There was a time when impeachment proceedings showcased the very best of the Philippine legal profession. Regardless of which side one supported, the impeachment trials of President Joseph Estrada and Chief Justice Renato Corona featured advocates whose mastery of the law, command of the facts, and respect for the institution elevated the proceedings.

The nation watched legal minds such as Estelito Mendoza, Joker Arroyo, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Serafin Cuevas and many other courtroom heavyweights whose reputations had already been forged through decades of distinguished practice.

One did not have to agree with their positions to appreciate the quality of their advocacy. Their arguments reflected painstaking preparation, profound scholarship, and an unmistakable reverence for the constitutional process they had been entrusted to uphold.

Today, one cannot help but notice the contrast. The ongoing impeachment proceedings involving Vice President Sara Duterte have become as much a contest of political messaging as they are of legal advocacy.

Every objection, every exchange, and every facial expression can now be clipped into a 30-second video and consumed by millions on social media. In such an environment, it becomes tempting for lawyers to perform not only for the senator-judges but also for an online audience eager for confrontation.

That is a dangerous temptation because an impeachment trial is unlike an ordinary court case. It is constitutional in nature, political in consequence, and legal in process. The Rules of Court may guide portions of the proceedings, but they do not entirely define them. The tribunal is composed of elected officials, while the audience extends far beyond the Senate Hall.

Rather than discussing any one lawyer, it is more useful to observe the emerging style of advocacy itself. Some younger members of both legal teams have adopted an approach that appears deliberately confrontational, occasionally bordering on the theatrical. Whether this is intended to unsettle witnesses, influence public opinion, or simply generate momentum outside the hearing room, only they can say.

That is ultimately what places the institution itself at risk. Since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, impeachment has become an almost recurring feature of our political landscape. Perhaps that is an unavoidable consequence of a vibrant democracy.

The Constitution wisely provides the mechanism for removing officials who betray the public trust. What it does not require is that the process become another stage for political entertainment.

Institutions derive their strength from the people who serve them. The Senate, the House of Representatives, and the legal profession all carry responsibilities greater than the controversies of the day. Long after this impeachment has ended, few will remember who won the loudest exchange.

Instead, the public will remember whether those entrusted to defend, prosecute, and ultimately judge honored the Constitution with competence and dignity.

Those are the qualities that deserve to trend because they are also the qualities that preserve public confidence in one of our most important constitutional processes. Perhaps that is also the kind of advocacy the Filipino people deserve.