An impeachment complaint has been filed against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., marking the start of a constitutional process that places the matter squarely in the hands of the House of Representatives.

Under the Philippine Constitution, the filing of an impeachment complaint does not amount to guilt. It triggers a procedural sequence in the House, where lawmakers must determine sufficiency in form and substance, followed by deliberation and voting thresholds before any case can advance to the Senate.

House leaders have reiterated that impeachment is both a legal and political process, governed by timelines, vote counts, and committee action. Historically, many impeachment complaints do not proceed beyond initial stages due to procedural or numerical hurdles.

Malacañang has not issued a detailed response as of writing, though officials have consistently maintained that accountability mechanisms should operate within constitutional bounds and without prejudgment.

Political analysts note that impeachment filings often surface during periods of heightened tension, but outcomes depend less on headlines and more on legislative arithmetic and procedural compliance.

For the public, the key distinction remains: a complaint is a filing—not a verdict.

In constitutional systems, stability is tested not by accusations, but by how institutions handle them.