Short answer. No, a bare 'objection' isn't enough. Rule 132, Section 36 requires the grounds for any objection to be specified, whether you are objecting to an offer of evidence, to a witness's testimony for lack of formal offer, or to a question during oral examination. Timing matters too — objections must be raised at specific points.
What the law says
Objection to offer of evidence must be made orally immediately after the offer is made. Objection to the testimony of a witness for lack of a formal offer must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination of a witness must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent. The grounds for the objections must be specified.
Rule 132, Section 36 — Objection. Read the full provision →
The rule: grounds must be specified
Rule 132, Section 36 closes with a clear, general instruction that applies across every kind of objection it describes: the grounds for the objections must be specified. So whichever situation you are in, a bare 'objection' without stating why is not what the rule contemplates — you are expected to identify the actual legal ground, not merely register that you disagree with the evidence being offered.
Objecting to an offer of evidence
For the most common situation, objecting to an offer of evidence, the rule requires the objection to be made orally immediately after the offer is made. This sets a strict timing requirement: the objection has to come right when the evidence is formally offered, not later in the proceedings, and it must be voiced out loud rather than left for a written pleading. Waiting too long risks losing the chance to object at all under this timing rule.
Objecting to testimony given without a formal offer
A different timing applies where a witness testifies without a formal offer of that testimony having been made first. There, the objection — again for lack of a formal offer — must be made as soon as the witness begins to testify. This situation covers testimony being elicited before the offer step has properly occurred, and the rule expects the objection to be raised at that earliest point rather than after testimony has already been given.
Objecting during oral examination
A third timing rule governs objecting to a specific question during a witness's oral examination. The objection must be made as soon as the grounds therefor become reasonably apparent — in other words, the moment it becomes clear that the question is objectionable, not after an answer has already been given. In every one of these three situations, though, the same closing requirement applies: whatever ground you are relying on has to be specified, not left unstated.