IT has not happened before. But for the first time in the history of our Congress, several impeachment complaints are moving simultaneously against the President and the Vice President of the Philippines. Under the Constitution, the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment. I don’t believe the founding fathers ever contemplated our having to deal with several such complaints all at the same time. But this is what’s happening now.
There are many impeachable crimes waiting to be brought out against impeachable officials. They begin with constitutional provisions that are culpably violated by those who are supposed to enforce them. But lawyer Andre de Jesus chose a political issue rather than a constitutional one to raise against the president. He accused Marcos Jr. of “betraying the public trust” when he surrendered his predecessor, former president Rodrigo Roa Duterte, in March 2025 to the International Criminal Court at The Hague, to be tried for crimes against humanity in connection with the killing of drug users during his war on drugs.
The complaint was endorsed by House Deputy Minority Leader and Pusong Pinoy Rep. Jett Nisay and transmitted by House Secretary-General Cheloy Garafil to Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III for “appropriate action.” The issue here is whether or not the International Criminal Court (ICC) has legal jurisdiction over Duterte: this is certain to invite an extensive legal debate, and some say it is bound to fail. Since then, de Jesus has been joined by other complainants with their separate complaints.
These include Bagong Alyansang Makabayan chairman Renato Reyes, former Bayan Muna representatives Teddy Casiño and Neri Colmenares, former Gabriela party-list representative Liza Maza, and former ACT-Teachers party-list Rep. France Castro. Their complaint was endorsed by the Makabayan bloc led by ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tino, Gabriela Rep. Sarah Elago, and Kabataan party-list Rep. Renee Co, but was not received by the House due to the absence of Secretary-General Garafil, who was traveling abroad.
Other impeachment filers include former Quezon City congressman Michael Defensor, former Ilocos Sur governor Luis “Chavit” Singson, former presidential anti-corruption commissioner Manuelito Luna, former Negros congressman Jacinto Paras, blogger Cathy Binag, Reina Mercedes, Isabela Vice Mayor Harold Respicio, and lawyers Virgilio Garcia and Fernando Topacio. They accuse Marcos of culpable violation of the Constitution, high crimes, graft and corruption, and betrayal of public trust. But for some unexplained reasons, the House failed to receive their complaint.
Once all the complaints are received by the House, they will all be consolidated to form one unified whole. That’s when the process really begins. But as soon as Speaker Dy read the first complaint (de Jesus’), he promptly said he saw “no basis” for it and dismissed it outright. I thought this story was fake news, so I fact-checked and confirmed it for myself. “It is clear that our president is fulfilling the mandate entrusted to him by the public,” he was quoted by The Manila Times. How then could anyone think of impeaching such a president?
Many times, an unfortunate misquote gets an unsuspecting official into so much trouble. But in this particular case, Bojie Dy apparently thought it was his duty to pass upon the merit of the impeachment complaint. None of his advisers apparently told him he does not have any power to decide what happens to the complaint; there is a dance to be performed, and he is merely a participant in it.
Under the rules on impeachment, a verified impeachment complaint may be filed by any member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any member thereof. This shall be included in the Order of Business within 10 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 60 session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within 10 session days from receipt thereof.
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, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each member shall be recorded. 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.
The foregoing two paragraphs do not merely quote the rules of impeachment promulgated by the House. They spell out the rules adopted by the Constitution under Article XI, Section 3 (1-4). These are absolutely binding upon Congress, and cannot be suspended, dispensed with, or superseded, upon the Speaker’s behest. Yet this appears to be the speaker’s understanding when he reportedly quipped, “there is no basis” for the complaint. The House is free to throw out any impeachment complaint for being insufficient in form or in substance, but this is not for the speaker to decide. There is a process to be followed, and he cannot put himself above it.
Under the circumstances, the House needs to assure the nation that the impeachment complaints from various sources shall be included in the Order of Business, referred to the proper committee (presumably the Committee on Justice), which shall hear all complaints, and vote on the merits for the final consideration of the House. Because of the failure of the Office of the Secretary General to receive all the complaints, some parties suspect the House will try to pre-screen the complaints. This is no legal basis. The House cannot prejudge the respondent nor dismiss any proposed article/s of impeachment without going through the constitutional process.
While his accusers are trying to impeach Marcos, a civil society group led by former senator Antonio Trillanes IV has filed plunder, malversation and graft charges against Vice President Sara Duterte before the Ombudsman, as a first step toward reviving her botched 2025 impeachment on corruption charges related to her handling of her confidential funds.
The House had impeached her on a vote of 215 congressmen to zero, but the Supreme Court ruled that her impeachment violated the constitutional prohibition against any individual being subjected to such proceedings more than once a year.
The court then declared her impeachment unconstitutional and halted her Senate impeachment trial. Thus, she could be impeached again after Feb. 5, 2026, which is what her political enemies will try to do now. The Trillanes group has not sought her impeachment, but merely urged the Ombudsman to ask the House to do it. If this happens, it would create an overload of impeachment cases. If Marcos is impeached and removed, Sara Duterte takes over as president. But if Sara is again impeached and finally removed, the presidency would pass on to the Senate president. Would it stabilize the government, or should we expect one big constitutional crisis?
fstatad@gmail.com
