Talk:Politics of the Philippines

Untitled

This article is very poorly written from a ligustic standpoint and not up to Wikipedia standards. Aditionally, it is very horribly biased and favors heavily the personal opinion of the author.

Eek, I agree. I can't even touch it with a ten foot pole. I'll try to rephrase, delete POV stuff, wikify, correct gramamr tommorow. Too tired.--Chicbicyclist 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

edit it!

This article on the philipines is very biased and based purely on the authors point of view. CHANGE IT!

Biased i2 about the liberal party. remove the bias. aside from that, i feel this ok. i will remove it now.

Justox dizaola 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is reeking of biasphobia. I edited some of it but I am limited of my knowledge of the Philippine Government. Someone needs to grab a book and see to this article's revision. JonSnow 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a little bit of editing myself, but I have to agree that this article is very biased. --Akira123323 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

biased pala ito..tsk tsk..be fair..imj doinf my assignments eh..ty!````me..

Damb... This need great clean up... Kendelarosa5357 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Corruption?

In addition, maybe we should add a section regarding the presence of corruption and electoral fraud? Maybe a historical perspective describing methods and techniques, and countermeasures.

203.87.175.41 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can edit the page, but I am neophyte in wiki, so I won't be able to wikify it.Yeye 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT

May I suggest that there should be a longer and more detailed portion of this article which refers more to the Local Government since it has practically the largest number of political offices and political positions in the Philippine government. God bless Charlie alpha (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of the Philippines" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

Split government of the Philippines from the article

It deserves its own article. Nuff said. Moray An Par (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Other countries have two separate articles, so it's not a bad idea. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar has some nice articles that can be used in creating a "politics" article as a "government" article should be easier to make. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably give this a go. Here's a sample outline, and most must be brief (powers, manner of election, appointment, brief history):

1. National government
   1. Executive branch
      1. President
      2. Vice President
      3. Cabinet
      4. Bureaucracy
   2. Legislative branch (Congress)
      1. Senate
      2. House of Representatives
   3. Judiciary
      1. Supreme Court
      2. Court of Appeals
      3. Court of Tax Appeals
      4. Sandiganbayan
   4. Constitutional Commissions
      1. COMELEC
      2. COA
      3. CSC
   5. GOCCs
2. Local government
   1. Local government hierarchy (Autonomous region->Province/City->City/Municipality->Barangay)
   2. Local chief executive (Regional governor->Governor/Mayor->Mayor->Baragay Captain
   3. Local legislatures (Regional Legislative Assembly->Sanggunians
   4. Regional trial courts
   5. Autonomous regions

BTW, I tried looking for a WP:FA/WP:GA-class "Government of Foo" article and it appears Wikipedia doesn't have one. That could've been a good model. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Batasang Pambansa Complex Main Building.jpg (discussion)
• Facade of the Senate of the Philippines.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Malacañang Palace (Cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Length and History

This article is now 72kB long, which is well above the 40-60kB recommended size. Most of that is the current History section, which is almost 40kB by itself. Given that is long enough to be a standalone (and I think it would be a reasonable quality one), I think it would make sense to split off most of that into its own article, leaving behind a summary. The question then is how much should be included in this summary. My preference would be keeping it quite small, perhaps with only pre-independence and post-independence subsections, or no subsections at all, and sticking to information that directly relates to topics covered elsewhere in the article. A smaller History section would leave more space for expansion on the current political structure and situation, which is probably where this article's focus should be. (There's also a bit of history scattered in other sections, which could be kept or excized depending on what works best for those sections.) Such a split would also allow the spun-off history article to get a bit more detailed, although it's already reasonably comprehensive. Any thoughts? CMD (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

With the article now at 89kB, I have split off history to Political history of the Philippines. CMD (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Politics of the Philippines/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GhostRiver (talk · contribs) 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this article has been waiting at GAN for long enough! — GhostRiver 17:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Infobox and lede

• "who is both the head of state" → "who serves as both the head of state"
• "president" is lowercase upon its first introduction and capitalized throughout. It's my understanding that president-as-occupation is lowercase, whereas president-as-title is capitalized, if that makes any sense
• "Civil and Common law" → "civil and common law"
• Delink "Spain" and "United States" per MOS:OVERLINK
• In the infobox, per MOS:SEAOFBLUE, all of "constitutional republic" can be linked to just "republic", as the Constitution of the Philippines is already linked just below

Executive

• "To be eligible for the presidency,"
• "Vice President" should be linked at the first mention (first sentence of second paragraph) and then delinked later in the paragraph
• I'm not sure how best to rephrase "aside from acting as president when the latter is unable to do so". It reads awkwardly, as the circumstances under which the VP might become acting president are illustrated later, but that sentence can't easily be moved
• Link the first instance of "Cabinet" to Cabinet of the Philippines
• "Cabinet includes" → "The Cabinet includes"
• "The President is also given several emergency military powers," → "This title gives the President several emergency military powers" to prevent two sentences from starting "The President is also"
• What is "this" in "although this automatically ends"? Is it martial law, habeas corpus, or all the powers?

