Talk:Cities of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.

"There are three metropolitan areas in the Philippines. Metro Manila is the largest conurbation or urban agglomeration in the country. It is composed of the city of Manila plus 16 neighboring cities and municipalities. The second is Metro Cebu in Cebu province. It is composed of Cebu City plus Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu City. The third is Metro Naga in Camarines Sur province. It is composed of Naga City plus 14 neighboring municipalities, including the provincial capital, Pili."

---The factuality and neutrality of the above paragraph is compromised---there are only two metropolitan areas in the Philippines: Manila and Cebu. Naga City and/or Metro Naga fitting the description of "large conurbation or urban agglomeration" is unlikely. One crude definition of a metro region is this: an area composed of two or more neighboring cities with the preponderance of the urban landscape having a continuous built-up environment.--- unsigned comment by User:Jordz, 01:22, 1 February 2006

I agree that "Metro Naga" probably does not fit the definition of a metropolitan area-- but then again, the term "metropolitan area" is so informally defined that the argument can go around in circles. People even throw around terms like "Metro Dumaguete" and "Metro Bacolod" very lightly. I'm open to any suggestions you might have about rewriting that paragraph. Coffee 18:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Curiously, when used in English, the names of all Philippine cities except Manila are suffixed with “City”, even in colloquial use or when not part of a province of the same name. Thus, a city named Chicago in the Philippines would be in English called “Chicago City”.

---Cite sources. This paragraph is poorly constructed and subjective.---

Contents

[edit] Independent cities

Okay, which cities are considered to be independent? I know that all cities in Metro Manila are independent. Cebu City and Davao City too. What are the others? --Howard the Duck | talk, 08:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, according to http://www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/datapop.html this], highly urbanized cities are the following:

  1. Angeles City
  2. Bacolod City
  3. Baguio City
  4. Butuan City
  5. Cagayan de Oro City
  6. Caloocan City
  7. Cebu City
  8. Cotabato City
  9. Davao City
  10. General Santos City
  11. Iligan City
  12. Iloilo City
  13. Lucena City
  14. Mandaue City
  15. Manila
  16. Marawi City
  17. Olongapo City
  18. Pasig City
  19. Quezon City
  20. Valenzuela City
  21. Zamboanga City

In addition, several other cities in Metro Manila are not part of a province, so they'd be styled as "independent cities."

