@yoannafreestyle: Rater le plus simple BE LIKE

Yoanna

Open In TikTok:

Region: FR

Thursday 26 May 2022 15:36:19 GMT

138560

10622

58

162

Music

Download

No Watermark .mp4 (2.67MB) No Watermark(HD) .mp4 (8.1MB) Watermark .mp4 (0MB) Music .mp3

Comments

matt_bcqd :

C'était si smooth

2022-05-26 15:44:59

10

just_me. :

kapan ke Indonesia lagi ka Fiona🥰🥰🥰

2022-05-26 15:48:40

8

kevininho :

La classe quand même 💪😎

2022-05-26 16:04:27

4

smh gouidi :

🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🥰🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳🇹🇳

2022-05-26 16:49:54

4

Nastya :

Hello!

2022-05-26 15:39:16

3

Phipz🧿 :

morning sis

2022-05-27 23:33:04

3

kizor_ :

hello

2022-05-26 15:47:17

3

Dũng lapulga :

wow 😱

2022-05-26 15:38:58

3

To see more videos from user @yoannafreestyle, please go to the Tikwm homepage.

Other Videos

Nhảy lại i

La sabiduría de Jesús #sabiduria #labiblia

La sabiduría de Jesús #sabiduria #labiblia

masi sv kah? #fyp #fouryoupage #xyzb #fyp #4u #4upageシ #woww #kiw

masi sv kah? #fyp #fouryoupage #xyzb #fyp #4u #4upageシ #woww #kiw

$ARE WE STILL A SOVEREIGN NATION? Editorial: Tio Moreno The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws, policies, and actions of government officials must conform to it, and any violation of its provisions is an offense against the Filipino people. On January 23, 2024, President Bongbong Marcos declared, for the “100th time,” that he does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the Philippines. He further stated that the government will not cooperate with any ICC investigation, as he considers it a threat to national sovereignty. To be fair, this stance aligns with his presidential oath under Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, where he swore to “preserve and defend the Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.” Since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute on March 17, 2019, the ICC's authority over the country is questionable. However, the Supreme Court, in Pimentel v. Cayetano, ruled that the Philippines retains residual obligations to cooperate with the ICC for investigations initiated before the withdrawal. But it is important to note that this ruling was merely obiter dictum—a legal term referring to an incidental opinion, not binding precedent. The actual issue in that case was whether the President could unilaterally withdraw from the ICC without Senate concurrence. This means that we don’t have any ruling yet that would justify the necessity of allowing ICC to intervene, especially when it comes to the case at hand. The principle of complementarity under Article 17 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC can only intervene when a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute the alleged crimes. The ICC defers to domestic courts if they are actively investigating and prosecuting crimes. However, President Marcos' decision to allow ICC proceedings against former President Rodrigo Duterte suggests that the Philippine judiciary is “incapable” or “unwilling” to handle the case. This, in effect, is an admission that our domestic courts lack the ability to ensure justice—an assertion that undermines our judicial system and national sovereignty. FPRRD previously warned of a fractured government, and this situation proves his point. This is no longer just about Duterte vs. Marcos. This is whether or not the Philippines is still a sovereign nation, or have we surrendered our right to administer justice to a foreign tribunal? The Marcos admin’s move to allow ICC arrest is tantamount to selling the sovereignty of the Philippines to the ICC. This could constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution under Article XI, Section 2, which holds public officials accountable for betrayal of public trust. The only way for us to determine if BBM has truly violated the 1987 Constitution is to impeach him. The fate of Philippine sovereignty rests on how we choose to handle this controversy. IMPEACH BONGBONG MARCOS NOW!$
ARE WE STILL A SOVEREIGN NATION? Editorial: Tio Moreno The 1987 Philippine Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws, policies, and actions of government officials must conform to it, and any violation of its provisions is an offense against the Filipino people. On January 23, 2024, President Bongbong Marcos declared, for the “100th time,” that he does not recognize the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) over the Philippines. He further stated that the government will not cooperate with any ICC investigation, as he considers it a threat to national sovereignty. To be fair, this stance aligns with his presidential oath under Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, where he swore to “preserve and defend the Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation.” Since the Philippines withdrew from the Rome Statute on March 17, 2019, the ICC's authority over the country is questionable. However, the Supreme Court, in Pimentel v. Cayetano, ruled that the Philippines retains residual obligations to cooperate with the ICC for investigations initiated before the withdrawal. But it is important to note that this ruling was merely obiter dictum—a legal term referring to an incidental opinion, not binding precedent. The actual issue in that case was whether the President could unilaterally withdraw from the ICC without Senate concurrence. This means that we don’t have any ruling yet that would justify the necessity of allowing ICC to intervene, especially when it comes to the case at hand. The principle of complementarity under Article 17 of the Rome Statute states that the ICC can only intervene when a country is unwilling or unable to prosecute the alleged crimes. The ICC defers to domestic courts if they are actively investigating and prosecuting crimes. However, President Marcos' decision to allow ICC proceedings against former President Rodrigo Duterte suggests that the Philippine judiciary is “incapable” or “unwilling” to handle the case. This, in effect, is an admission that our domestic courts lack the ability to ensure justice—an assertion that undermines our judicial system and national sovereignty. FPRRD previously warned of a fractured government, and this situation proves his point. This is no longer just about Duterte vs. Marcos. This is whether or not the Philippines is still a sovereign nation, or have we surrendered our right to administer justice to a foreign tribunal? The Marcos admin’s move to allow ICC arrest is tantamount to selling the sovereignty of the Philippines to the ICC. This could constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution under Article XI, Section 2, which holds public officials accountable for betrayal of public trust. The only way for us to determine if BBM has truly violated the 1987 Constitution is to impeach him. The fate of Philippine sovereignty rests on how we choose to handle this controversy. IMPEACH BONGBONG MARCOS NOW!

About

Robot

Legal

Privacy Policy