“Casting more lines to catch a fish” is an expression from older people whose wisdom we often value. For indeed, one’s chances of earning something increases proportionately with the amount of effort being put into a task.
Such was my belief when the impeachment trial of Vice President (VP) Sara Duterte started. To snare the country’s second highest official, the House of Representatives’ prosecution panel filed no less than four articles of impeachment, namely: Articles I (Misuse of Confidential Funds), III (Bribery and Graft), IV (Grave Threats and Inciting to Sedition) and II (Unexplained Wealth and Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth/Business Interest Violations).
When the Senate impeachment court hearings started last July 6, 2026, it was already revealed that Article III involving alleged irregularities during VP Duterte’s tenure at the Department of Education will be heard last.
But lo and behold, on the 39th day of the hearings, the prosecution suddenly dropped all but Article II in the trial. Casting the other grounds for impeachment aside, the House lead prosecutor, Rep. Gerville Luistro explained that the evidence for Article II is already substantial to warrant the removal from office of VP Duterte.
In response, lead defense counsel Shiela Sison objected to the withdrawal of the three articles, calling it unfair since evidence on the dropped complaints have already been aired publicly. Senator-Judge Alan Peter Cayetano likens the move to a one-sided fistfight where the defense is being advised against hitting back in order to save time. Ironically, both Sison and Cayetano supported earlier allegations that the multiple articles in the impeachment resembled a fishing expedition.
But the prosecutor’s manifestation was approved by the Impeachment Court presiding officer, Sen. Francis Escudero.
What could have prompted the dropping of the three articles by the prosecution? Were they affected by complaints on fund wastage, as if the same amount of public funds for the Senate’s daily operational expenses will be left unspent if there were no impeachment proceedings?
Well, it appears like the prosecution has really pulled the rug from under the defenses’ feet on this one. Just as her defense lawyers justify VP Duterte’s refusal to testify at the hearings as a legal strategy, their opponents also chose to counter-strategize with this move.
What is clear is that the prosecutors are concentrating their efforts on the single strongest charge that they believe will lead to victory. They are trimming off the weaker charges and consolidating their efforts on the one article that will convince the senator-Judges to rule in their favor.
Besides, what’s a better way to disprove allegations of fishing expedition than dropping off three out of the four impeachment grounds?
Focusing on just one article will also cut down time for the trial, removing the need for presenting and cross-examining more than 30 remaining witnesses as well as document reviews, since the Senate still has to deliberate on the 2027 General Appropriations Act.
Left unsaid by the prosecutors is the rumor that cutting the trial will prevent the defense from presenting an endless line of witnesses well into 2027, enough to stir public sentiment for the 2028 polls. Meanwhile, the dropped articles such as misuse of public funds are already being investigated by the Ombudsman anyway.
And so, it seems like the wisdom of old has been challenged by this strategy shift among the impeachment prosecutors. Instead of throwing more lines into the water, they are now casting a single main line to catch a big fish.