EXPLAINER: Objections in a trial and their role in due process

Filipinos following the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte witnessed how lawyers from both the prosecution and the defense interrupted each other's questioning of the witness with "Objection!"

On the second day of the trial on Tuesday, Duterte's lawyer Atty. Carlo Narvasa tried to keep the witness, NBI agent John Mark Calilung, from answering the questions of the prosecution lawyer, Atty. Amando Virgil Ligutan.

On Wednesday, Day Three of the trial, it was Ligutan's turn to object to Narvasa's cross examination of the prosecution witness.

Why do lawyers raise objections, and why are these important in a trial?

National Union of Peoples Lawyers (NUPL) president Atty. Ephraim Cortez said objections are the opposition to the presentation of evidence.

“This is your argument against the admission of certain evidence, either testimonial or documentary evidence or any kind of evidence,” Cortez said in an interview with GMA News Online.

Cortez explained that the Senate Impeachment Court adopted and applied the Rules of Court, including the Rules of Evidence, in conducting the impeachment proceedings.

He said the Rules define that admissibility of evidence and the qualification of witnesses as the following:

Only evidence that are relevant and material is admissible;

Witnesses, as a general rule, may only testify on matters and facts that are of their personal knowledge

As a general rule original copies of documents should be presented and marked as evidence, although xerox copies are now admissible provided that there is no genuine issue on the authenticity of the original copy, and their admission will not prejudice any of the parties.

Videos and optic evidence should be authenticated.

“Pieces of evidence, including testimonial evidence, which do not conform to these standards can be objected to. It can be objected to at the time it is offered in evidence when the ground for objection becomes apparent,” Cortez said.

Cortez said that objections during trials or impeachment cases are part of due process as an individual may only be proven by competent evidence.

“You cannot be convicted or the case cannot be decided against you against evidence that are inadmissible or cannot be admitted in court,” Cortez said.

“If the court will decide your case on the basis of inadmissible evidence, those are violation of your right to due process. That’s why your counsel is allowed to object to ensure that your right to due process is protected,” he added.

When can objections be made?

Under Section 36 of the Rules on Evidence, an objection must be made as soon as the grounds shall become reasonably apparent.

Meanwhile, 36(a) states that the grounds for the objection must be specified.

“As a rule, the objection to a question must be made before the witness can answer otherwise it is lost,” Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) National President Allan Panolong told GMA News Online.

Section 37 states that when an objection has been sustained or overruled, it shall not be necessary to repeat the objection.

For his part, Cortez said that a counsel can make an objection every time a question is asked, provided that there is basis to object.

“For example, if you ask question that requires an answer that are not of personal knowledge of the witnesses, objectionable ‘yun,” Cortez said.

Cortez is referring to the hearsay rule.

Under Section 36, a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except in certain circumstances.

Meanwhile, Cortez said that leading questions are also not allowed.

“For example, leading questions are not allowed. Questions that are answerable by yes or no are not allowed during direct examination, cross examination it is allowed,” he added.

Cortez also said that objections can be made at the time that a question is made during testimonial evidence.

However, for documentary exhibits, objections can only be made once the documents are offered in evidence, according to Cortez.

“Hindi ba kahapon, may mga palitan, may exchanges sila doon sa mga photocopies that the other counsel is objecting. But sabi nga nung presiding officer, si Atty. Escudero, he simply noted the objection because it’s still premature,” he said.

(Wasn’t it just yesterday that there were exchanges over the photocopies, with the other counsel objecting? But as the presiding officer, Atty. Escudero said, he simply noted the objection because it was still premature.)

“Because ‘yung objection to documentary evidence, specially on the part that it is a xerox copy should be made at the time na na-offer in evidence ‘yung document,” he added.

Penalties?

Panolong said that though judges or senator-judges may reprimand counsels who make repeated objections, it is not necessary to sanction them unless it becomes disruptive.

“The senators/judges may reprimand the counsel but not necessarily to sanction the lawyer unless it becomes disruptive or it tends to cause undue delay,” he said.

Meanwhile, when asked if there have been instances when counsels were sanctioned regarding objections, Cortez said it was only when “it becomes apparent that [it was] dilatory.”

“Ang pwede diyan when you keep on objecting to presentation of exhibits at the time that they are simply... being identified by the witnesses,” Cortez said.

“If you keep on objecting while the document is simply presented to the witness for identification, that is dilatory. All lawyers know that you don’t object at that time,” he added.

The rules also state that answers may be stricken from the record.

According to the rules, should a witness answer the question before the party had the opportunity to fully voice its objection, and the objection is sustained, the court shall order the answer to be stricken off the record. —NB, GMA News