08/07/2026
THE PURPOSE OF OBJECTIONS
DURING THE TRIAL.
By Atty. Florante A. Zagada
We maybe irritated by the multiple and continuing objections of the lawyer for the defense to the direct examination conducted by Atty. Ligutan. But in court trial, it has a purpose for the lawyer who is objecting.
Objections raise and resolve evidentiary disputes. You may object to the questions posed by attorneys, the testimony given by witnesses, the introduction or use of exhibits, or to the demeanor or behavior of any of the participants of a trial.
Although most people associate the process of objecting with contentiousness and even hostility, that need not be the case.
Our adversary system relies upon opposing attorneys to present evidence and the judge to decide upon its admissibility. An objection, then, is nothing more than a signal to the judge that there is a disagreement between counsel concerning the rules of evidence or procedure.
When there are no objections, which is the overwhelming majority of the time, the judge can allow evidence to come into the record without a specific ruling. If we had no process of objecting, the trial judge would have to rule upon every separate answer and item of evidence. Thus, unless the process is abused or misused, trials are actually expedited by the judge’s ability to rely upon counsel to object to questionable evidence.
The lawyer objecting is called the opponent of the evidence, whereas the lawyer attempting to present the evidence is the proponent.
TWO TYPES OF OBJECTIONS:
There are two main types of objections: SUBSTANTIVE and NONSUBSTANTIVE.
Substantive objections bring into question the admissibility of the content of the testimony or exhibit at issue. Non-substantive objections raise the appropriateness of the manner in which the information is being sought or delivered to the court.
One: THE NON-SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS.
The most common non-substantive objections are challenges to
the form of a question asked.
For example, a leading question on direct examination is improper because it tells the witness what answer is expected. Even if the answer itself would be admissible, the question is not allowed because of its suggestiveness.
Likewise, compound questions, vague questions, and argumentative questions, to name a few, are also objectionable because of their form. Non-substantive objections may also be made to anything else that might have an impermissible impact on the trier of fact.
For instance, a lawyer can object if opposing counsel raises their voice to
a witness or approaches the witness in an intimidating manner. Likewise, counsel may object to the manner in which exhibits are displayed or to the position of chairs and tables in the courtroom.
Two: SUBSTANTIVE OBJECTIONS.
Even if a question is phrased in the proper form, it may nonetheless call for inadmissible evidence. The information sought. may be irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, or hearsay. For instance, the question, “What is your religious affiliation?” is in proper form but any answer would be inadmissible under most rules of evidence since it is almost certainly irrelevant.
In addition, even if a question is not objectionable, a witness may respond with an inadmissible answer. The answer might voluntee irrelevant information, it might contain unanticipated hearsay, or it
might consist entirely of speculation.
For example, a direct examiner could ask the perfectly allowable question, “How do you know that the traffic light was red?” only to receive the hearsay reply, “Because Mr. Reyes told me just last week.” Hearing this response, opposing counsel would no doubt object to the answer and move
that it be stricken from the record.
Three: THE RULES OF OBJECTING.
The guidance to follow in determining whether, when, and how to object, as well as. how to respond to and recover from objections.
1. CONSIDER OBJECTION CAREFULLY.
When deciding whether to object, ask yourself if the objection is truly necessary. Not every valid objection needs to be made. Objections can be tiresome: they interrupt the flow of the evidence, they distract attention from the real issues at hand, and they have an awful tendency to degenerate into whining. You may even lose points with the judge by incessantly interrupting your opposition only to point out your incredible grasp of the rules of evidence.
For instance, there is little point to objecting if opposing counsel will be able to rectify the problem simply by rephrasing the question, as is the case with most non-substantive objections that address the improper form of a question. This is particularly true of leading questions on direct examination. I do not normally object as to the form of question if the adverse counsel can just rephrase the question.
EXAMPLE:
PROPONENT: Isn’t it true that you had the green light as you approached the intersection?
