The on-going Impeachment Trial has been receiving not only national interest and attention but also various perceptions on the part of Filipinos as to its cause (How come?) as well as its nature (What?) and finality (Why?). How come there is such a distinct and even unfamiliar process altogether financed by public funds? What does it mean for the people who have been long in need and waiting for a better life? Why is it undertaken to judge on but one person when graft and corruption are still a composite living institutional practice in the different agencies of government?
There can be many answers to the many questions thus raised about the more and more interesting Impeachment Process. Both the questions thereon and the answers thereto can be as varied different groups of individuals who respond thereto – depending on such factors as the following: The political loyalties of those playing a direct active role therein. The political fidelity of those intensely watching it. The professional appreciation or the simple ordinary understanding thereof on the part of those following it. It can be well expected that after the Prosecution has finished its job and the Defense is scheduled to counter the latter, there will be even more questions raised as well as more answers given.
Is the Impeachment Case very urgently desired by Malacañang and therefore rather carelessly prepared by the House of Representatives – courtesy of the Palace allies? Why is it that no less than eight Articles of Impeachment were submitted to the Senate when but one well evidenced and formulated Article would be enough? How come, no less than five of the Impeachment Articles were nonchalantly abandoned, many of supposedly documental and testimonial evidence easily given up?
Is it true that the Prosecution could be anything but prepared to undertake the Trial – based on the legal credentials and practice of its members? Is it true that the Defense is far more superior in its judicial expertise and procedural acumen? Is it true wherefore that in the last analysis, the ultimate victim and lose in the case are in effect the people themselves?
Considering the just finished over-all judicial status of the Case as presented by the Prosecution: Is it true that the Defense could just sit down, say nothing and do nothing, and the accused could be readily exonerated? What happens then to the one who started it all? Would the latter simply continue to hold on to power, to live life as usual?