With the scarcity of legal experts, let alone lawyers, in the Senate impeachment court when it convenes for the new session of Congress, the impeachment trial that led to the conviction of Chief Justice Renato Corona in 2012 should serve as a valuable reference.

The presiding officer of that impeachment court was then Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, now the Chief Presidential Legal Counsel of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

Enrile had said then that there was an extraordinary burden on the House prosecution panel to convince the Senate court to convict an impeached official.

Enrile indicated that the nature of the case against Corona was “sui generis,” or one of a kind, and thus its outcome would have to be precise since it would form the jurisprudence for the rendering of justice in similar cases in the future.

That future is now, in the action taken by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Duterte.

At the time, Enrile said the burden on the prosecution was heavier since the articles of impeachment against Corona were “not precise,” just as how the complaints against VP Duterte are being described today.

Making haste in the impeachment case would be the undoing of the House prosecution panel, which during the Corona trial visibly agonized every inch of the way to prove what was alleged in the articles of impeachment.

The Corona defense panel, led by the late Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, knew that it would be an uphill battle for the prosecution, even if they practically allowed the prosecutors to present their evidence freely.

The disparity in competence between the defense and prosecution teams posed a greater challenge for the prosecution than the hurdle of presenting incontrovertible evidence during the trial.

Yet it was more of a political rather than a court process, which in the end would be decided through a vote by the 24 senator-judges.

The imbalance in the trial was evident, as the prosecution team — composed mainly of House members who were lawyers but had little courtroom experience — faced off against the Chief Justice’s defense panel which comprised some of the most distinguished legal minds.

Enrile at times lectured the members of the prosecution on basic rules of evidence and trial procedures.

On the other side were lawyers who could recite the rules of court and provisions of the laws in their sleep.

Enrile and the veteran lawyers on the defense team ensured that the trial stayed within the bounds of the articles of impeachment.

At one point, the defense panel pointed out that the prosecution attempted to prove allegations against Corona that were not included in the articles of impeachment.

Article 2 of the impeachment complaint accused Corona of not filing his SALN but this was disproved by Supreme Court Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal who personally brought Corona’s SALN to the Senate court.

The prosecution then embarked on a fishing expedition into Corona’s properties, claiming they were ill-gotten.

Lead defense lawyer Cuevas said the prosecutors tried to expand the scope of the second impeachment article after the main argument that Corona failed to file his SALN was effectively demolished with the surrendering of the document.

The second article of impeachment started by alleging that Corona committed a culpable violation of the Constitution by failing to disclose his SALN, followed by the allegation that some of his properties were not listed in the SALN and that he was “suspected” of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high value and maintaining bank accounts with huge deposits.

Today, the same broad allegations are made in the seven articles of impeachment against VP Duterte, which many lawyers have described as sloppily presented.

In the final analysis, it will be the wisdom of the senator-judges that will ultimately matter — whether or not such wisdom exists.