Legislature

• elected via the plurality-at-large voting with the country as one at-large "district". a little awkward, I think the "the" after "via" might be extraneous
• "senate seats" → "Senate seats"
• "every 3 years" → "every three years" per MOS:NUMERAL
• "with the rest elected" → "and the rest elected"
• sine die should be italicized
• "Congress' decisions" → "Congress's decisions" per MOS:'S

Judiciary

• arranged in along a cut either "in" or "along"
• "with those on the same level are unable"
• "where both parties are Muslims" → "where both parties are Muslim"
• "although the President has influence" → "although they have influence"
• Traditionally the most senior associate justice became the Chief Justice, however President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo broke with this tradition. This led to her successor, President Benigno Aquino III, taking his oath of office before an associate justice rather than the Chief Justice. Subsequently, Aquino bypassed seniority in other judicial appointments. Requires a little more explanation

Legal system

• "Civil Law ... Common Law" → "civil law ... common law"
• Delink "Sharia Law" (linked earlier) and make it "Sharia law"
• "shall be consistent" → "must be consistent"
• "and 1987, respectively."
• No comma after "establishing a temporary constitution"
• seen by some is there a particular faction more in support of a unicameral system than others?
• It has also been argued see above
• I believe "stare decisis" should be italicized as a Latin term
• "Catholic church" → "Catholic Church"
• Delink "President" in the bottom paragraph

Elections

• which are six years Confusing syntax, subject could be interpreted as "president, vice president, and senators" rather than for terms
• "up to a fifth" → "up to one-fifth"
• "with the x candidates with the highest number of votes being elected." → "from which the x candidates with the highest number of votes are elected."
• Lowercase "first" in "first-past-the-post"
• Delink Commission on Elections and just use the acronym in the fifth paragraph; already spelled out and linked above in the first
• "Both cases did not succeed" → "Neither case succeeded"

Local government

• "Both actions however left" → "Both actions, however, left"
• "article X" → "Article X"
• Include "elections" in the link around "In 1990 elections were held"

Culture and influences

• "75%" → "75 percent" per MOS:PERCENT
• No comma after "often created to propel a single candidate"
• Comma after "In 1992" and "In 2010"
• "of the house of representatives" → "of the House of Representatives"
• "Contrasted to" → "Contrasted with"
• The section in parentheses would make more sense as a note than as a parenthetical sentence
• No comma after "and weddings"

Catholic Church

• "the church" → "the Church" throughout (lowercase is a building, uppercase is the institution)
• "unifying moral framework transcends" → "unifying moral framework that transcends"
• "catholic youth" → "Catholic youth" (same deal, lowercase is a synonym for "universal")
• "development, not" either "which is not" or "and is not"

Military

• Delink "the" in "the communist"

United States

• Despite independence, unclear clause – can be inferred from context clues that it's Philippine independence, but sentence setup could also suggest US
• "veterans networks" → "veterans' networks"
• Hukbalahap is capitalized once and lowercase in the next sentence
• backed opposition coalition building, confusing syntax
• "United States ties security ties" → "United States, security ties"
• "War on terror" → "War on Terror"

History

Pre-independence

• Link Ferdinand Magellan and mention when he arrived
• "Ilustrados" is sometimes capitalized, sometimes not
• Mention the year of the Tydings-McDuffie Act
• Commas around "respectively" in the sentence beginning "Quezon and Osmeña were elected"
• "was inconsistent, with it sometimes being treated as a separate country and sometimes being treated as under United States jurisdiction." → "was inconsistent: sometimes it was treated as a separate country, sometimes as under US jurisdiction."

