Objection

Private prosecutor Atty. Amando Ligutan is no stranger to Cebuanos. Many times, he has appeared in public as legal counsel in some of the most high-profile cases. As a journalist, I have come to know him as a steady source for legal matters involving his clients. On more than one occasion, he has generously shared his legal knowledge to help explain complicated terms and court procedures to the public. A true teacher at heart, he has touched the lives of many students, a number of whom have since become lawyers. His ability to simplify the law without sacrificing its substance has made him a respected voice both inside and outside the courtroom.

I meticulously watched the proceedings over the past two days. Cross-examinations have always fascinated me. While I am no attorney, I understand that this part of the legal process is where counsel demonstrates skill in testing the credibility of a witness while ensuring that their own case remains intact despite the defense's attempts to challenge it. Every word uttered by Ligutan was precise and well thought out. Even his objections during the opposing counsel's cross-examination had a clear legal basis. There was little room for unnecessary theatrics; every interruption carried a purpose. While there were moments that amused us and others that left us frustrated, we have to understand that lawyers are simply doing their jobs. They are bound to advocate for their clients and to ensure that every legal remedy available is properly exhausted before the senator-judges.

What is amusing, though, is the stream of online comments attempting to discredit not only Ligutan but also the different attorneys present during the proceedings. Both camps have attracted their own share of detractors, many of whom appear to have little or no legal background at all. While criticism falls within one's freedom of expression, some comments have gone well below the belt. Others have even dragged Ligutan's personal relationships into the discussion, pointing to an alleged friendship with a party-list representative as though it were proof of bias. In today's social media environment, personal attacks often travel faster than reasoned arguments. The focus on the main issue is gradually lost: is there sufficient basis to impeach the vice president?

I am no expert on the articles of impeachment transmitted by the House to the Senate, but it does not take a constitutional scholar to recognize when questions are raised about whether a public official has faithfully fulfilled the duties entrusted to the office. At this stage, it is the lawyers' responsibility to persuade the senator-judges of the merits of their respective positions. The only downside is that these hearings are public. Everything is scrutinized in real-time by millions of Filipinos. The lawyers are not only arguing before the Senate but also before the court of public opinion. Objections in any legal proceeding can only do so much. They may weaken a line of questioning or temporarily stall the proceedings, but they can never replace evidence, sound arguments, and ultimately, the truth.