THE THIRD QUARTER of 2026 started with the Philippines’ most controversial political issue—the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, the first high-ranking official to be impeached twice by the Lower House.
And if you’ve been following the impeachment trial, one thing has become impossible to miss. The three-word lawyer utterance: “Objection, Your Honor.”
During direct examination and cross examination, almost every important question asked by the private prosecutor or the defense counsel seems to be interrupted by the said courtroom expression. At times, lawyers even exchange successive objections before a witness can finish answering a single question.
This is very frustrating and exasperating for a lot of Filipinos watching the proceedings.
“Bakit ba laging may objection?”
“Pinapahaba lang ba nila ang paglilitis?”
“Why can’t the witness simply answer the question?”
The answer lies in one of the most salient features of our judicial system, i.e. the right of parties to object to evidence. While the constitutional design of impeachment trial is “sui generis” or a class of its own— meaning that the proceeding is political rather than strictly judicial in nature— the Senate, when sitting as an impeachment court, still observes the fundamental rules on the admissibility of evidence and the examination of witnesses.
An objection is not meant to obstruct justice. Ironically, it exists to protect it. To put simply, an objection is a formal protest made by a lawyer during trial, asking the judge to disallow a question, answer, testimony, document, or piece of evidence presented because it is not allowed by the Rules of Court, particularly the Rules on Evidence.
Objections are like the game’s referee blowing the whistle whenever a player commits a foul.
Without objections, counsels could ask misleading questions, introduce unreliable evidence, intimidate witnesses, or place before the court information that the rules, the laws, or the Constitution does not allow.
The province of an objection is to operate as a legal checkpoint. It warns the court that a rule of evidence may have been violated or infringed. The judge then decides whether the objection should be sustained, meaning the objection is correct, or overruled, meaning the questioning may continue.
As a matter of fact, the authority for making objections is found in the Rules of Court, particularly the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence, specifically Rule 132, Section 36 governing the offer of and objection to evidence presented and questions propounded. It states that “[o]bjection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made. Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. The grounds for the objections must be specified.”
The Rules recognize that not every question asked inside a courtroom is legally proper. Some questions violate the rules of evidence. Others seek irrelevant information. Some are unfair. That is precisely why objections exist.
Among the most common objections is “Objection, irrelevant.”
Suppose the accused is being tried for qualified theft. The lawyer suddenly asks the witness:
“Isn’t it true that you failed mathematics in high school?”
Unless the answer has some legitimate connection to the issues in the case, the question is irrelevant.
Courts decide cases based on relevant facts—not personal trivia.
Another familiar objection is “Leading question.” A leading question suggests its own answer.
For example, “You saw the accused stab the victim, didn’t you?”
During direct examination, lawyers are generally prohibited from asking leading questions because witnesses should narrate facts from their own recollection rather than merely agreeing with counsel’s suggestion.
Another common objection is “Hearsay.”
Suppose a witness testifies: “My neighbor told me that the accused committed the crime.”
Ordinarily, that testimony is inadmissible because the witness has no personal knowledge of the alleged fact. The actual neighbor should testify, subject to cross-examination.
This is the popular Hearsay Rule, which generally excludes out-of-court statements offered to prove the truth of what they assert, unless covered by recognized exceptions.
Another frequently heard objection is “Argumentative.” Instead of asking questions, counsel begins arguing with the witness. An argumentative question or remark does not seek additional facts but instead challenges or debates with the witness.
A recent example occurred during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte. During the cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness, National Bureau of Investigation Regional Director Atty. Jeremy Lotoc, he said that the “evidence is clear” regarding the alleged grave threats made by Duterte against the President Bongbong Marcos, First Lady Liza Marcos, and Former Speaker Martin Romualdez. Defense counsel Atty. Mark Vinluan responded, “According to you,” prompting private prosecutor Atty. Amando Virgil D. Ligutan to object the remark of the defense counsel for being argumentative.
Basic is the rule of trial practice: lawyers should ask questions to elicit facts, not argue with the witness.
Another objection is “Asked and answered.” If a witness has already clearly answered a question, repeatedly asking the same question merely to obtain a different answer or confuse the witness is improper.
The Rules also prohibit questions that are misleading, compound, vague, speculative, or that assume facts not yet established by evidence.
The purpose of each objection is to make sure that the evidence received by the court is competent and relevant—requirements for the admissibility of evidence.
Interestingly, objections are not raised only to stop improper questions.
Sometimes, lawyers object to preserve issues for appeal. If a lawyer fails to object when inadmissible evidence is offered, the objection may be deemed waived. This is why trial lawyers are trained to listen carefully—not only to the answers, but also to every question being asked.
Good litigators often prepare objections long before trial begins.
It is worth emphasizing that online series and TV dramas often portray objections as dramatic interruptions or clever tactics to embarrass opposing counsel. This is not the case in real litigation.
Lawyers are officers of the court. When they object, they are not necessarily trying to hide the truth or delay the proceedings. More often than not, they are insisting that the truth be established according to the rules that guarantee fairness to all parties.
The impeachment trial has once again brought courtroom procedure into our living rooms.
Whether one supports the prosecution or the defense, every Filipino can appreciate one important lesson: Justice is not determined merely by what evidence is presented.
It is also determined by how that evidence is presented.
Because in the courtroom, the search for truth is governed not only by facts—but also by rules.
Class dismissed!