HOUSE WATCH | When Allegations Meet the Evidence Test

Strong words alone
don’t clear the constitutional bar.

ML Party-list Representative Leila de Lima said allegations branding President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as a drug addict—raised under the ground of betrayal of public trust—are conclusory and unsupported by factual allegations, rendering the second ground of the impeachment complaint insufficient in substance.

De Lima zeroed in on the claim that alleged drug addiction impairs the President’s judgment, questioning both its basis and proof.

“How do they know, or why do they claim, that it impairs his judgment? The second ground is insufficient in substance, I so submit,” she said.

Her remarks align with a broader theme emerging in House deliberations: impeachment is not a forum for suspicion without proof. Lawmakers across positions have emphasized that fitness claims must be tethered to evidence and demonstrable official acts, not inference.

Discreetly, the exchange narrows the lane. If allegations cannot establish facts, causation, and constitutional relevance, they struggle to survive the substance test—regardless of how loudly they are framed.

Quiet satire, committee-room edition: impeachment doesn’t weigh rumors; it weighs records.