Jett Obejas

Pag gising mo mamaya December na.

I really need to asikaso na my PTR.

Si Imaa kasi CHIN-ichenez lang tayo palagi.

Pope-rah be like "YOU GET A BLESSING! YOU GET A BLESSING! YOU ALL GET A BLESSING!!!"

@chonggo OMG IT IS!!! SKSKSKS

IS THAT NATHAN LANE?! Sacrilege!

@tr1pnaut1k @paulcatiang Their system isn't as foolproof after all, no? Nagseself-destruct na.

@paulcatiang The DDS ecosystem knows they are losing the narrative ano? Interestingly, there is pushback sa comment section, which never happened before.

The DDS are launching an attack against Mainstream Media again ha? Target eh yung mga privileged millennials and boomers na obvious na DDS din naman.

@nicoquejano Honorary Assumptionista haha. OMG ASSUMED ASSUMPTIONISTA!

Dear Assumption, may suggestion ako na pwede ipalit sa empty frame na yan. Kahit from rival school si teh. 🤭

ABS-CBN to Rodante Marcoleta right now:

No es que lo quiera, LO NECESITO

Gawin nating case study si Robin Padilla to understand how he came to be the person he is today. To warn parents how not to raise their kids.

Habeas Corpus? Ifafile nung nagtatgo? Ano 'yun, ipoproduce niya yung sarili niya?

Still here...

Cardinal rule in legal practice: huwag pagtatawanan.

Robin Padilla could have championed the rights of PDLs and the improvement of jail management having gone through it himself, instead he chose to advocate for the evasion of accountability.

What's he gonna do? Sue them?

Nakamusta niyo na ba si Pia today?

Lawyers cannot be expected to know everything about the law. In my 14 years in the profession, I have never met a lawyer who knows it all. I admire many colleagues who are excellent in their chosen fields and who bring honor to the legal profession—and they are many. There are legal issues that are genuinely debatable, where an exchange of positions is both healthy and necessary. But there are also matters involving facts and legal rules that must be stated with complete accuracy. It is not enough to say that we merely “understood it differently.” As professionals, we owe something to the legal profession, to our colleagues, and to the public: when we agree to a live or public interview and expect legal questions, we must prepare beforehand. And when confronted with a question where we are uncertain of the correctness of our answer, there is nothing wrong with politely declining to answer immediately or promising to verify and get back later. What we say publicly carries weight. For a careless or vulnerable member of the audience, our statements may become the basis of decisions or actions that could affect not only themselves but also the people around them. We owe the public diligence, caution, and accuracy in what we say. There is no shame in admitting the limits of our knowledge of the law. On the contrary, it is an opportunity to become better lawyers—so we may better serve our clients, uphold the profession, and speak more responsibly in public the next time.

2026 Bar question.

Sobrang conflicted siguro ng mga DDS sa kung ano ang script nila sa Supreme Court ngayon.

Lawyers with way more years of litigation practice are also not a hundred percent confident in answering queries re: ICC and Bato. But what do they do? Read and read and read. Not give interviews and, when cornered, invoke the hubris of “I’m a lawyer, trust me on this.”

@nicoquejano Under maintenance yung gcash.

Hala. Walang pumunta sa prayer rally for Bato and Sara??? Anyare??? Nagkatamaran ba?