Not every accusation clears the constitutional bar.

A House panel said it is not convinced that allegations of drug addiction against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. constitute an impeachable offense, underscoring the distinction between claims and constitutional grounds for removal.

Lawmakers noted that impeachment requires acts that fall squarely within the Constitution’s enumerated grounds—such as culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. In this context, the panel said mere allegations, absent proof and a clear nexus to official acts, do not meet the standard.

Supporters of the panel’s view argue the ruling protects impeachment from becoming a venue for unverified claims. Critics contend that issues affecting a president’s fitness to govern deserve scrutiny—but concede that impeachment is a legal process, not a referendum on rumor.

Quietly, the decision narrows the battlefield. With this line drawn, debates are likely to pivot away from personal allegations and toward documented actions, budgets, and policy decisions—areas where evidence can be tested within formal rules.

Discreet satire, constitutional edition: impeachment is not a lie detector—it’s a statute book.