In impeachment, not every failure qualifies as a crime.

Caloocan 2nd District Representative Egay Erice said the Independent Commission on Infrastructure (ICI) may be a failure in execution, but its shortcomings do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense attributable to President Ferdinand Marcos Jr..

Erice acknowledged widespread dissatisfaction with the ICI’s performance—particularly its limited output relative to its broad mandate—but stressed that institutional underperformance alone does not meet constitutional grounds for impeachment. According to him, impeachment requires a direct link between presidential action and constitutionally defined offenses, not policy disappointment or administrative weakness.

His statement draws a clear boundary in the ongoing impeachment discourse: accountability is not interchangeable with removability. While Congress may investigate, reform, or even abolish bodies it deems ineffective, Erice argued that impeachment must remain tethered to clear standards—culpable violations, graft, or betrayal of public trust proven through acts, not outcomes.

Quietly, the comment recalibrates the debate. If ICI’s failure is systemic, the remedy lies in legislation and oversight—not impeachment. The distinction matters, especially as lawmakers sift which issues belong to governance reform and which cross the constitutional threshold.

Discreet satire, institutional edition: a failed commission is a policy problem—until someone proves it was designed to fail.