tian

kalat slash landi acct / slim

[denguisis @isisw1ft]

acho que corpos assim meio gordinho melhor que aqueles sarados de academia

[tian @jjmaineee]

@imnathanieltiu Daddy 🥵

[thirst aid @thirst_aider]

could be us

[tian @jjmaineee]

Cute kaayo ang guy ganina sa cafe

[AJ Planet @AJPlanetFriends]

Ipinagyabang mo agad sa plenary yung faked video presentation mo, ni hindi mo muna ginamitan ng konting utak para pag-aralan. Ngayon, pumalpak; sisihin mo ang staff mo.🤣🤣🤣

[Jay Tarriela @jaytaryela]

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.

[Jisi ⌬℞🌻 @jacedfghjkl]

And this is also why Ramon Ang with all his will and might, do his best to never see this lady in Malacañang.

[DAVAOMIGRANT @nabunturanguy]

Nice one from FB.
Care to comment @piacayetano ?

[yusuke @juanvenchy]

top? bottom? i’m whatever we need to make this happen baby

[_-":*/_ @kweendum]

"Gusto kong pisilin ang mukha ni Sara Duterte daming tanga na naniniwala sa tanga na yan"

Ganyan nga kuya!

[🌙 @itgirlnadine]

ano ba dapat? bumoto ng tanga sa susunod na eleksyon? 😭

[tian @jjmaineee]

@27shawspa Congrats! Cebu next, please! We need you guys here.

[tian @jjmaineee]

Please be Cebu 🥺

[27SHAW @27shawspa]

Unlocking soon. 🖤

#ThisIs27Shaw

[tian @jjmaineee]

@ArouseSungJnWoo I volunteer as tribute hehe

[tian @jjmaineee]

@akionikolai No abs, no problem

[tian @jjmaineee]

@pakyutothem00n Okay kaayo hahaha

[tian @jjmaineee]

I agree that people shouldn’t stay too long at cafes, but the point of the post was to show how they can afford the lifestyle which was heavily questioned in the 1st issue. It’s already hard enough to be gay, yet fellow queers make it even harder by dissecting everyone’s actions

[DAVAOMIGRANT @nabunturanguy]

Occupied talaga nila ang window area ng Starbucks Boracay, while showing everyone that they “can afford the lifestyle” many are jealous about. Ah ok. Kaya lang (1) nagbabakasyon ka ba o nagtatrabaho? (2) nag-e-enjoy ka ba sa view o nakatutok ka lang sa laptop mo? (3) ok lang sa inyo na occupied ninyo ang “best seats” in the place while depriving others of the chance to fully enjoy the view-and their vacation? (4) Ilang oras naman kayo diyan at ilang drinks naman ang inorder niyo? Baka lugi na sa Inyo ang SB? For me, VACATION SHOULD BE VACATION, WORK SHOULD BE WORK. There’s no such thing as “working vacation.” Sino maiinggit sa Inyo niyan?

[tian @jjmaineee]

Sad to see that one viral gay beach event being bashed by other gays. We all live differently, so no need to drag others down for the lifestyle they chose. Personally, that lifestyle wasn’t for me too, but I’m glad to see other gays living the life they worked hard for.