Jam

@Jamvihar

I am a very proud Marcos Loyalist. #MabuhayBagongPilipinas #WeLoveAndSupportPBBM to the moon and back ❤️✌️

Land of the Rising Sun☀️

Joined July 2011

3.6K Following

6.1K Followers

65.6K Posts

Jamvihar retweeted

@WinGatchalian74

24 days ago

Today, I take my oath as Senate President Pro Tempore. Nagpapasalamat ako sa tiwala at kumpiyansang ipinagkaloob sa akin ng aking mga kasamahan sa Senado. Buong pagpapakumbaba kong tinatanggap ang responsibilidad na ito. Patuloy tayong magtatrabaho at tutupad sa ating tungkulin para sa sambayanang Pilipino.

WinGatchalian74's tweet photo. Today, I take my oath as Senate President Pro Tempore.

Nagpapasalamat ako sa tiwala at kumpiyansang ipinagkaloob sa akin ng aking mga kasamahan sa Senado.

Buong pagpapakumbaba kong tinatanggap ang responsibilidad na ito. Patuloy tayong magtatrabaho at tutupad sa ating tungkulin para sa sambayanang Pilipino.

741

28K

4K

242

525K

Jamvihar retweeted

Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭

24 days ago

Galaw galaw pag may time, Alan Pinocchio. File ka ng kaso sa SC para magka-alaman talaga hahaha! 👊 I can already see the headlines: “Lame Duck or Chicken Little Runs to the Supreme Court.” 😂

12

641

71

8

19K

24 days ago

@PhilippineStar Wala ka na sa katinuan ng pag iisip. Yung mga bible verses na ginagamit mo pede ba iapply mo sa sarili mo. You will never be a good leader. ☹️😟😫

0

0

0

0

7

about 1 month ago

@jaytaryela China please 🙏🏻 be good to the world .. stop being a fool and war freaks ..

0

1

0

0

34

Who to follow

See https://t.co/7dp0xzPBrN

Anna C. Naumann

And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul

🚫DM, I block d🗑mbness and trolls #Heyoka , LabMed , Microb., Virol.,Parasitol., #COVIDisAirborne

Jamvihar retweeted

about 1 month ago

Five posts in a single day from the Chinese Embassy? That alone tells the world who is truly rattled by facts, transparency, and international law. A state genuinely confident in its legal position does not spend 24 hours flooding social media with repetitive propaganda disguised as legal arguments just to answer one Philippine Coast Guard officer. THE LAW AND THE FACTS are clear: the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award is final and binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII of UNCLOS. 1. On China’s 2006 Article 298 Declaration. The Embassy keeps invoking China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS as if this magically exempted China from all arbitration. It did not. The Philippines deliberately structured its case to avoid questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. The Tribunal carefully examined China’s Article 298 declaration and ruled in its October 2015 Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippine submissions concerned the interpretation and application of UNCLOS — matters fully subject to compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention. UNCLOS is not subject to the CCP’s propaganda system. In fact, the Tribunal even declined jurisdiction over certain matters involving military activities precisely to respect Article 298 and China’s 2006 declaration. So the claim that the Tribunal “ignored” China’s declaration is simply false. The Tribunal studied it extensively — and still ruled that it had jurisdiction. 2. On the “Nine-Dash Line” China cannot rewrite UNCLOS by drawing arbitrary dashes on a map. The Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called “historic rights” claim within the nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS and therefore without legal effect. UNCLOS comprehensively allocates maritime entitlements through territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones, and continental shelves. There is no legal basis in UNCLOS for a state to claim almost an entire semi-enclosed sea merely because it wishes to do so. Changing the terminology from “nine-dash line” to “adjacent waters” does not change the legal reality. 3. On Bajo de Masinloc and Philippine Fishermen The Tribunal affirmed that Filipino fishermen possess traditional fishing rights at Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal), and that China unlawfully interfered with those rights. What deeply concerns many observers is how Beijing now portrays Filipino fishermen operating near their own coasts as “provocateurs,” while Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels operate thousands of nautical miles from mainland China inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone under Article 57 of UNCLOS. That inversion of reality is precisely why the international community increasingly distrusts Beijing’s narrative. 4. On Transparency The Philippines releases footage because we have nothing to hide. If China believes the videos are misleading, then Beijing is free to release complete and unedited footage from its own vessels or even embed independent journalists from credible media entities. Yet time and again, China prefers vague accusations over full transparency. Facts do not fear sunlight. The uncomfortable truth for Beijing is this: the legal debate ended in 2016. What remains is China’s refusal to comply with a binding ruling issued under a treaty that China itself shaped and ratified. A country cannot selectively obey UNCLOS only when convenient. International law is not a buffet. And the irony is difficult to miss: Beijing lectures others about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity while simultaneously threatening Taiwan daily, harassing Southeast Asian fishermen in their own EEZs, and deploying coercive maritime tactics across the South China Sea. The world can see the contradiction clearly. No amount of repetition, propaganda, or coordinated social media posts can overturn the plain text of UNCLOS or erase the 2016 Arbitral Award.

