Sheila Sison and her string of objections that rattled the prosecution

SISON. Defense lead counsel Shiela Sison listens to a testimony of hostile witness Atty. Michael Poa during Day 21 of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte on September 2, 2026.

Senate Social Media Unit

'I guess what the public should understand... is our objections and the number of our objections will always depend on the questions from the other party,' deputy defense spokesperson Justin Nicol Gular says

It took 21 trial days to have defense lead counsel Sheila Sison on the floor as the lawyer in charge of cross-examining a prosecution witness.

The public and media alike only knew about her appearance on Wednesday morning, September 2, when she announced that she would cross-examine fellow defense lawyer Michael Poa herself.

It makes sense, right? Poa is one of the defense’s major assets so he deserves a big gun like Sison. Plus, prosecution spokesperson Jay Tolosa, a seasoned litigator who has handled major cases, was the one assigned for the direct examination.

Tolosa came in hot with his presentation. He sought to establish that Poa prepared the Department of Education’s (DepEd) reply to questions on the confidential funds use, yet the former DepEd chief of staff was unaware that security personnel handled the said money.

But Sison showed dominance. She called Tolosa’s opening statement mere rhetoric. She also took offense at the prosecution’s phrase — “abogadong walang alam” (a lawyer who doesn’t know anything) — when it referred to Poa.

“When I said, ‘ang abogadong walang alam,’ what I meant was, in Congress, he repeatedly said he knew totally nothing about the use and liquidation of the confidential funds. Context is very important,” said Tolosa.

“I am certain that the counsel has in his vocabulary other terms for ‘ang abogadong walang alam.’ If that was his explanation, he could have simply said that the witness has no personal knowledge. And that would have been more respectful and more apt, if that was the intention, as he had said,” said the lead defense counsel in response.

The rough start spelled how the entire trial would go. Sison and Tolosa went on to have heated exchanges from time to time — sometimes partnered with snarky remarks.

The two clashed again when Tolosa cut off Poa when he was responding to the former’s question about rewards related to surveillance activities. Sison insisted that Poa be allowed to answer the query.

For the duration of Tolosa’s direct examination, Sison fired objections numerous times. The lead defense counsel objected to the prosecution’s use of the word “whatever” in a question. She raised different objections on several grounds, like for being misleading or argumentative. Presiding officer Chiz Escudero sustained most of these objections.

Sison’s continued objections obviously affected Tolosa’s examination. The prosecutor, at multiple times, flipped the documents in his hand. There were moments of dead air, which presiding officer Chiz Escudero used to remind counsels about court matters.

“That is never our intention…. I hope the public understands by the end of the day, we have high respect for each other. And we are all aware that we are merely doing our job,” deputy defense spokesperson Justin Nicol Gular explained when asked about observations regarding Sison’s objections.

Point well taken. The defense was just doing its job which is to raise objections if there are matters that are objectionable.

But was Sison’s demeanor a strategy? A tactic to rattle the prosecution?

“I guess what the public should understand… is our objections and the number of our objections will always depend on the questions from the other party. [If they are] objectionable, we raise it and we respect the decision of the presiding officer to sustain it or not,” Gular explained in a mix of Filipino and English.

“So it’s not our strategy to raise voluminous objections on a certain day. It just depends on what comes and what arises during the trial,” he added. – Rappler.com