Lawyers for Vice President Sara Duterte on Tuesday defended their frequent courtroom objections during her Senate impeachment trial, saying the moves are dictated by procedural rules rather than a tactical litigation strategy.

Defense spokesperson Michael Poa rejected suggestions that the legal team was attempting to disrupt the proceedings after drawing public attention for repeatedly interrupting prosecutors during earlier hearings.

“It’s not a matter of legal strategy. They’re under the rules. If a question is objectionable, counsel must object unless we’re okay to waive that objection,” Poa told reporters before the fifth day of the trial.

Last week, defense lawyer Carlo Narvasa raised numerous objections during the prosecution’s examination of National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) agent John Mark Calilung, particularly during questioning about Duterte’s remarks in November 2024.

By contrast, Monday’s hearing saw defense attorney Mark Vinluan raise relatively few objections during the testimony of NBI regional director Jeremy Lotoc, a key witness for the prosecution’s case under Article IV of the impeachment complaint.

“Yesterday, we didn’t really see any basis to object. You saw that we were reasonable. We weren’t objecting,” Poa said. “But if a question is truly objectionable, we will not be doing justice to our client. We will not be doing our jobs if we don’t object.”

Under the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials, lawyers must object if they believe testimony or evidence violates procedural or evidentiary rules.

Failing to object can be treated as a waiver, allowing the statement to remain on the official record.

Instead of interrupting on Monday, the defense focused its cross-examination on challenging the credibility of the NBI investigation, highlighting documentary discrepancies and questioning the bureau’s independence.

“It goes into bias basically because then now the report is questionable,” Poa said, though he declined to definitively claim that the defense had already established bias to the court.

“Whether we were able to establish bias, once again, is not something for us to say in the media because it would be unfair to the other party,” he added.

During Monday’s cross-examination, the defense suggested that the NBI could not be entirely independent because it is an agency under the Department of Justice, which falls under the executive branch led by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. — one of the alleged targets of Duterte’s statements.

Lotoc rejected the defense’s claim, testifying that investigators acted independently and based their findings solely on the evidence.

The prosecution is using the NBI investigation to support Article IV of the impeachment complaint, which accuses Duterte of making threats against Marcos, First Lady Liza Araneta-Marcos and former House Speaker Martin Romualdez.