Now what would be repurcussions? The maps and templates would have to be redone. Templates will be easy but the maps won't. --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that though not all HUCs are independent. Butuan and Lucena are HUCs for example, but they're not independent. Even Naga, which is a chartered city, is not completely independent. The prerequisite I think for a truly independent city is that these cities have representation in Congress. San Jose del Monte City, for example, is an independent city. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 16:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I know a city for it to be independent/HUC is that the citizens won't vote for a provincial governor and board members as seen on Article X, Sect. 12:
Section 12. Cities that are highly urbanized, as determined by law, and component cities whose charters prohibit their voters from voting for provincial elective officials, shall be independent of the province. The voters of component cities within a province, whose charters contain no such prohibition, shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective provincial officials.
Perhaps the phrasing in the article is incorrect, they're not chartered cities but as HUCs? Or are chartered cities and HUC different? Are they the same? --Howard the Duck | talk, 16:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)Fine reading of that section tells me:
  1. All HUCs are independent.
  2. Some component cities are independent, as long as their charter says so.
--Howard the Duck | talk, 16:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That would be according to the Constitution. I'll check the Local Government Code for more details. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 17:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. --Howard the Duck | talk, 17:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Chartered cities are simply the cities prior to the enactment of the Local Government Code of 1991. When the Local Government Code of 1991 was enacted, they were then classified as highly urbanized cities or component cities. Prior to the Local Government Code of 1991 no clear distinction can be made as to whether they are independent from their mother province or not, except when it is provided in their city charter. -- Scorpion prinz | talk, 14:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Just noting that in the Census web page, the cities that are explicitly excluded from the province tabulations and which are also listed on the same level as provinces on these tabulations are the following: Baguio City, Angeles City, Olongapo City, Iloilo City, Bacolod City, Cebu City, Mandaue City, Zamboanga City, Cagayan de Oro City, Davao City, Gen. Santos City, Iligan City, Cotabato City, Marawi City, Butuan City. My guess is that these are the iindependent cities. Plus of course the ones in Metro Manila. Polaron | Talk 16:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another possible thing to look at for these discussions is that a city that is functionally independent of the province must not be a provincial capital. Polaron | Talk 14:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not always the case. An independent city may be the provincial capital. However, User:Scorpion prinz gave me a list on my talk page:
Highly urbanized cities:
  1. Baguio City (from Benguet)
  2. Angeles City (from Pampanga)
  3. Olongapo City (from Zambales)
  4. Lucena City (from Quezon)
  5. Bacolod City (from Negros Occidental)
  6. Iloilo City (from Iloilo Province)
  7. Cebu City (from Cebu Province)
  8. Mandaue City (from Cebu Province)
  9. Zamboanga City (from Zamboanga del Sur)
  10. Iligan City (from Lanao del Norte)
  11. Cagayan de Oro City (from Misamis Oriental)
  12. Davao City (from Davao del Sur)
  13. General Santos City (from South Cotabato)
  14. Butuan City (from Agusan del Norte)
  15. Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Taguig, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Caloocan, Malabon, Valenzuela (all from Metro Manila);
Independent component cities:
  1. Santiago City (from Isabela)
  2. Ormoc City (Leyte Province)
  3. Cotabato City (from Maguindanao)
Which roughly coincides to the list at the top. The differences were, Olongapo, Ormoc and Santiago are added, while Marawi is excluded at the bottom list.
--Howard the Duck | talk, 14:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Olongapo is in the top list. Lucena is the one that is not. Cities in both lists that are also provincial capitals are: Lucena, Bacolod, Iloilo, Cebu, Cagayan de Oro, Butuan. Polaron | Talk 14:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
So are we going to mention this already in the article? --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me add another criterion: the city must have its own congressional representative. The independent cities with its own representatives are: Bacolod, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Davao, Iloilo, Zamboanga. If we apply both representation and non-provincial capital criteria, the list just becomes: Baguio City, Davao City, and Zamboanga City.
In my opinion, the cities of Baguio, Davao, and Zamboanga can be considered truly independent from any province because they satisfy the criteria that (a) they are not under the jurisdiction of any province; (b) they do not serve as the seat of government of any province; and (c) they have their own representatives to Congress. My opinion is that these three cities are primary subdivisions equivalent to provinces. I don't know if that's how the Philippine government views them though. Anyway, just my opinion. Polaron | Talk 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I'll just re-post what I posted under Zamboanga City's discussion and Howard the Duck talk page. I'll just add another few points.
I have reservations in showing Zamboanga City apart from its mother province Zamboanga del Sur. I guess for the resolution of this issue, the following points would have to be considered:
It is true that highly urbanized cities are independent from their mother province. This is affirmed by Section 29 of the Local Government Code which provides that: Highly urbanized cities and independent component cities shall be independent of the province. No legislation of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan can be made applicable to them, and residents of the highly urbanized cities do not vote for provincial officials.
The Local Government Code of 1991 provides (Chapter 3, Article I, Section 25) — The President shall exercise supervisory authority directly over provinces, highly urbanized cities, and independent component cities; through the province with respect to component cities and municipalities; and through the city and municipality with respect to Barangays.
If this is the case the First Level Subdivision or the primary political subdivision of the Philippines are not the 79 provinces alone but shall include the 2 special cities (Manila and Quezon City), 27 highly urbanized cities, 2 independent component cities, 3 independent municipalities of Metro Manila. As the chief executives of these local government units report directly to the Philippine President. This is the way I understand the administrative heirarchy as presented under the Local Government Code.
The Second Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the component cities and municipalities of the Philippines.
The Third Level Subdivision of the Philippines are the barangays.
However, as listed in the Philippine Standard Geographic Code, the highly urbanized provinces are grouped together with the municipalities of its mother province. The cities and towns of Metro Manila should be an exception.
The basis for an independent city should be no other than their city charter, regardless if the provincial capitol is still located within its city limits.
In a nutshell if we decide that Zamboanga City be shown apart from its mother province being an highly urbanized city then it must also be the case for other highly urbanized cities and the independent component cities which are as follows (as provided in the Philippine Standard Geographic Code):
Highly Urbanized Cities:
  1. Baguio City (from Benguet)
  2. Angeles City (from Pampanga)
  3. Olongapo City (from Zambales)
  4. Lucena City (from Quezon)
  5. Bacolod City (from Negros Occidental)
  6. Iloilo City (from Iloilo Province)
  7. Cebu and Mandaue Cities (from Cebu Province)
  8. Zamboanga City (from Zamboanga del Sur)
  9. Iligan City (from Lanao del Norte)
  10. Cagayan de Oro City (from Misamis Oriental)
  11. Davao City (from Davao del Sur)
  12. General Santos City (from South Cotabato)
  13. Butuan City (from Agusan del Norte)
  14. Las Piñas, Makati, Muntinlupa, Parañaque, Pasay, Pasig, Taguig, Mandaluyong, Marikina, Pasig, Caloocan, Malabon, Valenzuela (all from Metro Manila)
Independent Component Cities
  1. Santiago City (from Isabela)
  2. Ormoc City (from Leyte Province)
  3. Cotabato City (from Maguindanao)
I say can we just follow the status quo, of showing these highly urbanized cities and independent component cities as part of their province? Otherwise the repercussions would be enormous as the delineation of the boundaries of these cities would have to be carved out of the provinces in a Philippine map. And we would have to subtract the land area and population of these independent cities from the provincial totals.
If we will be so very particular of delineating these, might as well show the area that Manila South Cemetery occupies as a City of Manila enclave in Makati City. It might be interesting to know that Makati doesn't have jurisdiction over the area and I have confirmed this with the officials I have talked to at the Manila South Cemetery. I have an old map of Manila (circa 1950s) which shows the area of Manila South Cemetery as part of the City of Manila.
P.S. I don't know how to edit the maps, but the maps of San Nicolas, Batangas and Talisay, Batangas would have to be updated because as these towns have jurisdiction over Volcano island. Talisay exercises jurisdiction over the northern-half while San Nicolas exercises jurisdiction over the southern-half of the island as show in www.mapcentral.ph. — By the way www.mapcentral.ph also shows the highly urbanized cities and independent component cities as part of their mother province. The site also shows the barangay territory limits all over the Philippines. --Scorpion prinz | talk, 13:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Whew, I hate this whole "independent city" thing. It makes it all so confusing. But I knew this issue would have to come up eventually. Clearly we can't just pretend that these cities are simply part of their provinces, but we also can't remove them from their provinces entirely because that would make a big mess of "first levels subdivisions". I say we keep the cities in the province templates (i.e. put Baguio City back into Template:Benguet) and put footnotes (like in Template:Asia) explaining that though the city is often grouped with the province for statistical purposes, it is politically independent. As for the locator maps... I think it's fine to keep most of them as they are. Perhaps Zamboanga City is a special case though, since it is physically separated from Zamboanga del Sur. By the way, if any maps need updating, just leave a note on my talk page and I can take care of it, as I still have the original source files. Coffee 06:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Have a look at all of the locator maps you created for the municipalities of Zamboanga del Sur. All of these maps erronously show Zamboanga City as part of Zamboanga del Sur. No wonder, www.zamboanga.com alleges cyber terrorism on Zamboanga del Sur province www.zamboanga.com's criticism.

