There is something deeply ironic about a lawyer prosecuting an impeachment case before the Senate while openly entertaining the idea that the Senate itself should be abolished. Atty. Lorna Kapunan’s statement that, if elected senator, she would push for a law abolishing the Senate is certainly a legitimate political position.

But the timing of its resurfacing—while she is now part of the House prosecution team in Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment trial—raises an uncomfortable question: What happens if the Senate acquits?

To be fair, the statement appears to refer to Kapunan’s earlier political position, rather than a declaration made specifically in response to the present impeachment trial. Still, it is impossible to ignore the optics when the same person is now asking the Senate to listen to her evidence, assess her arguments and ultimately rule on the case.

The Senate, after all, is not merely a room full of politicians in this proceeding. It is sitting as the impeachment court—the constitutional body tasked with trying and deciding the case. The prosecution’s job is to convince that court based on evidence, not to undermine the legitimacy of the institution that will ultimately pass judgment.

And this is where the statement becomes politically dangerous.Suppose the prosecution loses.Will the conclusion simply be that the evidence was insufficient? That the constitutional threshold for conviction was not met? That the prosecution failed to persuade the required number of senators?

Or will we suddenly hear: “See? This is precisely why we don’t need a Senate.” That would be an awfully convenient escape hatch.

A prosecutor cannot have it both ways. If the Senate is competent enough to convict Vice President Sara Duterte, then it must also be respected when it acquits her. If the senators are legitimate judges when they deliver the verdict you want, they cannot suddenly become an unnecessary institution when they deliver one you don’t.

The prosecution has chosen the Senate as its court. It must therefore accept the Senate’s judgment—whatever that judgment may be.There is another uncomfortable irony here. If Kapunan believes the Senate is unnecessary, then perhaps the better venue for that argument is the campaign trail, a constitutional reform debate or the halls of Congress—not while standing before the very institution whose judgment she is asking the Filipino people to accept.

The impeachment trial should ultimately be about one thing: Did the prosecution prove its case against the Vice President?Not whether the Senate deserves to exist. Not whether the senators are politically convenient. Not whether the institution should be abolished. And certainly not whether an acquittal can later be blamed on the very existence of the court.

Because if the prosecution fails to secure a conviction, the simplest explanation may be the most uncomfortable one:Perhaps the Senate did its job—and the prosecution simply failed to do theirs.That is the risk every prosecutor accepts when entering an impeachment court.You don’t get to choose the verdict. And you shouldn’t be allowed to choose the excuse afterward.