EXPLAINER: What are trial objections for?
Those following the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte will easily recognize the frequent cries of "Objection, Your Honor!" from both the defense and prosecution. While it may seem random to some, raising objections during a trial is expected and, at times, necessary, according to legal experts.
"Objections are necessary to prevent improper questions, testimony, or evidence from being considered by the court," Atty. Rapunzel Mae F. Maluto, managing partner of Maluto Manalaysay Yu Tolentino Law, told PhilSTAR L!fe.
A lawyer usually objects to the form of a question to a witness or evidence that violates legal rules. They do this to "help ensure that the trial remains fair and that only competent, relevant, and admissible evidence is presented," Maluto added.
Followers of the impeachment trial and fans of legal dramas are familiar with some of the more usual objections.
Common legal objections
When lawyers lodge an objection, they must follow it up with a legal reason. It will help the judge or presiding officer decide on the substance of the objection.
On July 13, Akbayan Party-list Representative Atty. Chel Diokno posted a TikTok tutorial offering a quick guide to the most common legal objections.
Hearsay
According to Diokno, a lawyer raises this type of objection "kapag tsismis lang ang sinasabi ng saksi." A witness cannot share someone else's opinion or describe another person's experience.
"Dapat ang sinasabi mo ay galing mismo sa sarili mong personal na kaalaman o nakita," said Diokno.
An example of hearsay: "My neighbor told me Miguel ran into the motorcycle."
Irrelevant
This objection is raised "'Pag walang kinalaman ang tinatanong sa mismong issue na pinag-uusapan," explained Diokno.
Trial questions, regardless of who is asking, must always be relevant to the case being tried.
An example of an irrelevant question in a trial about a car accident: "What's your favorite dessert?"
Leading question
This type of objection is raised against a line of questioning that seems to dictate the outcome of a witness's answer.
"Madalas ito 'yung mga tanong na nasasagot lang ng 'Yes' or 'No'," said Diokno.
According to him, leading questions are not allowed in a direct examination of a witness, which is the initial questioning conducted by the counsel who called the witness to testify.
There are instances, however, when leading questions are permitted, such as during cross-examinations, said Diokno. A cross-examination is when a witness is questioned by the opposing counsel.
Per the Supreme Court e-Library, leading questions may also be used "when there is difficulty in getting direct and intelligible answers from a witness who is ignorant, or a child of tender years, or is feeble-minded" or is non-speaking or non-hearing. This type of question is also allowed to establish preliminary facts that may be used as a basis for future testimony.
An example of a permissible leading question: "You are Katrina, the sister of the defendant in this case?"
An example of an unacceptable leading question: "You saw the defendant deliberately ram his car against the motorcycle, didn't you?"
Misleading
According to Diokno, this type of question assumes the witness has testified to a fact when they have not.
"O kapag taliwas sa nasabi ng testigo ang batayan ng tanong," Diokno said.
An example of a misleading question after a witness testifies that a car involved in an accident did not run a red light: "After the vehicle ran a red light, what happened then?"
#ImpeachmentTrivia: Ano ba ang Objection at kailan ba dapat ito gamitin?
— Chel Diokno (@ChelDiokno) July 14, 2026
Panoorin ito at i-share sa mga kakilala niyo! pic.twitter.com/olWmAXWEDs
Speculative
Diokno said this type of question asks a witness to imagine, assume, or guess facts they would not normally be aware of.
Per the Congressman, a speculative question means "kapag pinapahula lang ang saksi sa mga bahay na labas sa alam niya."
An example of a speculative question: "If the driver passed another route, do you think the accident would have occurred?"
Repetitive or Asked and answered
When a lawyer asks repetitive questions, Diokno said these are meant to stall the proceedings. Counsel may also rephrase the same question in different ways to find inconsistencies in the witness's testimony.
An example of a repetitive question after a witness says the accident happened at 2:30 p.m.: "So you're saying you witnessed the accident at 2:30 in the afternoon?"
When objections have no basis
Maluto told L!fe that some objections are not supported by the Rules of Court of the law. Further, she explained, an objection "has no basis when it is raised merely to interrupt the proceedings or delay the examination of a witness without any valid legal ground."
If such an objection is raised, the judge or presiding officer overrules it, meaning "the judge finds that [the objection] has no legal basis, so the questioning continues and testimony or evidence is admitted," said Maluto.
Objections that have legal grounds, however, will be allowed, signified by the judge saying it is "sustained."
In this case, the judge agrees that the objection is proper. According to Maluto, the witness no longer has to answer the question. "Or if the witness has already answered, the testimony may be stricken from the record," said Maluto.
