House panel unconvinced Marcos alleged drug addiction is impeachable act

MANILA, Philippines — Several members of the House justice committee on Tuesday expressed skepticism that mere allegations of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s drug addiction could qualify as an impeachable offense during deliberations on a pending complaint seeking his removal from office.

The committee, led by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro, criticized the complaint filed by lawyer Andre de Jesus for relying mainly on hearsay rather than a “recital of ultimate facts.”

Filed on Jan. 19 and endorsed by Pusong Pinoy Rep. Jett Nisay, the complaint alleges, among other things, that Marcos’ alleged addiction constitutes betrayal of public trust and renders him unfit to serve as president.

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

This is also one of the five grounds of impeachment cited in the complaint filed Jan. 17, the first to be filed against him since he took office in 2022. 

During the hearing, Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima stressed that “unfitness per se is not a ground for impeachment.” 

“And even when considered as constituting basis for betrayal of public trust, the statements in this ground do not sufficiently establish allegations on how specific presidential acts were impaired by [Mr. Marcos’] addiction, assuming the addiction to be true,” she added. 

De Lima also dismissed De Jesus’ argument that the president’s refusal to take a drug test was proof of his addiction.

“[That] is a conclusion and not a factual allegation…as well as the argument that he was ‘silent’ on his drug addiction and therefore betrayed public trust,” she explained. 

De Lima and Surigao del Norte Rep. Bernadette Barbers also noted that the claims relied heavily on a November 2025 speech by Sen. Imee Marcos, accusing her brother, First Lady Liza Araneta Marcos, and their children of chronic drug use. 

Beyond Sen. Marcos’ allegations, however, “there is no evidence or authenticated records submitted by the complainant that will support his allegation that the respondent is actually using illegal drugs,” Barbers said. 

“Such allegation of illegal drug use by respondent, which was reportedly stated by another person and not the one who filed the complaint, is mere hearsay and lacks probative value,” she added.

The complaint also relied on newspaper reports as evidence, which Baguio Rep. Mauricio Domogan argued “was not sufficient.” He cited the Supreme Court ruling in Estrada v. Desierto (G.R. No. 146710-15), which held that newspaper reports “cannot prove the truth of their contents and are generally considered as hearsay.”

“There’s no narration of facts, the arguments will not somewhat come out with a legal conclusion that the president violated the Constitution by being a drug addict,” Domogan added. 

FPJ Bayanihan Rep. Brian Poe noted as well that while the complainants failed to prove a record of drug abuse, “what we know for a fact and what is actually on the record is that in November 2021, [Mr. Marcos] had a negative drug test at St. Luke’s [Medical Center].” 

Poe also noted that in a Senate hearing in May 2024, a drug analyst confirmed that Marcos tested negative, specifically for cocaine.”

READ: Bongbong Marcos tested ‘negative’ for cocaine in 2021 – drug analyst

“So while there is no existing record of any drug abuse, the President has on two occasions proven that he is not a drug user,” he added.

Most of them also said that the other four grounds cited in the complaint were insufficient in substance. 

De Jesus also alleged that Marcos:

• allowed the International Criminal Court to “kidnap” former President Rodrigo Duterte;
• failed to veto unprogrammed appropriations in the national budget from 2023-2026;
• received kickbacks from anomalous, substandard and ghost flood control projects; and 
• created the Independent Commission on Infrastructure to shield allies

Determining sufficiency in substance is the second stage of impeachment proceedings at the committee level. If the panel ultimately votes to reject the complaint based on this determination, the De Jesus complaint would be dismissed./mcm