These three, late-Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, late-Justice Serafin Cuevas, and former ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, have really high intellect regarding law. I am very impressed.

It's 2024, and I still feel inspired by the legacy of Miriam Defensor Santiago, the late Philippine senator. I often find myself revisiting her speeches and interviews, amazed by her intelligence, wit, and courage. Even though she's no longer with us, her words and ideals continue to resonate with me. Miriam's tireless fight against corruption and her fierce commitment to justice are values that I hold dear, and they keep me motivated to advocate for a better future. I know that I'm not alone-many others share this admiration for her, and her impact will be felt for generations to come. It's an honor to keep her memory alive.

MDS saying: "you don't get the question very correctly" she means here (my interpretation) that the Ombudsman did not give answer as what MDS want to hear. Clearly, the Ombudsman exercises her right to defend the integrity of her position. Another excellent job as always for the Ombudsman! 🇵🇭

Watching this...I learned something!! 15:41 the word "Mea culpa" means an acknowledgment of one's fault or error.❤

Actually the Ombudsman was right with the answer in the question, but I hope she was given the allowance to elaborate and justify her answer rather than "it depends on the complaint" answer, late Senator Miriam just ask a profound question while wishes to refer to an AMLC related case, I hope she should have cited a particular case within the provisions of the amla law, to consider that matter of question. It is true that what late Senator Miriam was asking was broad and general and could probably be not particularly applicable to that of case like this where amlc is concerned, Therefore, it is right, that the answer to the question is "it would depend on the nature of the complaint." If a senator is subject for money laundering case then, amlc will and/or shall conduct a fact finding, if not then it will never be sent to ombudsman for preliminary investigation. Although the process of it with regards to supreme court, I believe she lately referred the answer through that April 20 letter he sent to the chief justice.

The ombudsman thinks she can argue with MDS overstepping her limits and abusing her power to convict an innocent Supreme Court Justice. Tsk tsk tsk

Battle of the brains. Judge vs Justice.

❤❤❤sana naging senate president si meriam😊😊😊

"Fudging" your answer = "Avoid" your answer! Hmmmp gets ni Miriam si Ombudsman!

Answered it by saying Yes or No. it is very clear that the Ombudsman is brainless😅😅😅

Matlino si MDS but tilling

Nung si gingona na naging boring na bigla hahaha

Haha the question must be answered with a yes or a no but d ombudsman did not answer it dat way. If she did she wud have laid down a clear manifestation of breach/violation of proper protocols to filing a case. Nonetheless, thank u Sen. MDS for giving us a more vivid view that d ombudsman had fallacy on d conduct of its power according to d constitution

Durog na durog si Conchita.

Haha. I dyingly adore the brilliance of Smds.

15:47 "pota napahiya ako dun ah" Evil laugh enters hahaha

You are fudging your answers...

Conchita plssssssssssss 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