Talk:President of the Philippines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and 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 importance scale.

The Chief Justice is -never- in the line of succession. The part that says so under Succession is erroneous.

Contents

[edit] The Republic Problem

Most sources on the internet generally imply that the "Fourth Republic" and the "New Republic" are one in the same and existed 1981-1987. Certainly, a republic did come into effect in 1981. Ferdinand Marcos proclaimed the establishment of a "New Republic of the Philippines" upon re-election in 1981. Since the previous republic was the 3rd, it makes sense this one is the 4th.

Not so. Correspondence I have from the Philippines' National Historical Institute (NHI) states that the "Fourth Republic" was established with the adoption of the 1973 Constitution, adopted on January 17 1973. There is no mention of a republic being established in 1981. It then goes on to mention the "Fifth Republic" established with the 1987 Constitution, adopted on February 11, 1987).

After going through many internet sources and political documents there is a fair amount of evidence to dispute that the "Fourth" and "New" Republics are not actually the same leading to the following:

1st Republic: 1899-1901
2nd Republic: 1943-1945
Commonwealth: 1935-1946
3rd Republic: 1946-1973
4th Republic: 1973-1981
New Republic: 1981-1987
5th Republic: 1987-Present

Part of the problem may be the definition of what a Republic is. Also, Ferdinand Marcos was changing the constitution left, right, and centre 1972-1986 to ensure he maintained his position of Head of State. This also might be part of the problem.

In any case, I sent my "case" back to the NHI. After nearly 8 months of no answer, I finally sent it off to the relevant Senate Committee this week in hope of an answer. In any case, until someone decides to come back with a definite answer, if anyone out there can shed any light on this puzzle, please let me know.

Taiwai94

The answer depends on the view of legitimacy of the 1973 Constitution, which muddles the issue. However, based on the explanation of the NHI, it does seem fair to date the 4th Republic to 1981 for this reason: in 1973, the new constitution was "approved", but its provisions were not fully enforced until 1981. From 1973, when Marcos's term expired under the 1935 Constitution, he justified remaining in office on the basis of referenda called for the purpose of permitting his continuation in office. He did not secure a new mandate until 1981, hence the inauguration; prior to that, the legislature he set up was in fact called the Interim Batasang Pambansa, and it did not become a regular Batasang Pambansa until 1981, which was also the year martial law was officially lifted. So, from 1973-1981, the country could be said to have been under a state of emergency with the president enjoying far-reaching emergency powers.

Gareon

The New republic can be said as the martial law period, while the 4th period was between 1981 to 1986. If you merge the "New" and the "4th", then we have the "4th" which was essentially the same, right?

Howard the Duck | talk, 14:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

That adopts the view that you set the periods according to constitution. So, since a new constitution was "approved" in 1973, and only formally set aside in 1986, everything in between is a variation on the 4th Republic. If one adopts the view, however, that the constitution was approved, but its implementation remained provision due to martial law, which was only formally lifted in 1981 and only after that was "normal" constitutional government claimed to exist, then it would be less confusing to date the 4th Republic to 1981. Marcos himself called the period from late 1972 to 1981 "The New Society," so I'd suggest that's as good as any for a defining title for the period.

So: 1946-1972, 3rd Republic; 1972-1981 (including the "Interim National Assembly" of 1978) New Society; 1981-1987 4th Republic; 1987-present, 5th Republic. Gareon 06:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Election Question

I don't want to edit the part about presidents being able to run for reelection if the term of office was not completed. I am not certain regarding the source of this information. Please note the following from the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.

Article 7 Section 4
The President and the Vice-President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of the service for the full term for which he was elected.

(",) Mang Kiko 03:10, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I placed it there because I didn't know why Arroyo can still run in 2004. It seems that this sentence: "No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time." fits the bill nicely. Feel free to edit my mistake! --seav 03:25, Aug 19, 2003 (UTC)
I see your point... (",) Mang Kiko 03:34, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)
She hasn't been elected and she has not served more than four years, so she can run in 2004.
May punto ka diyan! (You have a point there). Thanks Seav for the quick response! (",) Mang Kiko 03:48, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Defunct" ?

I realize that many did/do not recognize the legitimacy of the Laurel government and consider it only to be an extension/puppet of the Japanese occupation. However, is the term for this really, truly, and legally "defunct"? I thought that the question of whether Laurel ever was a legitimate President was legally determined with finality in the affirmative in the 1960s? Is this correct? And if so, isn't the annotation "defunct" in error, at least technically?

Rlquall 22:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say "dissolved," since Laurel formally proclaimed the Republic at and end in Japan. I'd be interested to know how the French officially solved a similar problem: with the defeat of the Axis, is the Vichy regime officially counted? What of de Gaulle's government in exile?

Gareon 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Province of Tarlac was the home province of Corazon Aquino. How come it's not shaded?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentius (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Aguinaldo's term

Why is Aguinaldo's term counted as having started in 1897? If so, why isn't the Biak-na-Bato Republic our first republic, and our independence dated to 1897? And do we date his term to his recognition as dictator on June 12, 1898 or to his proclamation by the Malolos Congress in 1899? This is a question that needs to be resolved. Again, if you date his term to 1897, this means we will have to change our independence day, etc. because officially, our government began on june 12, 1898. Gareon (talk) 15:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually this article shouldn't really have a list, it's redundant with the several lists we now have.
As for your question about independence, it doesn't really have to be changed, for example, the Continental Congress, the main governing body of the United States, began on September 5, 1774, three years before they declared independence on July 4, 1776. If we'd abide with your example, the Continental Congress began after independence on July 4. Furthermore, List of Presidents of the Philippines lists 2 "eras" for EA: "First Dictatorship" (prior to the Biak na Bato Rep.) and "First (Biak na Bato) Republic", and several historians consider those eras as part of the Philippine presidency. --Howard the Duck 18:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:PhilippinePresidentialSeal.png

Image:PhilippinePresidentialSeal.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Succession Question

I believe there is conflicting information.

For the "During the Term", 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence say:

In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President; the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified.

But then the last paragraph of the same sub-section say:

If the offices of both the President and the Vice President become vacant at the same time, Congress shall enact a law calling for special election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mang kiko (talk • contribs) 22:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Term

What is the length of the term and how many terms can a President serve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blaylockjam10 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)