Talk:List of Vice Presidents 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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute.

List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Trias' inclusion here contradicts our very own Wikipedia article and further muddles an issue that the Wikipedia entry aimed to clarify. We really need a consensus on this.Gareon 06:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For comparison, this and List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines has different "eras" for Trias and Aguinaldo. For Aguinaldo its the First Dictatorship and First Republic, while for Trias it is the Tejeros Convention. Why not say Vice President of the Tejeros Convention? The OVP website lists him as VP, so it must be noted on both articles. --Howard the Duck 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think considering the intensity of the debate, the clarification's great! Gareon 07:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Another question re: Trias. The government established at Tejeros was replaced by the government known as the Biak-na-Bato Republic. So Trias's term would have ended with that republic and not with the revolutionary government of may-june, 1898.Gareon 04:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Howard the Duck 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could we get a precise date for restoring the vice-presidency? as originally conceived, the 1973 constitution provided only for a president and prime minister. as late as 1978, marcos served a president and concurrently prime minister, and only in 1981 did virata become prime minister. and even then under the interim then regular batasan pambansa, it was still a french style presidential-parliamentary system. we would need to find out when the 1973 constitution was again amended to restore the vp office. prior to that we should consider it as having been abolished.Gareon 13:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1973 consti had a veep. Check out Article VII. A link is provided at the references. --Howard the Duck 13:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but don't forget the constitution was amended several times. just to give you an idea: by 1976, it had already been amended six time (the famous amendment no. 6 giving marcos powers to rule by decree independently of any national assembly). accounts of the 1973 constitutional convention (see augusto caeasar espiritu's diary of the concon) most definitely indicate the original constitution as approved in 1973 only had a president and prime ministerGareon 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither of the 1976 amendments say the OVP is abolished. And still, the 1973 constitution had a VP. How would Tolentino be "elected" VP if there was no office, and that Marcos was still using the 1973 constitution? Marcos didn't abolish the OVP, he just left it vacant. Maybe he was violating his own constitution? We studied this at constitution class. --Howard the Duck 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I consulted Arturo Tolentino's autobiography, "Voice of Dissent" (Alemar-Phoenix Publishing House, 1990) on. pp.553-554 he points out the "Early in 1976 an interesting issue came up for public discussion: could President Marcos, by a Presidential Decree, name his successor in view of the silence of the Constitution on the matter of succession?... I said the vast powers of President Marcos under the constitution could not be transferred by him to any successor... under the Constitution, Pres. Marcos exercised those powers only until 'he calls upon the interim National Assembly to elect the interim President and the interim Prime Minister, who shalll then exercise their respective powers under this Constitution." Tolentino cites that the government up to that point was supposed to be: President, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Ministers.

President Marcos apparently in view of Tolentino's criticism submitted 7 amendments (p.557)

1. replace interim National Assembly with interim Batasan Pampansa

2. deny Batasan Pambansa power to ratify treaties

3. Reaffirmed powers of President

4. Made President concurrently Prime Minister

5. President continues having legislative powers until lifting of martial law.

6. Even if martial law lifted, in times of emergency, President can still legislate.

7. Established post of Deputy Prime Minister.

President Marcos submitted more amendments in 1980-81 (pp. 585-589):

1. President to be elected by the people and not parliament.

2. President head of state, PM head of government

3. President would nominate PM.

4. Batasan could ratify treaties.

And it's here that we know there was no vice-presidency from 1973 to 1981: see pp. 593-594 "Another matter in which President Marcos had his way in the formulation of the proposed constitutional amendments was on presidential succession. He had no successor in the 1973 Constitution. From the start, he advocated a plural successor while I advocated a one-person successor. I suggested a Vice-President be the successor in the event of the death, permament disability, or removal from office or resignation of the President. The Marcos idea was adopted by the caucus... The original Marcos proposal was an Executive Committee, with a rotating chairmanship every year, to succeed the President..." These amendments were approved in April, 1981.

on pp. 718-719 he points out that 1981 was the date when the position of president and prime minister were separated from each other.

Om pp. 614-622 Tolentino finally makes it clear. In 1983, "One of these useful things was my plan to seek an amendment to the Constitution go create the position of Vice-President who would succeed the President in the event og a vacancy in the presidency....When I announced I as going to propose in the Batasang Pambansa a constitutional amendment to create the office of Vice-President, President Marcos immediately threw cold water on the plan, seeking to stop my move. He said a Vice-President was not necessary, and 'when I had a vice-president (in the pre-martial law days under the 1935 Constitution) there were several attempts on my life.' A couple of days after this statement from the President, I filed with the Batasan a resolution (No. 579) for a constitutional amendment providing for a Vice-President to be elected in 1984 at the same time with regular Batasan Pambansa... President Marcos in reply insisted that a vice-president was uncecessary... The seven-man committee of the KBL recommended the removal of the Executive Committee as a presidential successor, but adopted a 'compromise'... the office of Vice-President would be restored, but the first VP would be elected in 1987 together with the President. In the meantime, if a vacancy in the presidency should occur before 1987, the Batasan Speaker would succeed for the unexpired term...I submitted a compromise formula of my own... Marcos would not have a Vice-President during his current tenure; but his successor, if he did not reach 1987, would be elected by the people...My compromise proposal was approved by rthe KBL caucus..."

