Sometimes, testimony arrives
before the trial even begins.

Former congressman Zaldy Co said he is ready to testify should impeachment proceedings against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. move forward—signaling that at least one figure is prepared to go on record even as House leaders insist impeachment efforts lack momentum.

Co said he is willing to speak under oath and present what he knows if a formal impeachment case proceeds. The declaration comes amid repeated assertions from House allies that impeachment plans “won’t prosper,” largely due to numbers and timing inside Congress.

The contrast is striking. On one side: leadership signaling closure. On the other: a would-be witness signaling readiness. It underscores a tension that has defined the impeachment discourse—the difference between evidence and access.

Supporters of Co’s statement argue that testimony should be welcomed, not pre-empted. Critics counter that offering testimony before a case exists risks politicizing the process. Neutral observers note something simpler: readiness does not equal relevance unless the process allows it.

Quietly, the episode highlights a recurring pattern in Philippine politics: accountability mechanisms don’t stall for lack of claims—but for lack of pathways.

For now, the witness says he’s ready.
Whether Congress is ready to listen is another matter.