Talk:President of the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chief Justice and succession[edit]

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

Note -- This appears to have been fixed sometime prior to 2009-05-18. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic Problem[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Re-Election Question[edit]

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)

"Defunct" ?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Aguinaldo's term[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Succession Question[edit]

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)[reply]


There is no conflict between the two provisions. The Senate President or the House Speaker will act as president until a president or vice president is elected or have qualified. It means that if the president and the vice president both die, Congress will enact a law to call for a special election to elect a new president and vice president. Before such election, the Senate President or the House speaker will be Acting President. Now, if the next election is just 180 days away, there is no need for Congress to call such special election because in that case, the Senate President or the House Speaker will serve the remaider of the term as Acting President.

As you can see, the Senate President or the House Speaker are in the line of succession as mere caretakers, i.e. Acting President. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcsadian (talk • contribs) 03:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Length of Term[edit]

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)[reply]

When we say length of the term,it means how many years did a person served as president and the can serve up to 12 years(6 years in each term). CommanderPhoenix (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article VII Section 4 of the current RP Constitution:

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 next 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 re-election. 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.[1]

-- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox info[edit]

Formation date[edit]

{{Infobox Presidency}} redirects to {{Infobox Political post}}. The documentation for that infobox does not give any guidance on what the formation parameter should be set to, but I doubt the validity of its current setting, which I have tagged {{Dubious}}.

AFAICS, the history of the titling for the head of state or the chief executive in the Philippines has been as follows:

"President"
? 		Establishing document Establishing authority Predecessor
government 		Remarks
No Unknown King of Spain Yes From 1521 to 1898, under Spanish sovereignty the head of government was titled "Governor General of the Philippines".
Perhaps Various Various No While the Philippines was under Spanish sovereignty, a number Philippine revolts against Spain occurred. Some of these involved the proclamation of insurgent governments, with the governmental heads being variously titled.
Yes Constitution of Biac-na-Bato
1 November 1897 		Representatives of the Revolution No Referring to itself as "Republic of the Philippines", this was an insurgent government now best known as the "Republic of Biak-na-Bato" which existed while the Philippines was under Spanish sovereignty and which never matured into an independent national government. The constitution specified that supreme government of the Republic shall be vested in a "Supreme Council", titling the head of government as "President".
Yes Philippine Declaration of Independence
12 June 1898 		The Dictatorial Government of the Philippines No With the Philippines under Spanish sovereignty, the insurgent Dictatorial Government of the Philippines declared its independence from Spain, accepting Emilio Aguinaldo as President of the Republic established in Biak-na-Bato as Dictator.
N/A Treaty of Paris
10 December 1898 		The governments of Spain and the United States N/A By action of this treaty, which ended the Spanish-American War, sovereignty over the Philippine Islands was transferred from Spain to the United States.
Yes 1899 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
20 January 1899 		Malolos Congress No The so-called "First Philippine Republic" was an insurgent government styling itself as "Republic of the Philippines" which never matured into an independent national government. It was established in 1898 while the Philippines was under Spanish sovereignty. It was never formally dissolved, but is generally acccepted to have ceased to exist sometime prior to 1903. The constitution titles the head of government as "President of the Republic".
No Philippine Organic Act (Philippine Bill of 1902)
1 July 1902 		U.S. Government Yes Established a government styled "Government of the Philippine Islands" under U.S. sovereignty, titling the head of government as "Civil Governor"
Yes Manifesto
April, 1904 		Macario Sacay No Established a short-lived insurgent government styling itself as "Republika ng Katagalugan" (the Tagalog Republic) while the Philippines was under U.S. Sovereignty. This insurgent government never matured into an independent national government. The head of government, Macario Sacay, was titled "President".
No Philippine Autonomy Act (Jones Law)
29 August 1916 		U.S. Government Yes Modified the structure of the Philippine government, still under U.S. sovereignty. uses the title "Governor-General" to speak of official heading the government.
Yes 1935 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
ratified on May 14, 1935 		The Filipino people Yes Established a government known as "Republic of the Philippines", still under U.S. sovereignty, with a chief executive titled "President"
Yes 1943 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
1 January 1943 		The Filipino people (sic) No Established a government styling itself as "Republic of the Philippines" while Philippines was under Japanese occupation during WW-II. The chief executive office titled the the President", and the office was occupied by José P. Laurel. Concurrently, a Government in Exile existed, initially in Australia and later in the United States, with a chief executive office also titled "President", and occupied initially by Manuel L. Quezon and later by Sergio Osmeña. This constitution was repudiated after WW-II.
N/A Treaty of Manila
4 July 1946 		The Governments of the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines N/A By action of this treaty, Republic of the Philippines became independent on 4 July 1946. No constitutional change accompanied this event. The government continued to be styled "Republic of the Philippines" and the chief executive continued to be titled "President".
Yes 1973 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
ratified on 17 January 1973 		The sovereign Filipino people Yes Modified the structure of the government of the Republic of the Philippines, retaining the title of "President" for the chief executive.
Yes 1986 Provisional “Freedom” Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
proclaimed 25 March 1986 		Direct mandate of the people Yes A transitional government while complete reorganization of the government was undertaken and a new constitution was being produced. During the transition period, the government continued to style itself "Republic of the Philippines", and retained the title of "President" for the head of government.
Yes 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines
ratified on 2 February 1987 		The sovereign Filipino people Yes Established a reorganized government of the Republic of the Philippines, with a chief executive titled "President".
Note: This table may be incomplete