jaytaryela's tweet photo. Five posts in a single day from the Chinese Embassy? That alone tells the world who is truly rattled by facts, transparency, and international law.

A state genuinely confident in its legal position does not spend 24 hours flooding social media with repetitive propaganda disguised as legal arguments just to answer one Philippine Coast Guard officer.

THE LAW AND THE FACTS are clear: the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award is final and binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII of UNCLOS.

1. On China’s 2006 Article 298 Declaration. The Embassy keeps invoking China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS as if this magically exempted China from all arbitration. It did not.

The Philippines deliberately structured its case to avoid questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. The Tribunal carefully examined China’s Article 298 declaration and ruled in its October 2015 Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippine submissions concerned the interpretation and application of UNCLOS — matters fully subject to compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention.

UNCLOS is not subject to the CCP’s propaganda system. In fact, the Tribunal even declined jurisdiction over certain matters involving military activities precisely to respect Article 298 and China’s 2006 declaration.

So the claim that the Tribunal “ignored” China’s declaration is simply false. The Tribunal studied it extensively — and still ruled that it had jurisdiction.

2. On the “Nine-Dash Line”

China cannot rewrite UNCLOS by drawing arbitrary dashes on a map.

The Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called “historic rights” claim within the nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS and therefore without legal effect. UNCLOS comprehensively allocates maritime entitlements through territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones, and continental shelves. There is no legal basis in UNCLOS for a state to claim almost an entire semi-enclosed sea merely because it wishes to do so.

Changing the terminology from “nine-dash line” to “adjacent waters” does not change the legal reality.

3. On Bajo de Masinloc and Philippine Fishermen

The Tribunal affirmed that Filipino fishermen possess traditional fishing rights at Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal), and that China unlawfully interfered with those rights.

What deeply concerns many observers is how Beijing now portrays Filipino fishermen operating near their own coasts as “provocateurs,” while Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels operate thousands of nautical miles from mainland China inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone under Article 57 of UNCLOS.

That inversion of reality is precisely why the international community increasingly distrusts Beijing’s narrative.

4. On Transparency

The Philippines releases footage because we have nothing to hide.

If China believes the videos are misleading, then Beijing is free to release complete and unedited footage from its own vessels or even embed independent journalists from credible media entities. Yet time and again, China prefers vague accusations over full transparency.

Facts do not fear sunlight. The uncomfortable truth for Beijing is this: the legal debate ended in 2016. What remains is China’s refusal to comply with a binding ruling issued under a treaty that China itself shaped and ratified.

A country cannot selectively obey UNCLOS only when convenient. International law is not a buffet.

And the irony is difficult to miss: Beijing lectures others about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity while simultaneously threatening Taiwan daily, harassing Southeast Asian fishermen in their own EEZs, and deploying coercive maritime tactics across the South China Sea.

The world can see the contradiction clearly. No amount of repetition, propaganda, or coordinated social media posts can overturn the plain text of UNCLOS or erase the 2016 Arbitral Award.

jaytaryela's tweet photo. Five posts in a single day from the Chinese Embassy? That alone tells the world who is truly rattled by facts, transparency, and international law.

A state genuinely confident in its legal position does not spend 24 hours flooding social media with repetitive propaganda disguised as legal arguments just to answer one Philippine Coast Guard officer.

THE LAW AND THE FACTS are clear: the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award is final and binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII of UNCLOS.

1. On China’s 2006 Article 298 Declaration. The Embassy keeps invoking China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS as if this magically exempted China from all arbitration. It did not.

The Philippines deliberately structured its case to avoid questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. The Tribunal carefully examined China’s Article 298 declaration and ruled in its October 2015 Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippine submissions concerned the interpretation and application of UNCLOS — matters fully subject to compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention.

UNCLOS is not subject to the CCP’s propaganda system. In fact, the Tribunal even declined jurisdiction over certain matters involving military activities precisely to respect Article 298 and China’s 2006 declaration.