This was approved in the plebiscite of January 27, 1984. So conclusively, we know that in 1973, the vice-presidency was abolished -and it was reestablished for a future date in 1984. Thus, no vp was to be elected until 1987 -unless, as president marcos did, he preterminated his term and called for a snap election.Gareon 14:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Tip: add ":" before the paragraph to indent it.

Nevertheless, how could it be reconciled that the 1973 constitution had a vice-president? And note again that Marcos wasn't elected by parliament - or was he a member of parliament - to become president. --Howard the Duck 07:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the tip! Any final copy of a constitution that's been amended in our practice, does not specify which part's original and which has been added/removed by a subsequent amendment. the text of the 1973 constitution has a vp because in 1984, the position was restored. there is nothing to reconcile. from 1973-1984 the position didn't exist, and thus, was abolished. in 1984 it was restored -for implementation at a future date (1987). in 1986, when marcos resigned, the constitutional clock was fast-forwarded; his existing term having been preterminated, what was scheduled for 1987 -pres. and vp elections- was then scheduled, thus the snap election. recall also that marcos was in a sense, above the 1973 constitution, because of plebiscites conducted in 1973, 1974, 1976, etc. in which the public was directly asked if it would allow him to serve beyond his constitutional term (which ended on december 30, 1973), stay in office, and rule by decree and then rule by decree even when the batasan pambansa would be established. he interim batasan established by amendment in 1976, finally convened in 1978, and was meant to be the transition until formal parliamentary government could be convened in 1981: and remember, there was a further amendment to make the president popularly-elected, which is why in 1981, marcos ran again. he also accomplished more changes so that the prime minister would be appointed by him and not parliament, which is why the offices were split in that year. 1984 was the first batasan election under these revised rules. since he was elected in 1981 for 6 years, marcos was due to serve until 1987.Gareon 08:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please, if I may insist, use the : to indent paragraphs. Thank you.

Note that Marcos didn't really follow the constitution to the letter. He wasn't member of parliament yet he is the president. The 1973 constitution mentions the office of the vice president. Marcos didn't utilize it. --Howard the Duck 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that we bring back the list of August 30, 2006? Trias is not a VP of the Philippines, he was just the VP of the Tejeros Convention that no country recognized. Tejeros Convention is not equal to the Philippines, and this is FACT and NOT POV. Just because a government web site states that as a "fact", does not mean that we should use it as a source. Veracity is not only based on the notion that "if the 'fact' is sourced", it is actually based on "if it is sourced well". This is not a list for us to debate on, it is a list of unquestionable facts and for clarifying data and not confusing things. How could this gain featured list status now if it is false? The current list as of Oct 2006 just spreads uncertainty and doubt. Let's remove Trias and put him back only when a really credible source backs up his VP of the country status. I don't want kids to cite this list when they research on Philippine history and think this is true. :) --Noypi380 13:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I concur!!Gareon 14:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Then what is the best source for this? The list from the U.S. FBI? IMHO, Wikipedia doesn't care for the truth, what Wikipedia cares for is verifiability of facts. Even if I said Piolo Pascual is gay (lol), but I can't find a citation, it will be removed as per WP:LIVING.

Note that Trias's era says "Tejeros Convention" and Aguinaldo's use "First Dictatorship" and "First Republic". The text here explains that Trias was the Vice President of the Tejeros Convention, and that his inclusion is disputed. If anybody can cite a source that has a list without Trias in it, it can give further proof that the inclusion of Trias is disputed.

Lets follow the list given by the OVP, since it is deemed official. If we'll follow other lists, we might as well add Gregorio Honasan to the list of Presidents of the Philippines since he must've controlled the government at least for a few hours on one of his coups. --Howard the Duck 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone comes up with a reputable source that has a different list (IMHO the OVP website is the best website for this), then Trias should stay. --Howard the Duck 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I sort of "segregated" Trias from the list, adding black bars both above and below him to further emphasize that his vice presidency is disputed. --Howard the Duck 15:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

From Verifiability, The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. There are reliable sources for the August 30, 2006 version of the page, through the presidential records which mentioned their veeps. IMHO. --Noypi380 16:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it was Emperork (diff) who added Trias.

Perhaps we citations should be added (can be found at Talk:Vice President of the Philippines) stating that inclusion of Trias is disputed. But if any of the sources say that some other guy, besides Trias, shouldn't be included, it must be noted too. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If there is a credible third party source that matches the "official" source, (doesn't matter if both sources have Trias or if both don't). As long as there is a third party source that is in sync with the gov source, then the list merits to be a featured list. :) --Noypi380 16:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh never mind about that. My comments earlier were based on just staring quickly at the list itself. Technically, and after reading the whole thing, there is actually no problems at all. The list itself though makes my stomach queezy. LOL. :) --Noypi380 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I have been able to dig two links. Only the second one, IMHO looks good enough.

1. http://mysearch.ph/knowledge-base/vice-presidents.htm
2. http://philippine-history.philsite.net/presidents.htm

--Howard the Duck 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)`

Howard, re the first: how can anyone take a list that has "Manuel L. Roxas" and "Ramon Magsaysay, Jr." as presidents???Gareon 16:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And I thought that was an academic website hahaha. --Howard the Duck 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

my bad, i meant the second is worse than the first, though the first is off by a whole year for osmena, so... tee hee 16:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ya, good sources on the veeps are hard to find. :) --Noypi380 02:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)