House panel defers vote on Marcos ouster raps as lawmakers weigh claims

THE House Justice Committee on Tuesday resumed deliberation of impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. to evaluate their “substance,” but deferred its vote to give lawmakers time to weigh accusations.

Congressmen will reconvene on Wednesday to decide whether the complaints against Mr. Marcos have merit, in a vote that will determine if the cases advance to full hearings involving the President, complainants and their witnesses, Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro said.

“It’s not enough that the impeachable official is guilty of an offense,” she told the congressional panel. “That offense must constitute a ground for impeachment.”

The Palace said the President’s legal team has yet to begin preparations, pending the Justice committee’s decision whether to move forward with the impeachment proceedings.

“Not yet. So, we’ll just find out what will happen in the process,” Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro said in Filipino in a briefing. “Once the process is there, the President will simply respond.”

The Tuesday hearing saw lawmakers overwhelmingly argue against proceeding with the first impeachment complaint, which accused Mr. Marcos of corruption, after they found it lacking merit.

The first complaint, filed by lawyer Andre R. de Jesus, also accused Mr. Marcos of betraying public trust for failing to veto unprogrammed funds in past budgets and for bypassing domestic legal processes in the arrest of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte.

It also claimed an independent panel investigating the corruption scandal was created to shield his political allies.

“I hope that all our significant discussions will be used by members of the committee when we vote on whether or not the impeachment complaint of De Jesus is sufficient in substance,” Ms. Luistro said.

She said it would be premature to predict how the committee will vote on the first complaint, stressing that Tuesday’s hearing should not be taken as a sign lawmakers are inclined to dismiss the cases.

Party-list Rep. Leila M. de Lima said corruption allegations against Mr. Marcos in the Mr. De Jesus complaint lacks evidence to support the ouster charges.

“In light of the evidence uncovered in the multiple fora investigations conducted on the flood control scam, the complaint is really short on the allegations,” she told lawmakers in mixed English and Filipino. “It seems overly complacent… as to establish grounds for impeachment.”

Mr. Marcos faces a separate complaint filed by activists, similarly arguing he benefited from shady government contracts tied to a kickback scheme that may have siphoned up to hundreds of billions in pesos meant for dike and floodwall projects.

Ms. Luistro said she suspended the panel session to give lawmakers a clear mind before tackling the second complaint, which was filed to bolster the case against Mr. Marcos amid criticism that the first complaint was easily dismissible.

“What happened today was quite exhaustive already, and we wanted the congressmen to have a fresh mind when they listen to the manifestation of the position of the endorsers,” she told a media briefing after the committee hearing.

The second complaint sought to strengthen their case by mentioning the testimony of a former Public Works department official who alleged Mr. Marcos received P8 billion in kickbacks from anomalous infrastructure deals, and by citing a so-called “parametric formula” that allocated funds among congressional districts.

Under the 1987 Constitution, impeachment can be pursued for culpable violation of the Constitution, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. A complaint requires endorsement from at least one-third of House members before it can be sent to the Senate, which convenes as an impeachment court.

Mr. Marcos faces the risk of becoming the second Philippine President to be impeached after Joseph E. Estrada, whose Senate trial collapsed in 2001 amid mass protests over his alleged ties to illegal gambling. Every head of state after Mr. Estrada has confronted impeachment complaints, but none have prospered since. — Kenneth Christiane L. Basilio with CMAH