So the claim that the Tribunal “ignored” China’s declaration is simply false. The Tribunal studied it extensively — and still ruled that it had jurisdiction.

2. On the “Nine-Dash Line”

China cannot rewrite UNCLOS by drawing arbitrary dashes on a map.

The Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called “historic rights” claim within the nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS and therefore without legal effect. UNCLOS comprehensively allocates maritime entitlements through territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones, and continental shelves. There is no legal basis in UNCLOS for a state to claim almost an entire semi-enclosed sea merely because it wishes to do so.

Changing the terminology from “nine-dash line” to “adjacent waters” does not change the legal reality.

3. On Bajo de Masinloc and Philippine Fishermen

The Tribunal affirmed that Filipino fishermen possess traditional fishing rights at Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal), and that China unlawfully interfered with those rights.

What deeply concerns many observers is how Beijing now portrays Filipino fishermen operating near their own coasts as “provocateurs,” while Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels operate thousands of nautical miles from mainland China inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone under Article 57 of UNCLOS.

That inversion of reality is precisely why the international community increasingly distrusts Beijing’s narrative.

4. On Transparency

The Philippines releases footage because we have nothing to hide.

If China believes the videos are misleading, then Beijing is free to release complete and unedited footage from its own vessels or even embed independent journalists from credible media entities. Yet time and again, China prefers vague accusations over full transparency.

Facts do not fear sunlight. The uncomfortable truth for Beijing is this: the legal debate ended in 2016. What remains is China’s refusal to comply with a binding ruling issued under a treaty that China itself shaped and ratified.

A country cannot selectively obey UNCLOS only when convenient. International law is not a buffet.

And the irony is difficult to miss: Beijing lectures others about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity while simultaneously threatening Taiwan daily, harassing Southeast Asian fishermen in their own EEZs, and deploying coercive maritime tactics across the South China Sea.

The world can see the contradiction clearly. No amount of repetition, propaganda, or coordinated social media posts can overturn the plain text of UNCLOS or erase the 2016 Arbitral Award.

jaytaryela's tweet photo. Five posts in a single day from the Chinese Embassy? That alone tells the world who is truly rattled by facts, transparency, and international law.

A state genuinely confident in its legal position does not spend 24 hours flooding social media with repetitive propaganda disguised as legal arguments just to answer one Philippine Coast Guard officer.

THE LAW AND THE FACTS are clear: the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award is final and binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII of UNCLOS.

1. On China’s 2006 Article 298 Declaration. The Embassy keeps invoking China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS as if this magically exempted China from all arbitration. It did not.

The Philippines deliberately structured its case to avoid questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. The Tribunal carefully examined China’s Article 298 declaration and ruled in its October 2015 Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippine submissions concerned the interpretation and application of UNCLOS — matters fully subject to compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention.

UNCLOS is not subject to the CCP’s propaganda system. In fact, the Tribunal even declined jurisdiction over certain matters involving military activities precisely to respect Article 298 and China’s 2006 declaration.

So the claim that the Tribunal “ignored” China’s declaration is simply false. The Tribunal studied it extensively — and still ruled that it had jurisdiction.

2. On the “Nine-Dash Line”

China cannot rewrite UNCLOS by drawing arbitrary dashes on a map.

The Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called “historic rights” claim within the nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS and therefore without legal effect. UNCLOS comprehensively allocates maritime entitlements through territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones, and continental shelves. There is no legal basis in UNCLOS for a state to claim almost an entire semi-enclosed sea merely because it wishes to do so.

Changing the terminology from “nine-dash line” to “adjacent waters” does not change the legal reality.

3. On Bajo de Masinloc and Philippine Fishermen

The Tribunal affirmed that Filipino fishermen possess traditional fishing rights at Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal), and that China unlawfully interfered with those rights.

What deeply concerns many observers is how Beijing now portrays Filipino fishermen operating near their own coasts as “provocateurs,” while Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels operate thousands of nautical miles from mainland China inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone under Article 57 of UNCLOS.

That inversion of reality is precisely why the international community increasingly distrusts Beijing’s narrative.

4. On Transparency

The Philippines releases footage because we have nothing to hide.

If China believes the videos are misleading, then Beijing is free to release complete and unedited footage from its own vessels or even embed independent journalists from credible media entities. Yet time and again, China prefers vague accusations over full transparency.

Facts do not fear sunlight. The uncomfortable truth for Beijing is this: the legal debate ended in 2016. What remains is China’s refusal to comply with a binding ruling issued under a treaty that China itself shaped and ratified.

