Over the past six weeks, President Park Geun-hye and Cheong Wa Dae might have destroyed some evidence on the allegations of the influence-peddling scandal involving her civilian friend Choi Soon-sil, as they continuously rejected angry citizens’ demands to resign.

The prosecution, which had confiscated some documents from a presidential secretarial office, has not raided Park’s office despite designating her as a suspect. Its choice might have come in consideration of the incumbent state leader’s authority or the nation’s international image.

A physical confinement of the president would harm his or her privilege and cause paralysis of administrative affairs, as Constitution scholars say. So the prosecution only really had to make a decision on whether to raid her office.

Now the situation is about to change. Park’s duties will be halted if the National Assembly passes the bill to impeach the president Friday. In that scenario, Prime Minister Hwang Kyo-ahn will take on the post of acting-president, which means there is no further need to treat her with exceptional respect in criminal proceedings.

Replacing the prosecution, about to end its official probe this month, the independent counsel will launch its investigation into the scandal this week. It should hurry to raid Park’s office, residence and key secretarial offices in Cheong Wa Dae to block the possibility of further destruction of evidence.

The seizure should be conducted immediately after the Assembly votes for the motion, though the passage probability is hard to predict despite some Saenuri Party lawmakers’ current stance to coordinate it.

As the next step, a passage of the impeachment bill would also provide the counsel, that comprises of a group of prosecutors, with justification for asking the court to issue a 48-hour arrest warrant for the suspended president.

It would be acceptable if a summons precedes the detainment -- she had promised to respond to the counsel’s questioning. However, there is no need for a repeated summons, as Park has already turned down the prosecution’s request of face-to-face questioning three times after she expressed willingness to cooperate.

The counsel, if necessary, also needs to consider placing her into custody in order to pursue a thorough investigation into the scandal, in which the state leader had let civilian friends meddle in state affairs and feasibly turned a blind eye to their corruption.

A custody warrant could be more effective than a simple arrest warrant, irrespective of the Constitutional Court’s review of a passed bill. Criminal proceedings should be separated from the latter’s feasible “political decision.” Rather, any fresh evidence caught by the counsel via a face-to-face interrogation of Park would make it easier for the Constitutional Court to accept the legislative agency’s impeachment bill as quickly as possible.

The world is watching South Korea and the series of historic demonstrations led by citizens. A righteous way to secure national prestige is to seek a jail term for Park, who breached the Constitution and allegedly violated a variety of laws, based on the thorough investigation in the coming months.

A scenario that cannot be ruled out is that Park may choose to announce her immediate resignation before the voting on Friday. But it is too late for her to appeal for the public’s forgiveness as most would question her sincerity.

More and more citizens, turning from their earlier demands, say they prefer an ouster on the basis of constitutional stipulations to her resignation, claiming that Park should be deprived of the right to receive a state pension after departure via impeachment. Citizens offered a grace period of up to six weeks after cable channel JTBC’s revelation of Park’s improprieties on Oct. 24. Now there is no “voluntary resignation” or “honorary exit” for her.

If the motion fails to garner the required 200 votes needed to pass, the ruling Saenuri Party could face a tough public backlash. Though some of its lawmakers say that they are different from the pro-Park loyalists in the party, any failure to follow through on this in the impeachment vote will prove that birds of a feather really do flock together.

Regardless of the result of the impeachment vote, many of the ruling party members should be held accountable -- either politically or legally -- for reportedly glossing over Park’s wrongdoings.