Some solons think impeachment rap vs Marcos is weak, bound to fail

MANILA, Philippines — Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong believes the impeachment complaint filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is weak and bound to fail.

He said it seems to have been crafted for media consumption rather than in pursuit of accountability.

Adiong, in a statement on Tuesday, said he does not expect the impeachment complaint filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus to garner votes from House of Representatives members due to its deficiencies.

He also noted that the document was supposedly based on hearsay and recycled accusations.

“Impeachment is the heaviest constitutional weapon available to Congress. It cannot — and must not — be wielded on the basis of recycled accusations, hearsay or purely political grievances,” the lawmaker said.

“This particular complaint appears crafted more for media consumption than for serious constitutional scrutiny. The House will not treat impeachment as a mere press statement or partisan maneuver. We will demand substance, and in this instance, substance is conspicuously absent,” he observed.

On Monday morning, de Jesus submitted the first impeachment complaint against Marcos, which was eventually endorsed by Pusong Pinoy party-list Rep. Jernie Jett Nisay.

The complaint was received by House Secretary General Cheloy Garafil.

READ: First impeachment complaint vs Marcos sent to House

In his 14-page complaint, de Jesus mentioned six grounds for his complaint, which he said amounted to 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 the president’s 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 benefiting 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

De Jesus claimed that the government’s decision to “surrender” a former president was 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 the respondent himself,” he added.

De Jesus also claimed 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.

However, as early as Monday noon, several lawmakers have already expressed doubt as to whether the impeachment complaint against Marcos will prosper.

Among them are Senior Deputy Majority Leader and Caloocan City Rep. Edgar Erice who said the complaint “can easily be dismissed” for lack of form and substance.

In a separate press briefing on Tuesday, Erice said he agrees with Adiong, saying the impeachment against Marcos will be dead on arrival due to the weak composition of the complaint.

“I agree to the statement of Congressman Adiong […] – it’s dead on arrival,” Erice noted.

Asked to elaborate, Erice said only one of the six grounds mentioned by de Jesus — the issue on unprogrammed appropriations and their role in the infrastructure corruption scandal — merited a second look.

However, Erice noted that the complainant failed to attach sufficient documents to prove his allegations, noting that the complaint submitted only contained 15 pages.

“The complaint alleges (that) the president enabled the kidnapping and surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court. It would require a lot of documents to link the president, so if there are none, this is garbage,” Erice said.

“Graft and corruption, allegations involved a systematic plunder of the national budget through unprogrammed appropriations and ghost flood control projects, specifically cites claim of P100 billion insertions in the 2025 budget for kickbacks,” he pointed out parts of the complaint.

“This is what (former Ako Bicol Rep.) Zaldy Co said, but he is not here. There is no affidavit from Zaldy Co. So this is garbage,” Erice explained.

The failure to attach documents that would substantiate allegations will prove fatal for the impeachment complaint, the House member claimed.

“Number five, failure to exercise veto power – This is a good point, but you have to attach a lot of documents,” he said.

“In fact, I am preparing a study about the diversions and amendments and insertions, I am preparing a study on the effect of general provision number 91, when the PDIC and PhilHealth funds were transferred,” Erice told reporters.

“The study will exceed 50 pages. But for this, the entire complaint is just 15 pages. I don’t think that the complainant can prove the guilt of the president with just these news articles as evidence,” the lawmaker added.

While de Jesus’ impeachment complaint is the first against Marcos, this is not the only impeachment rap tackled by the House under the current administration.

In late 2024, several groups filed impeachment complaints against Vice President Sara Duterte, over corruption allegations involving the supposed misuse of confidential funds lodged within her offices from 2022 to 2024.

Then, on February 5, 2025, 215 members of the House of the 19th Congress signed a fourth impeachment complaint. 

Since 215 members are over one-third of the over 300 House lawmakers, the Articles of impeachment were immediately transmitted to the Senate on the same day.

READ: House impeaches Sara Duterte, fast-tracking transmittal to Senate 

Under the 1987 Constitution, a trial must begin forthwith if at least one-third of all House members endorse the complaint. 

However, trial did not push through after the Senate remanded the articles to the House for alleged constitutional infirmities.

Eventually, the Supreme Court deemed the impeachment unconstitutional for violating the one-year bar rule, as there were three impeachment complaints filed before the fast-track method was initiated. /apl