The House Committee on Justice dismissed two impeachment complaints against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on ground of insufficient in substance.

The committee decision is submitted to the plenary for final vote.

The rules mandate the panel to determine whether or not an impeachment complaint against an official is sufficient in form and substance before it can be taken up to the plenary for a vote.

Lawyer Andre de Jesus and another from progressive group leaders led by Liza Maza and House members from the Makabayan bloc filed the two impeachment complaint.

Forty-two members of the House justice panel voted to support the motion that the De Jesus complaint was insufficient in substance, one voted against the motion, and three abstained.

Meanwhile, 39 members voted against the motion to declare the Maza complaint sufficient in substance and only seven voted to support the motion.

Batangas Second District Rep. Gerville Luistro, the panel chair, on Tuesday noted that an impeachment complaint has sufficiency in substance when it alleges “ultimate facts, not mere conclusions.”

She added, “strictly enumerates” betrayal of public trust, culpable violation of the constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, and other high crimes as impeachable offenses.

De Jesus’ complaint stated the following alleged wrongdoing of Marcos, which the President’s office has denied or refused to believe to be impeachable offenses:

• The surrender of former President Rodrigo Duterte to the International Criminal Court
• Marcos’ alleged “drug addiction”
• Marcos’ failure to veto unprogrammed appropriations
• Marcos allegedly benefitted from alleged kickbacks from budget insertions and “ghost” flood control projects
• Marcos’ creation of the Independent Commission for Infrastructure to supposedly protect his allies.

The Maza complaint meanwhile alleged that the BBM (Baselined-Balanced-Managed) Parametric Formula for the allocation of infrastructure budget resulted in the alleged “massive misallocation of funds” and laid the basis for alleged kickbacks and “commitments” for favored officials.

It also accused the President of abusing discretionary power over unprogrammed appropriations and alleged that the President has “direct personal involvement in budgetary insertions and kickback schemes.”

During its third day of deliberations on Wednesday, several members of the House panel said they found the second case failed to show that the president committed an “overt act” to order the alleged schemes in the complaint.

But two congressmen from the House minority bloc disputed views that the second complaint is insufficient in substance.