The Integrity of Congress in the Impeachment of the President!
The impeachment case against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is now formally under review by the House of Representatives, based on allegations of betrayal of public trust linked to massive irregularities in flood-control projects. At first glance, it appears that the President alone is at the center of the controversy. But upon closer examination, a more profound and troubling question emerges: can Congress conduct a fair investigation when it is itself part of the problem?
It is important to understand that flood-control budgets are not crafted by the executive branch alone. They pass through Congress—altered through budget amendments, district-level insertions, and additional allocations after the bicameral conference. This is where the structural problem begins. In several districts, flood-control funding suddenly ballooned despite the absence of new flood risks, feasibility studies, or major flooding incidents. Meanwhile, areas repeatedly devastated by floods and typhoons received far less. Some projects were broken into smaller components to obscure their total cost, renamed year after year, or reintroduced despite existing audit observations. This pattern is not accidental—it is the direct result of legislative decisions.
Because of this, impeachment is no longer merely an examination of presidential conduct. It has become a test of the integrity of Congress itself. Lawmakers are now being asked to judge outcomes that arose from budgets they themselves approved, defended, or politically benefited from. This presents a clear conflict of interest. It also explains why, even at the early stages of impeachment, the process has gravitated toward technicalities rather than substance. When a genuine investigation risks implicating the investigators themselves, technical procedure becomes a shield.
If the House is truly serious about confronting what may be the largest corruption controversy in the nation’s history, strict adherence to procedure alone will not suffice. What is required is real and visible institutional change. The House must elect a new Speaker—one who has no ties to the administration and no exposure to issues surrounding budget insertions. This is critical because the Speaker controls the direction, agenda, and pace of the impeachment process. As long as the chamber is led by figures closely aligned with the President and presiding over an institution implicated in budget manipulation, claims of independence will remain unconvincing.
The same principle applies to the House Committee on Justice, the constitutional gatekeeper of impeachment. Its credibility depends not only on legal competence but on political distance. If the committee’s leadership is connected to the administration or to questionable district-level flood-control allocations, doubt is embedded in the process from the start. The committee must be restructured and led by individuals with no involvement in these anomalies to restore public trust.
The Majority Floor Leader likewise cannot simply inhibit from voting. Inhibition removes a vote, not influence. Control over timing, debate, and legislative flow constitutes real power. In impeachment proceedings, delay and procedural dilution are often just as effective as outright dismissal.
Without these changes, the trajectory of the impeachment is already clear. The process will move forward formally, become buried in technicalities, and conclude without clear answers to the fundamental questions raised. The constitutional form will remain intact, but the substance of democracy will be hollowed out. And the public will once again be forced to confront a familiar conclusion: when corruption implicates the entire political system, justice becomes selective—and truth becomes negotiable.
