Impeachment vs Marcos different from raps vs Sara Duterte – Luistro

MANILA, Philippines — The first-ever impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. will not be affected by the Supreme Court (SC) decision on the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte, a ranking lawmaker said on Monday.

In an ambush interview, Batangas Second District Rep. Gerville Luistro said that the subject matter of the SC decision on Duterte’s impeachment was the so-called fast-track method — or on the matter of immediately sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate after one-third of all House of Representatives members endorsed the complaint.

In contrast, the complaint against Marcos filed on Monday was submitted by a private individual, lawyer Andre de Jesus, making it different from the matter raised by the SC.

READ: First impeachment complaint vs Marcos sent to House

“Well, the feedback that I got is, it is filed by a private individual and sponsored by a House member. So if that is the case, this is not actually the rule, which is the subject matter of the decision of the Supreme Court,” Luistro, a lawyer by profession, said.

“The subject matter of the decision of the Supreme Court pertains to an impeachment complaint filed by at least one-third of the House members,” she explained.

“This one is different because based on feedback, it is filed by a private individual, sponsored by a House member, which therefore, calls for the referral by the plenary to the Justice Committee for there to have a process of initiation,” she noted.

Duterte was impeached by the House last February 5, 2025 after 215 lawmakers from the 19th Congress filed and signed a fourth complaint that was based on allegations of misuse of confidential funds in her offices, threats against ranking officials, and other possible violations of the 1987 Constitution.

The Articles of Impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate on the same day, in accordance with the Constitution.  

However, trial did not start immediately as the articles were not brought to the Senate plenary before session adjourned for the election season break.

Eventually, the impeachment stalled as the Senate remanded the articles to the House for alleged constitutional infirmities. 

Afterwards, SC deemed the impeachment as unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule, as there were three impeachment complaints filed before the fast-track method was initiated.

READ: Full Supreme Court ruling junking Sara Duterte impeachment

Marcos, meanwhile, faces his first-ever impeachment rap since he took office in 2022, with de Jesus basing his complaints on allegations that he allowed the “kidnapping” of former President Rodrigo Duterte, and said that he (the president) allegedly received kickbacks from the flood control corruption scheme.

But Luistro, chairperson of the House committee on justice, insisted that any changes brought by the SC ruling would not apply since there are different methods used.

“These are two different modes. With the VP (vice president), it was filed by at least one-third of the members of the House. And that is the subject matter of the decision of the Supreme Court, (to) which the House of Representatives filed a motion for reconsideration, which is still unresolved,” she said.

“This one, if the information that I got is correct, this is being filed by a private individual, which is being sponsored by one of the House members,” she added.

In his 14-page complaint filed before the House, de Jesus mentioned six grounds for his complaint, which he said merit culpable violation of the Constitution, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust:

• Allegedly ordering and enabling the kidnapping and surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court (ICC)
• Allegedly being a drug addict which impairs his judgment and leadership
• Alleged failure to veto unprogrammed appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions of the General Appropriations Bill for 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026
• Allegedly benefitting from kickbacks arising from budget insertions and ghost flood control projects
• Allegedly creating the Independent Commission for Infrastructure to shield corrupt allies
• Allegedly violating the Constitution and betraying public trust for surrendering Duterte to the ICC

READ: Marcos faces impeachment over ‘Duterte kidnapping,’ flood control mess

According to de Jesus, one of Marcos’ impeachable offenses was allowing the older Duterte’s arrest.

Last March 11, the older Duterte was barred from leaving the Ninoy Aquino International Airport after returning from Hong Kong, as local authorities assisted the International Criminal Police Organization in enforcing an arrest order from the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The arrest order was related to the crimes against humanity charges against Duterte, for his role in his administration’s drug war.

De Jesus claimed that the government’s decision to “surrender” a former president  is a “direct affront to national sovereignty and a blatant violation of constitutional guarantees of due process.”

“Millions of Filipinos protested this act, which they recognized for what it was – political persecution sanctioned by respondent himself,” he added.

De Jesus also said that Marcos should be held liable for not exercising veto powers for unprogrammed appropriations in the national budget from 2022 to 2026, even if there is a belief that the allocations in 2025 spurred the infrastructure corruption scandal that rocked the country.

“Respondent was grossly negligent in failing to veto unprogrammed appropriations in the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 GAB — omissions that indubitably amount to betrayal of public trust,” he told lawmakers.

“He failed to veto unconstitutional provisions in multiple national budgets, despite his clear duty to do so,” he pointed out.

“Respondent failed to veto the provision in the 2024 national budget which the Supreme Court voided for being unconstitutional,” he said.

“This pattern of inaction is not mere negligence — it is deliberate acquiescence designed to preserve discretionary control over public funds,” he observed.

De Jesus also mentioned allegations leveled by former Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Elizaldy Co, who released a series of video statements in November 2025 implicating Marcos as involved in the infrastructure corruption scheme.

Regardless of possible developments — and the possibility that another impeachment complaint will also be filed against Vice President Duterte come February 6 —Luistro said the justice panel can address these matters properly.

“I have a lot of faith on the members of the justice committee. The members of the justice committee are good, so I am confident, whether that’s one or two (complaints), I think the justice committee can confidently discharge its function,” she noted. /apl