OPPONENT: Objection, counsel is leading their own witness.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
PROPONENT: What color was the traffic light as you approached the intersection?
OPPONENT: It was green. (Lusot din, binago lang nya ang porma ng tanong.)
In this example, the objection to the leading question excluded no evidence and may actually have emphasized the witness’s testimony that the light was green. Although it was technically proper, counsel would have been just as well off not making the objection. Of course, the persistent use of leading questions to feed answers to a witness is quite another matter. In those circumstances, an objection should almost always be made.
2. DIRECT ALL ARGUMENTS TO THE JUDGE.
Objections at trial are conducted as a conversation between counsel and the court. Ideally, the opponent of the evidence argues first, followed by the proponent of the evidence and concluding with a reply from the opponent. In practice, however, the format is often much less formal, with the judge asking questions and counsel responding.
No matter what, do not argue with, or even address, opposing counsel. It is the judge who will make the ruling and the judge who must be convinced. It is ineffective, distracting, and even insulting to the court when counsel turn to each other to argue their objections.
OPPONENT: Objection, Your Honor, lack of foundation.
PROPONENT: What more foundation could you want, counselor?
OPPONENT: Well, you could start with a basis for personal knowledge.
PROPONENT: He already testified that he is the comptroller. Isn’t that enough for you?
No matter how foolish, trite, or easily disposed of the other side’s position seems, always avoid speaking directly to opposing counsel. Make all of your arguments to the court. Sana ma realize ito ng mga private lawyers sa impeachment trial na huwag mamersonal sa kapwa abogado. Avoid character assasination against a fellow lawyer. They are watched by the public in social media and they should maintain proper decorum.
3. RAISE THE OBJECTIONS APPROPRIATELY.
The accepted format for making and meeting objections may differ from court to court. The majority approach is as follows.
A: STAND UP.
Stand whenever you speak to the presiding judge, including when you raise objections. Sitting while objecting can be seen as a sign of disrespect to the judge.
Some judges refuse to entertain objections from seated counsel. Even if a judge allows you to object while sitting, most will not be pleased by the practice. Stand when you object unless the presiding judge requires that you remain seated instead, which is the rule in a few jurisdictions.
Aside from showing respect to the court, there is another benefit to standing while objecting. Since the purpose of objecting is to keep inadmissible information from being introduced at trial, standing to make your objection draws the physical attention of everyone in the courtroom away from the current action and onto you.
B: OBJECT AND STATE YOUR GROUNDS.
The best way to state your objection is clearly and concisely. For instance: “Objection, Your Honor, relevance.” “Objection, counsel is leading the witness.” “Your Honor, we object—hearsay.” “Objection, lack of foundation.” You may also refer directly to the precise rule of evidence on which your objection relies. This method demonstrates your knowledge of the rules and impeccable trial preparation, in addition to signaling to the judge the specific nature of your objection.
C) IF APPROPRIATE, RESPOND TO THE COURT.
If the judge sustains your objection immediately, your job is done.
If the judge overrules it, you may wish to politely ask the judge if you may be heard on the matter further by stating, “Your Honor, may I be heard?” Use this technique prudently, however. If the judge allows you to be heard after ruling against you once and your additional statements do not change their mind, the judge is unlikely to allow you the luxury again.
If the judge seeks a response from opposing counsel, the court will usually return to you so you may have the last say. If the judge does not invite your reply, let your instincts tell you whether it is appropriate for you to ask to be heard on the matter again. You might say, “May I respond, Your Honor?” This technique is also useful for those times when the judge appears to be wavering on the ruling or pausing in thought. It is usually safe to take these cues as invitations to further explain your argument. Always ask permission to argue before you do so.
God bless us.
REFERENCE:
Mock Trials, Preparing, presenting, and Winning Your Case
by Jill Coster& Steven Lubet, National Institute for Trial Advocacy. (NITA) Third Edition.