A country cannot selectively obey UNCLOS only when convenient. International law is not a buffet.

And the irony is difficult to miss: Beijing lectures others about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity while simultaneously threatening Taiwan daily, harassing Southeast Asian fishermen in their own EEZs, and deploying coercive maritime tactics across the South China Sea.

The world can see the contradiction clearly. No amount of repetition, propaganda, or coordinated social media posts can overturn the plain text of UNCLOS or erase the 2016 Arbitral Award.

jaytaryela's tweet photo. Five posts in a single day from the Chinese Embassy? That alone tells the world who is truly rattled by facts, transparency, and international law.

A state genuinely confident in its legal position does not spend 24 hours flooding social media with repetitive propaganda disguised as legal arguments just to answer one Philippine Coast Guard officer.

THE LAW AND THE FACTS are clear: the 2016 South China Sea Arbitral Award is final and binding under Article 296 of UNCLOS and Article 11 of Annex VII of UNCLOS.

1. On China’s 2006 Article 298 Declaration. The Embassy keeps invoking China’s 2006 declaration under Article 298 of UNCLOS as if this magically exempted China from all arbitration. It did not.

The Philippines deliberately structured its case to avoid questions of territorial sovereignty and maritime boundary delimitation. The Tribunal carefully examined China’s Article 298 declaration and ruled in its October 2015 Award on Jurisdiction that the Philippine submissions concerned the interpretation and application of UNCLOS — matters fully subject to compulsory dispute settlement under Part XV of the Convention.

UNCLOS is not subject to the CCP’s propaganda system. In fact, the Tribunal even declined jurisdiction over certain matters involving military activities precisely to respect Article 298 and China’s 2006 declaration.

So the claim that the Tribunal “ignored” China’s declaration is simply false. The Tribunal studied it extensively — and still ruled that it had jurisdiction.

2. On the “Nine-Dash Line”

China cannot rewrite UNCLOS by drawing arbitrary dashes on a map.

The Tribunal ruled that China’s so-called “historic rights” claim within the nine-dash line is incompatible with UNCLOS and therefore without legal effect. UNCLOS comprehensively allocates maritime entitlements through territorial seas, Exclusive Economic Zones, and continental shelves. There is no legal basis in UNCLOS for a state to claim almost an entire semi-enclosed sea merely because it wishes to do so.

Changing the terminology from “nine-dash line” to “adjacent waters” does not change the legal reality.

3. On Bajo de Masinloc and Philippine Fishermen

The Tribunal affirmed that Filipino fishermen possess traditional fishing rights at Bajo de Masinloc (Scarborough Shoal), and that China unlawfully interfered with those rights.

What deeply concerns many observers is how Beijing now portrays Filipino fishermen operating near their own coasts as “provocateurs,” while Chinese Coast Guard and maritime militia vessels operate thousands of nautical miles from mainland China inside the Philippine Exclusive Economic Zone under Article 57 of UNCLOS.

That inversion of reality is precisely why the international community increasingly distrusts Beijing’s narrative.

4. On Transparency

The Philippines releases footage because we have nothing to hide.

If China believes the videos are misleading, then Beijing is free to release complete and unedited footage from its own vessels or even embed independent journalists from credible media entities. Yet time and again, China prefers vague accusations over full transparency.

Facts do not fear sunlight. The uncomfortable truth for Beijing is this: the legal debate ended in 2016. What remains is China’s refusal to comply with a binding ruling issued under a treaty that China itself shaped and ratified.

A country cannot selectively obey UNCLOS only when convenient. International law is not a buffet.

And the irony is difficult to miss: Beijing lectures others about respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity while simultaneously threatening Taiwan daily, harassing Southeast Asian fishermen in their own EEZs, and deploying coercive maritime tactics across the South China Sea.

The world can see the contradiction clearly. No amount of repetition, propaganda, or coordinated social media posts can overturn the plain text of UNCLOS or erase the 2016 Arbitral Award.

21

2K

416

201

900K

about 1 month ago

@ukinamshet No way. war freak na rubbish behavior pa tlga. Ginawang kabastos bastusin ang senate house of the Philippines nang maging senate president sya. Ginawang taguan ng kriminal and then patatakasin sa batas. Yan ang leadership ng Alan Kawatano the10K man in Philippine history.