Independence

• "succumbed to a heart attack in 1948" → "suffered a fatal heart attack in 1948"
• "from having a Muslim majority to having a Christian majority." → "from a Muslim to a Christian majority"
• to alter introduced a code ?
• "The 1992 elections was the first" subject/verb agreement
• "Ramos' vice president" → "Ramos's vice president" per MOS:'S
• "Emassive protests" → "massive protests"
• "however it did not succeed" → "which was ultimately unsuccessful"
• The paragraph beginning "Arroyo" uses her name six or seven times; can this para be reworded to reduce that?
• Delink "massive" in the phrase "massive War on Drugs"
• Move the last photo up a paragraph to avoid MOS:SANDWICH issues

References

• Good

General comments

• Images are properly licensed and relevant
• No stability concerns in the revision history
• Earwig score looks good

Thank you for bearing with me! Putting this on hold now; as always, feel free to ping me with questions or comments, and let me know when you're finished! — GhostRiver 21:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: I must apologise that you have caught me at a very busy period. Would it be possible to extend this beyond a week so I can try and find some time to get to it? CMD (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis I can leave this open indefinitely as long as you're in communication with me. — GhostRiver 16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I can certainly maintain communication as needed. CMD (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Notes:

• Still have to figure out capitalization of President etc.
• In Judiciary I simplified rather than expanded. There's a bit more detail on the main article, but it seemed undue to go into the detail here.
• For your questions in Legal system, I don't know of any particular names for factions. Many ideas have risen and fallen at different times due to different people.

CMD (talk) 07:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@GhostRiver: I think I've dealt with all of the above! Sorry it took so long. CMD (talk) 05:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Chipmunkdavis Now it appears to be my time to apologize for lateness! Everything looks good – happy to pass! — GhostRiver 17:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that although the politics of the Philippines is dominated by elite families, democracy remains widely popular? Source: pp178-179
  • ALT1: ... that a one-term limit for the presidency contributes to the politics of the Philippines having a multi-party system rather than a two-party system? Source: pp 488-489

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chile Ridge
• Comment: Welcome other hook ideas, it's an interesting topic. No strong preference between the two suggested.

Improved to Good Article status by Chipmunkdavis (talk). Self-nominated at 16:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC).

• Article was promoted to GA status on time and meets DYK requirements. Close paraphrasing was not found and a QPQ has been provided. ALT0 is cited inline and verified; ALT1's source has a paywall so I am assuming good faith here. Article is technically good to go, but I'm withholding giving final approval for now, not because of any deficiencies, but because the article is indeed interesting and additional hooks could probably be proposed here (though both hooks are good: I have a slight preference for ALT1 myself). Also, while not a DYK issue, I'd suggest mentioning that the President/VP/Senators/Representatives/Justices all have to be natural-born citizens, since it's not currently mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: sorry, it's been a very busy period and I forgot about this. Are there particular topics you would like me to try making hooks for? As for the natural-born part if you have a source I'm happy to work that in (especially a secondary source), but I don't have time right now to go out looking. CMD (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: Is the constitution itself not a good enough source? It's mentioned multiple times there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Helps regarding due weight and interpretation. Given recent court cases there are probably secondary sources out there. I'm sure I'll have an eye out for them now that it's in my head. CMD (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Chipmunkdavis: Given that there are no DYK-related issues with the article itself and both of my suggestions were more on the "how to improve the article" side rather than actual DYK concerns, I'm willing to approve this if you're unable to think of any other hook suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Some alts:

• • ALT2: ... that discretionary spending used by those involved in the politics of the Philippines has a reputation for being used for patronage and corruption?
  • ALT3: ... that the politics of the Philippines combines single-district voting with a parallel party-list system?
  • ALT4: ... that within the three-branch system of the politics of the Philippines, the supreme court has the power to write law?
  • ALT5: ... that continuing influence of the Catholic Church in the politics of the Philippines means the country lacks a divorce law?

CMD (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for the new hooks. In order of personal preference, ALT1, ALT5, and ALT4 are approved; however I will leave the final choice in hook to the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

ALT5 to T:DYK/P5

Implementation of the party list system

It's possible to be more specific about the implementation of the party list system. Current text says it "was not implemented until 1998." It would be more accurate to say that it was implemented in 1995 with the passing of the Party-List System Act (Republic Act 7941). The year 1998 is relevant because that was the year that party list elections were first held. I don't yet have a secondary source for this, otherwise I'd make the edit myself. --Aingotno (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Found a source and made the edit. --Aingotno (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

@Aingotno: That source shows as a 404 for me, and it has two different sets of page numbers. Could you check? CMD (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you've now fixed it for me. Thanks. Aingotno (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)