Mrs. Arroyo is the main respondent in a criminal proceeding where she stands accused of rigging the 2007 midterm elections.

But as events unfolded during the past three weeks, the Judiciary itself may also be on public trial as well. Most of the sitting justices and many judges in the lower courts were appointed by Mrs. Arroyo during her nine-year extended presidency. Among them is the judge chosen for her trial.

The Judiciary is under increasing pressure to perform creditably because of widespread perception that dispensation of justice in the Philippines is terribly slow and very discriminate.

Under President Aquino’s watch, the pursuit of justice is being touted as a basic government policy.

Mr. Aquino confirmed it when he ordered government agents to stop Mrs. Arroyo from leaving Manila recently even if there was an order from the Supreme Court allowing her to do so.

The Justice department had feared that Mrs. Arroyo, who carries a diplomatic passport, would flee to Europe or Central America. Her lawyers say such fears are totally unfounded.

With Mrs. Arroyo in custody, foremost in the public mind is the nagging question of whether or not she will ever get a fair trial.

While Mr. Aquino and his officials have repeatedly assured that Mrs. Arroyo would be treated fairly, it is on the Judiciary, however, where the issue of fairness fully rests.

Trial on the merits is weeks, perhaps even months away, but this early, people seem to have already drawn their own conclusions. Given the wide access of the population to free media, it may be extremely difficult to remain undecided or even indifferent for long.

For the verdict to be acceptable however, the trial needs to be conducted in a fair and credible manner.

In proceedings of the Philippine judicial system where there is no jury, the demand for fairness and credibility falls squarely on the trial judge.

In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et al., fairness and credibility will have to be assured by Regional Trial Court Judge Jesus Mupas.

Judge Mupas acquired jurisdiction over the Arroyo case after he was picked in a raffle draw — a routine judicial activity in cities and big towns with multiple trial courts. But he may not have been the trial judge of choice.

Shortly after his selection, the presidential palace disclosed, for reasons that are not clear, that Mr. Mupas was reprimanded and fined by the Supreme Court in 2008 for sitting on a case.

Indeed, the high court had found him “guilty of undue delay in rendering an order… with stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.’’

It is believed that the disclosure was meant to pressure him into acting swiftly on Mrs. Arroyo’s indictment.

In just a matter of days, Judge Mupas ordered he arrest, prompting lawyers to complain that for such a sensitive and high-profile case, the detention order came too fast too soon.

With Mrs. Arroyo in custody, Palace officials probably thought it was no longer necessary to profile Mr. Mupas or further disclose another sidelight of his career.

Last October, the Supreme Court voided a judgment he rendered in 2002 over a simple graft case.

In the decision written by Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the high court sustained the Court of Appeals which found that Mr. Mupas had committed grave abuse of discretion for ignoring evidence presented by prosecutors. Instead, he accepted the defendant’s demurrer to evidence — a claim that evidence presented was insufficient to prosecute the case — which led to acquittal.

But contrary to Judge Mupas’ appreciation of the facts, Justice Sereno ruled that the prima facie evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the criminal charges during trial.

The two decisions of the Supreme Court may yet affect his credibility or worse, cast doubt on his ability to try the Arroyo case.

In the Philippines however, reversals of lower court decisions by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court are not unusual. But they do highlight the quality of the bench or the lack of it, as well as the lingering perception of corruption in the Judiciary.

For Judge Mupas, a fair and credible trial of Mrs. Arroyo may just turn out to be the redeeming case load of his judicial career.