0

0

0

0

51

3 months ago

@daddycoolness @jesusfalcis Naku baka magpa party pa mga DDShits pra syo kc nga ndi nila alam ang ibig sabihin ng sarcasm 🤣🤣🤣

0

1

0

0

51

3 months ago

@daddycoolness @jesusfalcis Naku Hindi alam ng mga DuDirty supporters ang ibig sabihin ng sarcasm. With that, baka mag thank you party pa sila para syo dahil s comment mo 🤣🤣🤣 DDShits the Eng Eng followers of Sara Krung krung 🤣🤣🤣

0

0

0

0

5

3 months ago

@daddycoolness @jesusfalcis Bka magpa thank you party pa sila pra syo 🤣🤣🤣

0

0

0

0

5

Jamvihar retweeted

Jesus Falcis 🇵🇭

3 months ago

Abugado si Sara Duterte but requires 16 lawyers to defend her sa impeachment niya. 😂 Abugado si Claire Castro but did not get any lawyer except sarili niya to defend herself against billionaire Leandro Leviste. 👊 #DutertePalpak

56

2K

252

29

47K

3 months ago

@jesusfalcis At kung wala kang kasalanan hindi kailangan ang 16 na abogado. Katwiran cguro ni Sara Sayad klepto DuDirty instead na isoli nya s kaban ng bayan ang ninakaw nya eh uubusin na lng sa pambayad sa abogado nya at sa abogado ng tatay nya karton amoy lupa na sa The Hague.

0

0

0

0

10

3 months ago

@iSabongera Kaya pala nagkaron ng kidney center, heart center, state universities, first metro rail transit in Asia. Famous and historical San Juanico bridge, no flood control ghost projects at at iba pa, and the best thing was Walang DuDirty na namumuno kaya intact ang kaban ng bayan..

0

0

0

0

11

4 months ago

@pinoysiwowie @datumx11 I agree with u👍

0

1

0

0

12

4 months ago

@datumx11 No to Duderte ‼️ their form of government is a crime syndicated. The over all mastermind is now jailed in the ICC detention unit. Tandang hukluban Digongyo is a serial killer, illegal drugs user and trader, psychopath, a thief sa kaban ng bayan. “Like father like children “😱

0

2

0

0

36

4 months ago

@31milmovement Yan ang legacy na iniwan ni tandang hukluban DuDirty, ang magtanim fake evidence and teleserye na intriga dahil KAPIT NA SILA sa PATALIM na kung saan sila mismo tumatanggap ng bayad sa ginagawa nila db mike Defensor the loser ⁉️😜

0

1

0

0

18

Jamvihar retweeted

Thirty One Million

4 months ago

JUSMIYO MARIMAR…. Paulit-ulit na lang ang eksena - parang sirang plaka na nire-recycle pati ang maletang walang laman. 📷 May bagong script at "Drama Rama sa Hapon" na naman itong si Mike Defensor. Masyadong pilit ang pag-arte para lang ilihis ang atensyon ng publiko sa unti-unti nang paglabas ng katotohanan sa ICC Confirmation of Charges. Bago kayo mag-direk ng panibagong serye, baka pwedeng sagutin muna ang tanong ng bayan: “Nasaan Si Guteza?” 📷 CTTO

31milmovement's tweet photo. JUSMIYO MARIMAR….

Paulit-ulit na lang ang eksena - parang sirang plaka na nire-recycle pati ang maletang walang laman. 📷
May bagong script at "Drama Rama sa Hapon" na naman itong si Mike Defensor. Masyadong pilit ang pag-arte para lang ilihis ang atensyon ng publiko sa unti-unti nang paglabas ng katotohanan sa ICC Confirmation of Charges.

Bago kayo mag-direk ng panibagong serye, baka pwedeng sagutin muna ang tanong ng bayan:
“Nasaan Si Guteza?”

📷 CTTO

26

173

40

3

13K

4 months ago

@srsasot_ Tell that to the marines .. lawiswis ka😜 pati pagkamatay ni Magellan ibintang nyo na rin kay PBBM😜

0

0

0

0

5

4 months ago

@fierceLady08 Matagal nyo ng Presidente si Sara Sayad klepto DuDirty db. Sya mismo nagsabi na president nyo sya sa impyerno 😱😱😱

0

0

0

0

4

4 months ago

@LeeJoseh1 Ora mismo gamitan mo ng kamay mong bakal ang sarili mo Mary Grace Piattos.

0

0

0

0

3

4 months ago

@smninews Putik ka binaboy mo at ng pamilya mo ang PILIPINAS .. ayusin mo muna ang pagkatao ng DuDirty family bago ang PILIPINAS lukareta k tlga.

0

0

0

0

3

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users

Olivia

Online

✨

⭐

💫