The filing of impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte reflects “dysfunctional” leadership at the highest level of government, according to Mamamayang Liberal Rep. Leila de Lima.
The filings—two each for the two leaders—are also testing the Constitution, rattling investor confidence, and once again turning Congress into an arena for accountability, constitutional law professor Paolo Tamase said.
The twin impeachment efforts at the House of Representatives mark the first time under the 1987 Constitution that the country’s two highest officials are simultaneously being called to account.
“This is not good. It reflects the dysfunctional state of our leadership at the highest level,” De Lima told CoverStory on Tuesday. She added: “That is the choice in 2022 that Filipino voters have to contend with now.”
The President and Vice President ran on the “UniTeam” platform in the 2022 elections but the promise of unity frayed early on.
De Lima said the filing of impeachment complaints against the two leaders show a failure of leadership and a public demand for accountability.
“We are at the lowest point of our national morale right now because trust in government is also at its lowest,” the party-list lawmaker and former senator warned, adding that the country has struggled to regain its footing since 2016.
Accountability framework
While De Lima sees the filing of the impeachment complaints as “a necessity driven by a crisis in leadership,” Tamase does not think it amounts to a constitutional crisis.
“Our Constitution accommodates this situation,” Tamase, an associate dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, told CoverStory also on Tuesday. “On balance, it actually affirms the accountability framework. It presents Congress an opportunity to flex its important role and not simply be subservient to the Executive [branch].”
For Tamase, the Supreme Court rulings on Duterte’s impeachment in 2025 “signal that the Court is an important forum for impeachment.” But it “did not use to be the case,” he said.
“Every time a party is unhappy with the proceeding, there’s now an opening for them to seek judicial review simply by claiming a due process violation,” he said. “If the Court will take on every challenge, it will render impeachments useless by slowing them down, potentially until they become moot.”
‘To the point of absurdity’
Asked if the high court’s rulings on Duterte’s impeachment expand judicial power at the expense of Congress’ exclusive power to impeach, Tamase said: “My view is it does, to the point of absurdity.”
“Although the 2026 resolution has a much softer language than the 2025 decision, it suffers from the same problem of being too broad, inviting the perception that the Court is supervising Congress’ exercise of a very exclusive constitutional prerogative,” he said.
The impeachment complaints have also fueled debate over the Supreme Court’s growing role in matters involving Congress, prompting some lawmakers to float the possibility of Charter change.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III raised the idea of amending the Constitution after the high court’s unanimous vote upholding its 2025 voiding of Duterte’s impeachment.
“It depends on the amendment,” Tamase said.
He pointed out that if the goal is merely to restore the pre-2025 rules on impeachment, such efforts would still run up against the Supreme Court’s authority to definitively interpret the Constitution.
Tamase said constitutional amendments could be justified if they are aimed at reassessing the high court’s role in the Philippine system of government, particularly the breadth of its judicial review powers.
In that case, he said, lawmakers would need to “look to history and reflect on how the situation was before 1987.”
‘Local political noise’
Beyond constitutional concerns, an economist warned that the political turmoil could weigh heavily on the economy.
Michael Ricafort, chief economist at RCBC, told Coverstory on Tuesday that the impeachment complaints introduce “local political noise” that could distract lawmakers and the national government from pursuing key reforms in governance, fiscal management, and economic growth.
“Though this is part of democracy, it’s still better to have no political noise that could potentially weigh on investor confidence and sentiment,” Ricafort said.
He warned of a possible slowdown in investments, such as what happened in late 2025, as investors took “a wait-and-see stance,” delaying billions of pesos or dollars in capital because of the prevailing uncertainty.
Palace press officer Claire Castro said on Monday that the President respects the impeachment process because he “knows he did nothing wrong.”
The Vice President’s lawyer, Michael Poa, said she and her legal team are ready to take on the impeachment complaints.
“We are prepared to confront these allegations squarely through the proper constitutional processes, confident that a fair and impartial review will demonstrate that the accusations are devoid of both factual and legal basis,” Poa said in a statement.
House arithmetic
De Lima believes that, moving forward, the House arithmetic favors the Vice President’s impeachment more than the President’s because the chamber remains largely aligned with the administration.
“I think VP Sara’s impeachment still has the support of the House, unless the winds have already changed a year after and the majority of the House just wants business as usual and decides to sweep all allegations of corruption and abuse of power under the rug,” she said.
In February 2025, the House transmitted to the Senate a verified impeachment complaint against the Vice President charging her of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes, including alleged misuse of more than ₱600 million in confidential funds.
But the upper chamber under then Senate President Francis Escudero did not forthwith convene an impeachment trial and eventually voted to remand the complaint to the House.
De Lima said the impeachment process, particularly if it reaches the Senate trial stage, could affect legislative priorities. “Not so much with the House, where preoccupation with impeachment ends upon either the dismissal or filing of the impeachment complaint,” she said.
But she pointed out that the process should not end with conviction.
“Accountability does not end with impeachment, trial, and conviction,” she said. “It must also include the recovery of public funds allegedly stolen or misappropriated.”
The complaints against the President and Vice President will go through a heated debate, at least up to the level of the House committee on justice, according to De Lima.
“Personally, I would like to see House approval of the complaints against both officials if they are sufficiently substantiated, especially the one against VP Sara which I endorsed,” she said.
On Monday, the House committee on justice chaired by Batangas Rep. Gerville Luistro ruled that the two impeachment complaints against Mr. Marcos are sufficient in form.
Today, Wednesday, the committee voted to declare the two complaints insufficient in substance.
In a statement on Tuesday, Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice said the issue at this stage of the process is not the President’s guilt or innocence, but whether the allegations, if proven true, constitute an impeachable offense.
“The complaint alleges facts, not mere conclusions,” Erice said. “Under the Constitution, that is enough to allow the presentation of evidence, testimonies, and to give the President his day before the committee.”
He warned that dismissing the complaint prematurely could create the perception that the House is shielding wrongdoing, particularly amid allegations that some lawmakers benefited from budget manipulations and anomalous infrastructure allocations.
“Due process requires that the complainants be allowed to present evidence and that the President be given a fair opportunity to respond,” Erice said. “This is not persecution; this is accountability.”
He also said the committee on justice “now faces a clear choice”: “To allow the truth to come out through constitutional processes, or to bury it and bear the consequences of silence.” CS
This report was updated to include the House committee on justice’s vote that the two impeachment complaints against the President are insufficient in substance. —Ed