TheCoffee, for your information (obviously you are ignorant about Zamboanga City and her charter - no pun intended) Zamboanga City is an independent chartered city. She does not belong to any province, nor does any province own her. Zamboanga City has NO MOTHER PROVINCE whatsoever the way she has been portrayed in Wikipedia in all of these incorrect locator maps! Even if you associate Zamboanga City to any province geographically, this is still against the sovereignity of Zamboanga City. Now please, I urge you to edit those incorrect locator maps ASAP because those locator maps are stirring controversy and therefore is against Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This issue is sensitive as far as Zamboangeños are concerned. Because you created those incorrect locator maps, I believe it is your responsibility to edit and correct them. Gracias. --Weekeejames 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think everything we can all look at it this way, that all these independent cities are a de facto part of its mother province, but function indepedently. It will be much better that we won't create an exception for Zamboanga City because that would already be double-standard, lest we start the discussion all over again. The only reason why Zamboanga City is physically separated from the rest of Zamboanga del Sur, was due to the fact that the municipalities of Zamboanga Sibugay comprise what was the 3rd congressional district of Zamboanga del Sur, and it has been the practice of these congressmen to carve their district to become a province so they can consolidate their political base and have other positions to run for, when their three-term limit expires. We have seen this practice before in several failed attempts to create Quezon del Sur, Mindoro del Sur, Cebu del Norte, etc. --Scorpion prinz | talk, 19:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
The census tabulations already separate most of the cities you listed. (only Lucena, Santiago, Ormoc are not listed separately). Can someone inquire with the government whether some or all of these independent cities are treated as equivalent to provinces?
In the U.S. state of Virginia, cities are independent of counties so the subdivisions of Virginia are counties and cities. In South Korea and China, several important cities are given the status of primary subdivision equivalent to provinces. In our case, the grouping of independent cities under a province is mainly for statistical convenience. On paper and in practice, some of these cities are truly independent (particularly Baguio, Davao, and Zamboanga) and behave and are treated the same way as provinces. I will check the official government websites of the provinces containing independent cities later to see if they include them. Polaron | Talk 13:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

