A quick dismissal of Marcos rape is almost impossible as the lawmakers are aware
By Kenneth Christiane L. Basilio, A reporter
The House Judiciary Committee is unlikely to quickly dispose of the impeachment petitions against President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. when it begins to analyze its merits on Monday, said political analysts over the weekend.
Lawmakers are expected to take a negotiating approach that may reveal the impeachment process of Mr. Marcos, let the momentum for his ouster die down rather than risk a political backlash due to a complete ouster, they added.
“The possible result is not a game or a confirmation or a real calculation,” Ederson DT. Tapia, a professor of political science at the University of Makati, said in a Facebook Messenger chat. “It is kept quiet.”
“The slow, technical process is distracting,” he added. “Sufficient due process requirement, sufficient delay to attract attention, and sufficient legality to consider deportation, without allowing this issue to become an ongoing national conversation.”
The 39-member House panel will begin meeting on Monday, Feb. 2, to examine the merits of two impeachment charges against Mr. Marcos, a process that could set the stage for a full-scale investigation that could fuel discontent with the 68-year-old leader who is facing mounting criticism over a multibillion-peso embezzlement scandal.
Batangas Rep. Gerville R. Luistro, who heads the Judiciary committee, said they will consolidate the complaints and check if they meet the “form and substance” requirements under House rules.
“The consolidation phase is very important because it allows the majority to frame the issue as technical rather than substantive,” said Mr. Tapia. Marcos’ allies dominate Congress, including his son who leads the bloc’s majority in the lower house. The Speaker of the House, who is a friend of the President’s party, has dismissed the allegations against Mr. Marcos.
Several officials, politicians and private contractors are accused of being involved in a massive corruption scheme that took billions of pesos from flood plains and walls, infrastructure considered vital in a country that faces months of heavy rains.
In July, Mr. Marcos said his government had exposed corruption in the projects and promised to crack down on the perpetrators, but slow progress and the subsequent influence of Cabinet members and political leaders fueled public anger against his administration.
The impeachment claims now allow the chief executive to benefit from meaningless government contracts associated with flood control work and allow corruption to flourish through the congressional district budget allocation formula. Both accused Mr. Marcos for impeachment, violation of the constitution and betrayal of public trust – three of the five grounds for impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, along with bribery and other high crimes.
“In a house dominated by Marcos’ rivals, impeachment is seen as less of a truth-seeker and more of a political stunt,” said Mr. Tapia.
It is quite possible that the lawmakers could throw out petitions to oust Mr. Marcos, said Ephraim B. Cortez, president of the National Union of People’s Lawyers, although he sees no basis to do so.
The first complaint states that Mr. Marcos reaped the benefits of the alleged graft scandal, bypassing domestic law enforcement procedures by sending former President Rodrigo R. Duterte to The Hague, while making claims that a task force set up to investigate massive corruption was protecting his political allies.
“Regarding the first impeachment complaint, it should be dismissed because we don’t pass enough drug tests,” Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, a senior researcher at the Ateneo de Manila University Policy Center, said in a Facebook interview. “It’s very much based on opinion and speculation because the allegations are not supported by hard evidence.”
A second impeachment complaint followed just a week after the first was filed, amid speculation that the first charge was deliberately weak and was only intended to cause a one-year trial in the officer’s trial.
The activists tried to strengthen their complaint with the testimony of the former official of the Ministry of Public Works who accused Mr. Marcos that he got P8 billion of the money released by the strange infrastructure agreements, citing the so-called “parameter formula” that distributed the funds among the congressional districts.
Arjan P. Aguirre, an assistant professor of political science at Ateneo de Manila University, said lawmakers may look into the second complaint because it has broader allegations than the first.
“On the contrary, the other complaint, which mainly focuses on the arrest of Duterte, may face great difficulties in finding the sufficiency of the material, without complying with the legal requirements,” he said in a Facebook interview.
He added that the immediate withdrawal of requests to indict Mr. Marcos may continue to undermine his administration and erode public support, with lawmakers risking the appearance of shirking their legal mandate to support the President.
“Even if the expected consolidation of the two impeachment petitions against Marcos can improve the truth of these allegations, there will still be little chance of success without the support of the majority of the members of the House,” Dennis C. Coronacion, head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Santo Tomas, in a Facebook interview.
The House Judiciary Committee has 60 session days to complete the impeachment trial and must submit its findings to a hearing that will vote on whether to dismiss the case or refer it to the Senate, acting as an impeachment court to decide whether Mr. Should Marcos be removed from office due to allegations of corruption.
