“But for it to be a ground for impeachment, it must be “culpable”. Is culpable a technical term in law? It appears that it is not so, for it simply means “blameworthy”. It is an attribution that something was done or intentionally not done, which is wrongful. Culpability connotes seriousness which can be measured by the extent of what was done or not done, by the nature of the position of the infractor, and by the manner by which the act or non-act have been repeated. The violation bears upon the public official’s accountability, which is the heart of a decent, honest and good government. Extent indeed can determine intent, but at the same time it is not unsusceptible to justifications.
Caution therefore must be exercised in order to prevent an overly-legalistic interpretation creating undue elements, uncompromising conditionalities and requirements, of what probably should not be interpreted that strictly. Over-interpretation may lead to unjustified narrow legal applications rendering ineffective the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. It can lead the impeachment proceeding in a direction overly court-like with all its hindering-technicalities, and remove it from a process seeking to achieve a more significant policy statement beyond the guilt or non-guilt of the respondent. “