The Marcos impeachment effort did not collapse in dramatic fashion. It simply stopped. In early February 2026, impeachment complaints filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. were dismissed by the House justice committee, ending weeks of speculation without ever reaching the Senate.
The complaints were filed in January and accused the president of graft, abuse of power, and betrayal of public trust. Supporters said they reflected deeper governance problems. On February 4, the committee ruled otherwise, declaring the complaints “insufficient in substance.” That decision effectively closed the door.
How the Marcos impeachment stalled
Under the Constitution, impeachment cases must clear the House before going to trial in the Senate. This one did not. The justice committee’s ruling made sure of that. With the House firmly controlled by allies of the president, the result was widely anticipated, even among those who believed the allegations deserved scrutiny.
This is the uncomfortable part. In the Philippines, impeachment has always been political before it is legal. Numbers come first. Arguments follow. That reality did not begin with this case, and it will not end with it.
For now, the case is frozen. New complaints remain possible, but without a shift in political alignments, they would almost certainly meet the same fate.
A political signal, not a legal reckoning
Much of the public discussion has focused on motive. Critics of the complaints argue that the Marcos impeachment bid was never meant to succeed. It was a political move, timed to create pressure rather than trigger removal. That view is hard to dismiss, especially given how quickly the process ended.
But the dismissal also feeds a different frustration. When impeachment can be neutralized so easily, accountability starts to feel optional. Not absent — just selective. That is not a legal judgment. It is a political one.
The context matters. Marcos’ impeachment bid emerged against the backdrop of Vice President Sara Duterte’s long-running impeachment troubles, which were revived recently by new complaints filed after the Supreme Court shut down last year’s proceedings. With fresh allegations against the vice president returning impeachment to the political agenda, the dismissal of the Marcos case reinforced a growing perception that impeachment has become less about resolution and more about maneuvering within an unsettled political landscape.
Public reaction has been muted. There was no mass demand for impeachment, but there was also no real sense of closure once it failed. For many Filipinos, this looked like another fight among elites that changed nothing on the ground.
Why this episode still matters
The impeachment attempt may be over, but its implications are not. It revealed how narrow the path to institutional accountability remains. It also showed that impeachment now functions more as a warning shot than a remedy.
As the country edges toward the 2028 elections, that matters. If impeachment is seen mainly as a tactical tool, future attempts will likely be brief, loud, and inconclusive. The real damage is quieter. It is the growing belief that the system protects itself first.
