Committee chair presides over impeachment proceedings – Gerville Luistro, chair of the House Committee on Justice, addresses members during a committee hearing on February 4, 2026, as the panel deliberates on impeachment complaints against Ferdinand Marcos Jr.. Luistro, an attorney and representative of Batangas’ 2nd District, led the proceedings that resulted in the dismissal of two complaints deemed insufficient in substance. (Photo: House of Representatives of the Philippines)
House justice panel dismisses two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., ruling the cases insufficient in substance and procedurally defective under constitutional and House rules.
MANILA — The House of Representatives’ Committee on Justice voted on February 4, 2026, to dismiss two impeachment complaints filed against Ferdinand Marcos Jr., ruling that both were insufficient in substance under constitutional standards and House rules.
The committee acted on separate complaints: one filed by private complainant Andre de Jesus, and another endorsed by the Makabayan coalition and allied groups. The dismissals stop the cases at the committee level, subject to any subsequent action by the House plenary.
Votes reflect decisive rejection
In voting on the de Jesus complaint, the committee moved to dismiss by a margin of 42–1, with three abstentions. A separate motion seeking to declare the Makabayan-backed complaint sufficient in substance failed, with seven members voting in favor and 39 against, and no abstentions recorded.
Committee members said the votes reflected a consensus that the complaints did not meet the minimum threshold required to proceed to a full impeachment hearing.
Allegations framed as procedural claims
Public descriptions of the complaints cited alleged constitutional violations, betrayal of public trust, and claims involving budgetary decisions and public works projects, among the grounds enumerated in the Constitution. The President has denied any wrongdoing.
The committee stressed that its determination was procedural, addressing only whether the complaints were legally sufficient to move forward. The ruling does not constitute a finding on the truth or falsity of the allegations, nor does it assess criminal or civil liability.
Panel cites weak evidence, lack of nexus
Committee chair Gerville Luistro said members found the complaints deficient for failing to establish a clear nexusbetween the acts alleged and the constitutional grounds for impeachment.
Lawmakers also raised concerns about evidentiary quality, including reliance on materials such as unauthenticated documents and secondary sources. Under House impeachment rules, complaints must be supported by evidence that is properly certified or otherwise admissible at the sufficiency stage.
Constitutional process remains intact
Under the Constitution, an impeachment case advances when it gains the support of at least one-third of all House members, at which point it is transmitted to the Senate for trial. Luistro said the committee’s report will be forwarded to the House of Representatives plenary, which retains authority to adopt or reject the panel’s recommendation.
Until the plenary acts, the impeachment process is not considered fully concluded.
Divergent reactions follow ruling
Complainants and their endorsers criticized the committee’s decision, arguing that the allegations warranted broader deliberation and public scrutiny.
Malacañang, for its part, welcomed the dismissals, reiterating that the complaints lacked factual and legal basis and characterizing the outcome as a reaffirmation of due process.
