It can't be rushed, but three months feels too tight
In Manila, an impeachment trial of historic consequence finds itself constrained not by law or politics alone, but by something more elemental: time. In a rare moment of convergence, Vice President Sara Duterte's own defense counsel and the prosecution have acknowledged together that three months is too narrow a vessel for the weight of what must be examined. Justice, it seems, is reminding all parties that thoroughness cannot be legislated into a calendar.
- Defense and prosecution have broken from their adversarial roles to agree on one uncomfortable truth: the three-month trial window is dangerously tight for a case of this magnitude.
- Pre-trial proceedings pressed forward Monday in Manila, with legal teams engaged in the painstaking work of marking evidence — the quiet but essential labor that precedes open battle in court.
- Defense lawyer Michael Poa drew a firm line against sacrificing process for speed, warning that the trial 'can't be rushed,' even as both sides push to move efficiently.
- The Impeachment Court now faces a pivotal decision: hold to the original schedule or acknowledge what both legal teams are signaling — that flexibility may be unavoidable.
- With witness counts unknown and procedural turns unpredictable, the trial's true shape remains unformed, leaving the timeline suspended between ambition and reality.
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte has produced an unexpected moment of common ground: her defense team and the House prosecutors agree that three months is not enough time to do the case justice. The concession came Monday in Manila, when defense lawyer Michael Poa acknowledged, after a pre-trial conference, what Representative Gerville Luistro had already raised — that the current schedule is simply too tight.
Poa was candid but measured. Both sides are working to move proceedings forward, he said, but speed has its limits when the integrity of the process is at stake. How long the trial actually runs will depend on factors no one can fully anticipate yet: the number of witnesses called, the complexity of each phase, and the unpredictable rhythms of a live proceeding.
For now, the case remains in its preparatory stage. Evidence marking continues, arguments are being shaped, and the Impeachment Court has yet to rule definitively on the schedule. Poa declined to detail what occurred behind closed doors, saying the defense would state its formal position once the court issued its ruling. What is already clear, however, is that both sides are quietly signaling the same thing — the court may need to give this trial more room than it was originally allotted.
The impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte faces a scheduling crunch that has united an unlikely pair: her own defense team and the prosecutors arrayed against her. On Monday, as pre-trial proceedings resumed in Manila, Michael Poa, one of Duterte's lawyers, acknowledged what the House prosecution panel had already flagged—that three months is simply not enough time to conduct a proper trial.
Poa made the concession during a briefing after the pre-trial conference, where both sides continued the methodical work of marking evidence. Representative Gerville Luistro had raised the concern first, and Poa did not dispute it. "With the assessment of Rep. Luistro, I think the three months trial schedule is a bit tight," Poa said. "I think so, too." It was a candid moment in a proceeding that has been marked by sharp legal divisions—a moment where the machinery of justice itself seemed to be straining against the calendar.
Yet Poa was careful not to treat the timeline as settled fact. Both sides, he explained, were pushing to move things forward, but there were limits to how much speed could be imposed without compromising the integrity of the process. "It can't be rushed," he said. The actual duration of the trial, he suggested, would depend on variables neither side could fully predict in advance—the number of witnesses who would testify, the complexity of each procedural phase, the unexpected turns that trials often take once they begin in earnest.
The pre-trial phase itself has become a crucial staging ground. With evidence marking still underway, the legal teams are laying the groundwork for what promises to be a high-profile and contentious proceeding. The Impeachment Court will ultimately have to make the call on whether to stick with the three-month window or grant more time. Both the defense and prosecution seem to be signaling, without quite saying so directly, that the court may need to be flexible.
Poa declined to characterize what had transpired behind closed doors during the pre-trial conference, citing fairness to both sides. He said the defense would make its formal position clear once the Impeachment Court issued a definitive ruling on the trial schedule and procedures. For now, the case remains in a state of preparation—evidence being catalogued, arguments being shaped, and the clock ticking toward a trial that may or may not fit neatly into the time allotted for it.
Notable Quotes
With the assessment of Rep. Luistro, I think the three months trial schedule is a bit tight. I think so, too.— Michael Poa, VP Duterte's defense lawyer
It can't be rushed. Both sides are trying to speed things up, but we should not say with certainty these kinds of things.— Michael Poa
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
So both sides agree the timeline is too tight. Why would prosecutors and defense lawyers ever agree on anything?
Because they both know that a rushed trial serves no one—not justice, not the court's credibility, not even the appearance of fairness. A three-month window for an impeachment trial of a sitting vice president is genuinely constrained.
But if they agree it's too tight, why not just ask for more time?
That's the thing—they're not quite asking. They're signaling. Poa said it's tight but also said you can't say these things with certainty. It's a way of flagging the problem without formally requesting an extension, which could look like either side is stalling.
What happens if the court ignores the signal?
Then the trial proceeds under pressure. Witnesses get less time. Cross-examination gets compressed. The record becomes thinner. In a case this consequential, that's a real problem.
Is there a precedent for impeachment trials taking longer?
Not in the Philippines' recent history, but impeachment trials are rare and high-stakes by definition. The court will have to decide whether to treat this one as an exception.
What's Poa's real concern here?
That his client doesn't get a proper defense. If the timeline is too tight, evidence doesn't get fully aired, witnesses don't get fully examined, and the whole proceeding looks compromised—even if the verdict is technically correct.