Ched Rick Gatchalian

Cavite 4th District Representative Francisco “Kiko” Barzaga. Facebook/Kiko Barzaga
 

Article (news)

Barzaga’s suspension due to misconduct, not criticism of Marcos admin: House ethics panel chair

ABS-CBN News

<div><img src="https://od2-image-api.abs-cbn.com/prod/editorImage/176468421434317645712470141764571244981.webp" style="width:960px" class="fr-fic fr-dib" width="960"/>Cavite 4th District Representative Francisco “Kiko” Barzaga. Facebook/Kiko Barzaga </div>MANILA — The decision to <a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/12/1/house-ethics-panel-recommends-60-day-suspension-for-barzaga-1712">suspend Cavite Rep. Francisco “Kiko” Barzaga</a> was based on three grounds involving alleged violations of ethical standards for public officials and “conduct unbecoming of a member,” and not because of his criticisms of the administration, House Ethics Committee Chair JC Abalos clarified Tuesday.In a statement, Abalos explained that the lower chamber does not restrict its lawmakers from expressing criticisms of the administration.“Ang House of Representatives, wala po sa amin kung mayroon kang oposisyon or kung hindi ka sumasang-ayon sa pamahalaan. Hindi po ‘yan problema dahil karapatan po natin ‘yan,” he said, noting that none of the sanctions had anything to do with political speech.“Kung titingnan po natin ang committee report, pinarusahan po si Rep. Barzaga on three grounds. Unang-una, Republic Act 6713, of course ang ating House rules under Rule 20, and finally, conduct unbecoming of a member,” Abalos said.Barzaga earlier said the punishment will set a precedent that can enable any administration to supposedly silence critics once they have the supermajority in Congress.However, Abalos stressed that none of the sanctions had anything to do with political speech and arose from actions that “no elected official should commit.”Barzaga was suspended for 60 days without pay and allowances on Monday after 249 House members voted in favor of adopting the findings and recommendations of the House Committee on Ethics. Only five voted against it, while 11 abstained.The ethics panel found the posts on Barzaga’s social media accounts either “incendiary,” “inappropriate,” or “indecent,” which it said were “unparliamentary and unbecoming of a House member.”<div> </div><div>LINE BETWEEN DISSENT AND MISCONDUCT</div>Abalos said the House has long been a “home” to lawmakers with different political beliefs, stressing they can maintain respect for each other and for the House’s rules.But with the decision, the 4Ps Party-list representative said the panel is drawing the line between dissent and misconduct.“We have to draw a line between the genuine exercises of freedom expression, ang totoong freedom of expression kumpara sa conduct unbecoming of an elected official,” he explained.Abalos mentioned evidence submitted to the committee, which included “ostentatious displays of wealth, lewd photos, and pronouncements such as burning Congress or carrying an airsoft gun to a rally.”“Ang ostentatious o pagpapakitang karangyaan, wala naman ‘yun kinalaman sa politika or political opinion. Pangawala, ang lewd photos, ang pagpapakitang mga imahe na nakakabastos sa ating mga kababaihan. Hindi po ‘yan political criticism or speech,” he said.The Palace also commented on the issue, saying Barzaga is allegedly<a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/12/2/kiko-barzaga-using-marcos-jr-s-name-to-justify-disinformation-posts-palace-1413"> using President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s name</a> to justify his supposed disinformation.Barzaga meanwhile responded to Palace Press Officer Claire Castro, asking, “Kasalanan ko bang nagnakaw nang bilyon-bilyon si Marcos?”The Caviteño lawmaker, who was once a Marcos Jr. supporter, has been active in criticizing the president from his alleged involvement in the flood control scandal to his administration’s economic policies.

The ethics panel found the posts on Barzaga’s social media accounts either “incendiary,” “inappropriate,” or “indecent,” which it said were “unparliamentary and unbecoming of a House member.”

The ethics panel found the posts on Barzaga’s social media accounts either “incendiary,” “inappropriate,” or “indecent,” which it said were “unparliamentary and unbecoming of a House member.”