Marcos Impeachment Complaints Insufficient

by Emmanuel S. Tipon, Esq.

On February 4, 2026, the Philippines’ House of Representatives Justice Committee found by a vote of 39-7 that the two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. were insufficient in substance.

The Committee Chair Gerville Luistro said that an impeachment complaint is sufficient in substance when it alleges ultimate facts, not mere conclusions. She pointed out that the Constitution strictly enumerates betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes as impeachable offenses.

The Committee chair said that a committee report would still be submitted to the plenary and that the decision could still be overturned.

According to observers, it is very unlikely that the plenary will overturn the Justice Committee Report, considering that most members are pro-Marcos.

The dismissal provides a one-year reprieve for Mr. Marcos. No new impeachment proceedings can be initiated against him for another year.

Impeachment Charges
There are 2 impeachment complaints against President Marcos. The first one filed by Atty. Andre de Jesus and endorsed by Rep. Jett Nisay (Pusong Pinoy Party-List) alleges that (1) Marcos violated the Constitution and betrayed public trust by “surrendering” former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court. (2) Marcos is unfit to serve as president due to drug addiction. (3) Marcos committed betrayal of public trust when he “failed to veto” the unprogrammed appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions in the General Appropriations Bill. (4) Marcos engaged in graft and corruption through kickbacks and ghost projects. (5) Marcos created the independent Commission for Infrastructure to “shield corrupt allies”.

The second complaint filed by members of the progressive Makabayan coalition accused President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. of graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and violation of the Constitution.

Specifically, it (1) alleged that Marcos was involved in budget insertions for “ghost” or anomaly-ridden flood control projects, (2) alleged that Marcos allowed the arrest of former President Rodrigo Duterte by the International Criminal Court, and (3) alleged Marcos’ drug addiction, which impaired his leadership.

Impeachment Provisions of the Constitution
Article XI of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides:

Section 2. The President, the Vice President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.

Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.

(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by a Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each member shall be recorded.

(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.

(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year.

SWS Survey
About 40 percent of Filipinos were satisfied with the way President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. performed his duties as president, according to a Social Weather Survey (SWS) conducted at the end of 2025 but released February 3, 2025.

The report further stated that 43 percent were dissatisfied with Marcos’ performance, while 17 percent were undecided.

The survey has a margin of error of +-3.

With the dismissal of the impeachment complaints against him, President Marcos’ SWS rating is expected to significantly improve.

Atty. Emmanuel Samonte Tipon was a Fulbright and Smith-Mundt scholar to Yale Law School where he obtained a Master of Laws degree specializing in Constitutional Law. He graduated from the University of the Philippines with a Bachelor of Laws degree. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court, New York, and the Philippines. He practices federal law, with emphasis on immigration law and appellate federal criminal defense. He was the Dean and a Professor of Law of the College of Law, Northwestern University, Philippines. He has written law books and legal articles for the world’s most prestigious legal publisher Westlaw and writes columns for newspapers. He wrote the best-seller “Winning by Knowing Your Election Laws.” Atty. Tipon was born in Laoag City, Philippines. Cell Phone (808) 225-2645. E-Mail: filamlaw@yahoo.com. Website: https://www.tiponlaw.com.

The information provided in this article is not legal advice. Publication of this information is not intended to create, and receipt by you does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.