeachment complaint be taxpayers; both only specify that the complainant must be a citizen or a member of the House.
After the committee moved to divide the House following Abante's objection, the panel voted 35-9-1 to declare the Makabayan-endorsed complaint sufficient in form as well. Those who objected, aside from Abante, included Chua, Rodriguez, Rep. Jefferson Khonghun (Zambales, 1st District), and Rep. Rolando Valeriano (Manila, 2nd District).
What's next
The justice committee suspended its hearing and will resume at 10 a.m. on February 3 to begin the next stage of deliberations: determining sufficiency in substance.
This involves assessing whether the complaint presents facts that constitute the alleged offenses and whether the committee has jurisdiction. Affidavits, counter-affidavits, evidence and witnesses will be addressed in subsequent proceedings.
Marcos is accused of violating the Constitution, committing graft and corruption, and betraying public trust.
While the complaints cite different allegations, both agree that the authorization or continued use of unprogrammed appropriations constitutes a form of public betrayal.
The first complaint accuses Marcos of ordering and facilitating the "illegal" arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte, while the second primarily focuses on the formula used to "legitimize" lawmakers’ "allocables" and the alleged kickbacks involved.
Two impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte were also filed on Monday after the Supreme Court ruled on a different date, triggering the one-year bar in 2025.
