MANILA, Philippines ? (UPDATE 9) The impeachment complaint against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is insufficient in substance, the committee that deliberated on the case at the House of Representatives ruled Wednesday.

Members of the justice committee voted 42-8 against the complaint that detailed allegations of bribery and electoral fraud, among others, which the President was supposed to have been a part of.

The committee will report its decision to the plenary for either adoption or rejection.

Impeachment charges have been filed against Arroyo every year since 2005, over allegations of corruption and election fraud, but would always be dismissed by the pro-administration majority.

The complaint, the fourth against the President, was endorsed by Pangasinan Representative Jose de Venecia Jr., Bukidnon Rep. Teofisto Guingona III, and partylist Reps. Satur Ocampo and Teodoro Casiño of Bayan Muna, Liza Maza and Luz Ilagan of Gabriela, and Rafael Mariano of Anakpawis.

It was filed by De Venecia's son and namesake, Jose "Joey" De Venecia III, Iloilo vice governor Rolex Suplico, lawyer Harry Roque, Leah Navarro of the Black and White Movement, Edita Burgos, one of the mothers of the victims of enforced disappearance, and representatives of human rights groups.

Prior to the voting, Maza raised a motion to disqualify Congresswoman Amelita Villarosa and her partymates in the Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino (Partner of the Free Filipino, KAMPI) who will be voting in the impeachment complaint.

Maza claimed that Villarosa, along with members of KAMPI, accepted bribes from Malacañang in exchange for dismissing a ?sham? complaint in 2007 and remained suspects in doing the same in this case.

But Congressman Matias Defensor, justice committee chairman, ruled that the panel was not competent to rule on the motion.

Maza appealed the decision of the committee where 22 of its members thumbed down the motion through viva voce.

Representative Risa Hontiveros Ocampo, Casiño, and Guingona III spoke for impeachment and were each given three minutes for their statements.

Ocampo said the impeachment was "a political process" and that "legal maxims" should just be discussed on the side.

Guingona III said that the impeachment should be treated as "political proceeding."

Casiño reminded his colleagues of their duty as representatives of the people.

"We are also here as representatives of the people, tayo ay hinalal na kinatawan [we were elected as representatives], obligasyon natin na pag may reklamo ang kahit isang kababayan sa Presidente ay bigyan natin ng [it is our obligation that if any of our constituents have a complaint against the President, this should be given] due course, kasi mahirap magreklamo laban sa Presidente, yan ang pinakamakapangyarihang tao sa lipunan [because it is difficult to file a complaint against the President, who is the most powerful person in the country]," Casiño said.

He said the legislative should live up to its mandate to look into the truth and serve as check and balance of the executive department.

Casiño also warned that if the House would let Arroyo get away anew, "the next President will be equally [emboldened] with impunity."

Casiño, who described himself as a "veteran of the impeachment," being one of the complainants in the Estrada impeachment case in 2001, also said that it was not time to present evidence.

In his summation against the impeachment complaint, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman branded the charges in the complaint as "rehashed and recycled" and ?bereft of ultimate facts, which would show the culpability? of the President.

"I am perplexed why the complainants have not learned their lesson from their failures in the previous impeachment cases which were all dismissed for insufficiency in substance for alleging deficient or infirm recital of ultimate facts," he said.

?Either there is a failure in craftsmanship and advocacy or the complainants cannot in truth and conscience really make out a case for impeachment against the President,? he said.

But Lagman said that while he did not believe that there was a failure in legal craftsmanship, he said the complaint was "void of legitimate courses of action and impeachable offenses attributed directly to the President."

"The hearse of exhumed carcasses must be led back to the graveyard," he said.

Lagman said the complaints should be dismissed ?for being bereft of ultimate facts like its predecessor complaint.?

Lagman cited the fertilizer fund scam, the ?Hello Garci? tapes, and national broadband network contract with China as recycled complaints that were decided in last year's impeachment complaint against the President.

As to charges by former Speaker Jose de Venecia that Arroyo bribed lawmakers to support the ?sham? impeachment complaint last year, Lagman said that only the Speaker of the House, who was then De Venecia, had the duty to cause the complaint?s inclusion into the order of business.

"It is only the Speaker of the House who could have been bribed," Lagman said.

Minority Floor Leader Ronaldo Zamora maintained that the sufficiency in substance of the fourth impeachment complaint against Arroyo has been met with the ?recital of facts? by its endorsers.

"Sufficiency in substance is met when there is a recital of facts, first, constituting the offenses charged and second, determinative of the jurisdiction of the committee," Zamora said in a statement before the justice committee that would determine the substance of the case.

Zamora appealed to the committee to allow the complaint to proceed to trial, saying "it is in the interest of the President and of the nation to allow her to explain."

"We should also give the President her day in court para sabihin niya na kung kami ay mali, kami ay mali, at ako ang tama [so that she can say that if we are wrong, we are wrong and I am right]," he said.

"As always, we fight for the right, as always [we are] appealing to history and to history's judgment, always hoping that our day would come, our day would come, my chairman we ask the committee to adjudge our complaint not only sufficient in form, but in substance." Zamora said.

At the same time, Zamora said the committee was not yet at the stage "when we are determining the guilt or innocence of the President."

"We are still in the stage whether the charges that we have made are sufficient and based on the grounds for defining impeachment in the Constitution," he said.

He added that there was no need yet to present evidence at this stage but added that if they would be allowed to present evidence, the pro-impeachment lawmakers were prepared to do so.