In a political climate where lines are drawn quickly, conditions tend to irritate those in a hurry.

Former lawmaker Antonio Tinio publicly criticized Representative Toby Tiangco for placing a condition before joining impeachment efforts against Sara Duterte.

Tiangco had earlier stated he would not support impeachment unless accountability also reaches the so-called “big fish.” Tinio, however, dismissed the position as evasive—arguing that such conditions weaken the momentum of accountability efforts.

On the surface, the exchange appears ideological. Beneath it, critics note a familiar tension: whether impeachment is a principled process—or a race that punishes hesitation.

Interestingly, the dispute is not over facts, but timing. One side demands immediacy. The other insists on consistency. And in between sits a constitutional mechanism often pulled hardest when patience runs thin.

As impeachment talk intensifies, the debate quietly shifts from what must be proven to who must move first.

In Philippine politics, urgency is persuasive.
Conditions, apparently, are suspicious.