These are how the provinces treat these cities according to their official websites:

  • Unknown/Unclear
    • Negros Occidental — website in testing; official Bacolod City page proclaims on its main page that it is the capital of Negros Occidental
    • Cebu — the stats listed are mixed (some include Cebu City while some don't); links to cities/municipalities inlcude both Cebu City and Mandaue City; also Cebu City is the capital of the province
    • Lanao del Norte — stats exclude Iligan but the map includes it; the official Iligan city website does not mention Lanao del Norte except in certain news items
    • Agusan del Norte — map includes Butuan but the text seems to indicate that it is outside the province; Butuan is the capital of the province
    • Lanao del Sur — Marawi is not in the list of cities/municipalities but the text on tourism talks about Marawi

-- Polaron | Talk 04:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a checklist of the cities and municipalities with and without infoboxes? So one by one we can work on them? --Scorpion prinz | talk, 00:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

According to what I checked from the DILG, their database of cities and municipalities still group the cities according to their mother provinces, regardless if they're independent, chartered or HUC, excluding Metro Manila. I'm not sure of the accuracy of the database, but I think that if the city says they're in that province, they're in that province (for some reason, some websites don't work). --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 07:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

My take on the cities in having their own representative at the House: mdethinks that it is irrelevant for in reality, legislative districts are formed for the sole purpose of having Congressmen. If a city doesn't vote for provincial officials during the elections, then they're independent, even if they're the capital of their mother province. --Howard the Duck | talk, 07:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if all city websites actually state that they do or do not vote for provincial officials. I might just inspect the websites of all HUCs and ICCs (independent component cities) to see whether they explicitly state that they are in their mother province or not. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I decided to dig up info from the LGC pertaining to this, and it seems that there can be HUCs and ICCs that vote for provincial officers, as shown in the following exerpts of Section 452 of the LGC:
Unless otherwise provided in the Constitution or this Code, qualified voters of independent component cities shall be governed by their respective charters, as amended, on the participation of voters in provincial elections.
Qualified voters of cities who acquired the right to vote for elective provincial officials prior to the classification of said cities as highly-urbanized after the ratification of the Constitution and before the effectivity of this Code, shall continue to exercise such right.
Although I'm not sure where these sections apply, they might come to good use. --Akira123323 Say what? | Track record 11:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify few things here about El Ciudad de Zamboanga Hermosa:

  • Even before the Local Government Code of 1991, Zamboanga City has been a chartered city both by de juris (signed by President Manuel Quezon on Oct. 12, 1936 in Malacañang) and by de facto. It became a chartered city even before Cebu City, the oldest city in the country, became one.
  • The city's charter makes it clear that no province own Zamboanga City in any aspect. This also implies Zamboanga City does not have any "mother province", is not affiliated with any province whatsoever, is not a provincial capital of any province, nor does any province own her.
  • Zamboanga City's charter also makes it clear that the city as a chartered one is fully independent and which also mean Zamboanga City is a sovereign city.
  • The Local Government Code of 1991 only reinforced, re-affirmed, and re-established Zamboanga City as a highly urbanized, chartered, independent, and sovereign city.
  • The continuously and erronously association of Zamboanga City with Zamboanga del Sur, del Norte and Sibugay provinces and vice-versa ever since and in many aspects (even in simple things like a locator map or NSO's statistical purposes) is a sensitive issue for Zamboangeños (Especially those who have read and understood the city's charter and are ready to fight for her). Back then, the Zamboangeños gave an overwhelming decision of a BIG NO when it was proposed to be included in the ARMM as we ourselves have known ever since that we are independent of any government unit and we will fight to stay this way. Now, we have been struggling to correct this misrepresentation of our Bella Zamboanga through education and dessimination of correct information. Ignorance on our city and her charter is not an acceptable reason to concede to these misinformation (and oftentimes, disinformation) and misrepresentation of our city.

