In a recent development, the House of Representatives has faced sharp criticism from various organizations and associations over its rapid decision to dismiss the first impeachment complaint against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. This move, approved by the House Committee on Justice, cited insufficient substance in the allegations, sparking widespread dismay.
Professor Danilo Arao's Analysis
In an interview with Bombo Radyo, Professor Danilo Arao from the Department of Journalism at UP–Diliman expressed his concerns. He suggested that lawmakers might have avoided public scrutiny by initially declaring the complaint sufficient in form, only to later discard it as insufficient in substance. This, he argued, effectively deprived President Marcos Jr. of the opportunity to address the allegations publicly, which many citizens have been eagerly awaiting, particularly regarding the ongoing flood control scandal investigation.
Political Implications and Voting Details
Arao further posited that the dismissal could be seen as a defense of the President, potentially linked to the political system's dynamics ahead of future elections. The plenary session solidified this decision by approving House Resolution 746 with a vote of 284 in favor, eight opposed, and four abstentions. The resolution stated that the complaint lacked adequate evidence, relying on mere allegations and unverified documents without personal knowledge, thus failing to meet the "sufficiency in substance" standard.
As a consequence of this dismissal, no new impeachment complaint can be filed against President Marcos Jr. for one year, leaving many questions unanswered and fueling debates over transparency and accountability in governance.
