The Tamesis
January 27, 2026
Manila – Two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have been filed with the House Judiciary Committee, effectively triggering a one-year ban.
The first complaint by lawyer Andre de Jesus and the second complaint by the Makabayan coalition were submitted to the judicial panel during a Monday meeting chaired by Deputy Speaker Yevgeny Emano.
Initially, Makabayan was concerned that their complaint would not be included in the complaint submitted to the Judicial Council, meaning only DeJesus’s complaint would be considered.
Under the 1987 Constitution, impeachment proceedings cannot be “commended more than once within a year against the same official.”
That means if the complaints are brought to the House Judiciary Committee after being sent to the office of House Speaker Faustino “Boger” Day III, they will trigger a one-year ban — meaning no other impeachment complaints can be filed against the same official within a year.
The House Rules of the 19th Congress, adopted by the 20th Congress, stipulate that the Speaker must incorporate a verified impeachment complaint into the rules of procedure within ten session days of receipt of the document.
The complaint should then be submitted to the House Judiciary Committee within three days of the meeting.
The judicial committee is then tasked with “the adequacy of the form of the complaint.”
Rule III, Section 4 of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides: “If the Committee finds that the form of the complaint is insufficient, it shall return the complaint to the Secretary within three (3) conference days with a written explanation of the insufficiency.”
He added: “The Secretary-General shall return to the complainant together with the Committee’s written explanation within three (3) conference days of receipt of the Committee’s resolution deeming the form of complaint to be inadequate.”
If the panel finds the complaint to be sufficient in form, it will “determine whether the substance of the complaint is sufficient.”
“The substance requirement is satisfied if facts constituting the offense charged and establishing the jurisdiction of the committee are stated. If the committee determines that the substance of the complaint is insufficient, it shall dismiss the complaint and file a report under this provision,” the House Rules state.
“If the Commission is satisfied that the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, it shall promptly provide the respondent with a copy of the resolution and/or verified complaint, as the case may be, and shall notify the respondent in writing that he shall respond to the complaint within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice and shall serve a copy of the response on the complainant,” it added.
Makabayan refiled the impeachment complaint on Monday morning after the House secretary’s office did not accept the impeachment complaint last Thursday due to the absence of Secretary Cheloi Garafiel.
On January 19 last year, lawyer Andre de Jesus filed an impeachment complaint against Marcos for the first time. In his 14-page complaint, DeJesus cited six grounds for his complaint, which he said were attributable to constitutional violations, corruption and betrayal of the public trust:
- Allegedly ordered the kidnapping and handover of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court
- Allegedly a drug addict, which impaired his judgment and leadership
- Alleged failure to veto unplanned appropriations and other unconstitutional provisions in the 2023, 2024, 2025 and 2026 general appropriations bills
- Said to benefit from kickbacks generated by budget inserts and phantom flood defense projects
- Independent infrastructure commission allegedly set up to protect corrupt allies
- Referring Duterte to the International Criminal Court for allegedly violating the constitution and betraying public trust
READ: Marcos faces impeachment over ‘Duterte kidnapping’ and flood control chaos
However, some lawmakers claimed that the impeachment charges against Marcos were not strong enough. On Tuesday, Caloocan Rep. Edgar Ellis said the complaint “could easily be dismissed” due to a lack of form and substance.
READ: Some Soren doubt impeachment complaint against Marcos will succeed
Ellis believes that only one of the six reasons cited by de Jesus – the issue of non-programme funding and its role in the infrastructure corruption scandal – deserves re-examination.
Ellis said that while the issue of non-program appropriations could be a possible reason for impeachment, DeJesus’ failure to attach sufficient documents to prove the charges could be fatal to the complaint because the entire document is only 15 pages long.
Makabayan’s complaint, on the other hand, focuses on the existence of the “BBM Parametric Formula” – a policy of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) that stands for “Baseline-Balance-Management.”
The forum also used the president’s initials when using his nickname, “Bongbong.”
READ: Makabayan impeachment bid centers on ‘BBM parametric formula’
Makabayan said the BBM parametric formula “provides justification for presidential and congressional appropriations for infrastructure projects in the national budget,” which is considered “the basis for kickbacks or commitments.” /jpv