--Weekeejames 08:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

We can concede to that fact that Zamboanga City should be considered as a primary subdivision of the Philippines alongside other cities which are not considered to be part of the province which they are geographically located in. The question is, which cities are these? Zamboanga, Baguio, Cebu, General Santos, Butuan, Davao...???
With regard to the so called misrepresentation of Zamboanga City as part of Zamboanga del Sur province it could be attributed to Republic Act No. 711 (June 6, 1952), which split the old Zamboanga Province into a del Norte and a del Sur. Section 7 of the said law, provides: The cities of Basilan and Zamboanga shall form part of the representative of Zamboanga del Sur. The term mother province would be politically incorrect, the Local Government Code, uses the term, part of the province which they are geographically located in. The issue should be considered closed, Zamboanga City is a primary political subdivision alongside with the provinces and the cities which would have to be identified. In the book Political Geography used by political science students, the number of primary political divisions of the Philippines in 1963 is 115. It can be construed that the cities were counted among the primary political subdivision. Anyhow, I suppose we should then begin determining which cities are not counted among the political division of the province which they are geographically located in, regardless if they continue to serve as its capital or not, as Rizal Province has had Pasig as its capital, even if it was outside its territorial jurisdiction. Having its own representative to Congress by a city, is not a qualifier for a city to be considered independent, in the case of Antipolo, it remains to be part of Rizal Province, despite having 2 seats in the lower house. Let's just determine which cities are not considered part of the province which they are geographically located in. -- Scorpion prinz | talk, 00:45, 09 June 2006 (UTC)

Section 7 of RA 711 is talking about temporary (at the time RA 711 became law) representation of Zamboanga del Sur in Congress. It is not stating nor implying anything about jurisdiction or usurpation of jurisdiction. Roseller Lim certainly knew when he authored the bill that Zamboanga City is an independent chartered city (and also, Basilan was a city at that time; that is prior to 1973). Therefore, he knew that the "cities of Basilan and Zamboanga" had a representative in Congress. Section 7 is actually ambiguous. How could a representative of a province that was non-existent at that time represent the cities of Zamboanga and Basilan? It seems Section 7 is absurd. But the lawmaker further explained it on the proceeding Section 8:

"The present representative of Zamboanga shall continue to be the representative of the Province of Zamboanga del Norte, of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, and of the cities of Basilan and Zamboanga until the expiration of his term of office."

To blame RA 711 on the misrepresentation of Zamboanga City is futile. With the creation of the province of Zamboanga Sibugay, Zamboanga City is now even more isolated from the province of Zamboanga del Sur geographically. Thus, to say that Zamboanga City is "part of the province which she is geographically located" is not only futile but also presumptuous.

--Weekeejames 22:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox completion list

Infobox completion list — bold text means that an infobox is present as of 2006-05-29. Please update accordingly when you create an infobox.

I added a completion list for the regions as well. Can someone incorporate the seal of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao in the ARMM Infobox, just like how it shows in the Provincial Infoboxes? I'm not good with HTML, I don't know how to go about with that. Or does ARMM have to have an infobox of its own, since it's the only region with a seal? How do you also add a footnote in the regional infobox to explain that Cotabato City being the regional center is not part of the ARMM? -- Scorpion prinz | talk, 02:44, 03 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template

For independent cities (in other words, cities tagged with [a] and [c]:

Highly urbanized and independent cities of the Philippines
Luzon: Angeles | Baguio | Lucena | Naga | Olongapo | Santiago
Metro Manila: Caloocan | Las Piñas | Makati | Malabon | Mandaluyong | Manila | Marikina | Muntinlupa | Parañaque | Pasay | Pasig | Quezon City | Taguig | Valenzuela
Visayas: Bacolod | Cebu | Iloilo | Mandaue | Ormoc
Mindanao: Butuan | Cagayan de Oro | Cotabato | Davao | General Santos | Iligan | Zamboanga

--Howard the Duck 06:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'l now confused. AmI supposed to removed "Angeles" from {{Pampanga}} or should I leave it there? --Howard the Duck 06:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metro Naga

I was wondering why the Metro Naga article was deleted. Metro Naga is an officially-defined metropolitan area by virtue of Executive Order 102 in June 1993. It even has its own website, officially recognized by the government. Other relevant documents:

So far, according the third document listed above, only three metropolitan areas have 'policy and management structures in place': Manila, Naga and Davao. -- Dakilang Isagani 06:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/i/t/Talk%7ECities_of_the_Philippines_5554.html"