As I've indicated above, I don't see how the government from which the dates currently appearing in the infobox were taken can legitimately be considered a predecessor-government to the current government. AFAICS, the formation parameter of the infobox should be set to 2 February 1987, the formation date of the currently-constituted government. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 12:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Made the change) Having seen no disagreement, and considering WP:SILENCE, I'm changing the formation date in the infobox to February 2, 1987. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inaugural holder[edit]

Earlier today, in this edit, I changed the setting of the inaugural parameter from [[ Emilio Aguinaldo]] to Corazon C. Aquino, with an edit summary saying, "Inagural holder of the office in the government as currently constituted. See related info in talk page section "Infobox formation date info". User:Philippinepresidency changed this to Emilio Aguinaldo (de facto), providing no edit summary. I'm really not sure what significance the "de facto" is intended to have here. Another editor reverted this, and Philippinepresidency re-reverted. I've just reverted it back to Corazon C. Aquino, with the edit summary of "". I've also left a message at User talk:Philippinepresidency.

My previous edit summary makes my position clear. AFAICS, Aquino was the Inagural holder of the office of President in the government as currently constituted. Also, as is apparent from info in the table above, I don't see how the insurgent government in which Aguinaldo held the office of President can legitimately be considered a predecessor-government to the current Philippine government. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


User:Philippinepresidency responded on my talk page as follows:

Hi, the inaugural holder of the President of the Philippines should be Emilio Aguinaldo. The Philippine government consider him to be the first president. It is taught in school and universities that he is the first president and rightful inaugural holder of the president of the Philippines. It is inappropriate to disregard the 10 presidents before Corazon Aquino. Even the presidents in the Philippines are uander diifferent constitutions, the line of the presidents is continuous. Example under the Malolos Consititution: Aguinaldo; under the 1935 constitution: Quezon, Osmeña, Roxas, Quirino, Magsaysay, Garcia, Macapagal and Marcos; under the 1943 constitution (Japanese occupation) Laurel; 1987 constitution: Aquino, Ramos, Estrada and Arroyo. So the Philippines honors Aguinaldo as its first president, therefore it's rightful inaugural holder.- Philippinepresidency (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, as I said above, AFAICS, Cory Aquino was the inagural holder of the office of President in the government as currently constituted; also, as is apparent from info in the table above, I don't see how the insurgent government in which Aguinaldo held the office of President can legitimately be considered a predecessor-government to the current Philippine government. This article should probably contain information (cite-supported, of course) about what is taught regarding the Presidency in Philippine secondary schools.

I see that Philippinepresidency has changed the name in the infobox back to Emilio Aguinaldo and changed the formation date (see previous subsection above) back to January 23, 1899. I don't want to WP:edit war over this, so I've left it that way for now and tagged those items as {{dubious}}. Please, let's discuss this here rather than edit-warring about it. As I see it, the open questions are, "Who should the infobox credit? Why? Supported by what verifiable, reliable sources?" Possibilities which I see are Bonifacio, Aguinaldo, Aquino, or some combination of those names along with explanatory notes.

I am currently traveling and using internet cafes. I will try to follow and participate in this discussion as best I can; it'll probably be a week or two before I get back home so as to be better able to participate. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

inaugural holder[edit]

manuel quezon should be the inaugural holder, because we saw the photo of his inauguration as president of the commonwealth,while there is no evidence regarding aguinaldo's inauguration as president. --CommanderPhoenix (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Past Presidents[edit]

Shouldn't there be consistancy in regards to past President's Images? Shouldn't they all be their official portraits if available? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of Aguinaldo's term[edit]

I just noticed that this article currently dates Aguinaldo's term as beginning on March 22, 1897, and that the infobox describes him as the de-facto president of the country as of that date (and de-jure as of January 23, 1899).

March 22, 1897 was the date of the Tejeros Convention, at which the Katipunan revolutionary group proclaimed a short-lived Republic (ended, as I understand it, by the Pact of Biak-na-Bato on December 14, 1897) and elected Aguinaldo president. The country at the time was under Spanish sovereignty, and it is a real stretch to call Aguinaldo president of the country during that period.

I don't know where the January 23 date comes from; it might be meant to be the January 22, 1899 which, as I understand it, is the promulgation date of the Malolos Constitution (see [2]). The Treaty of Paris, which transferred Philippine sovereignty from Spain to the United States, had been signed on December 10, 1898 but would not be ratified until February (the U.S) and March (Spain) (ratifications were exchanged on April 11, 1899), and the Philippine-American War which resulted in the demise of Aguinaldo's insurgent government had not yet begun, much less come to a conclusion.

Let's discuss this and try to come to some consensus position about how the situation should be presented consistently. My understanding of the situation in re Philippine sovereignty is as the Timeline of Philippine Sovereignty article presents it.

These dates impact a number of other articles (e.g., Emilio Aguinaldo, List of Presidents of the Philippines, Vice President of the Philippines, List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines; probably others as well). Notices about this discussion should probably be placed on the talk pages of those articles, but I'll hold off on doing that hoping that a reasonable discussion can be begun here first. My initial thought is that the situation with dating Aguinaldo's various dictatorships and presidencies are complicated enough that the situation ought to be set out clearly somewhere -- probably either in the article about him or in a separate article about his First Philippine Republic presidency.

What say? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(added) I've placed {{dubious}} tags in the article pointing to this talk page section for discussion. My understanding is that the government of the Republic of the Philippines as currently constituted was established on October 15, 1986 -- the adoption date of the current constitution[3]. It also might be asserted that the office of President of the Philippines has existed in an unbroken string of Philippine governments since May 14, 1935[4], the ratification date of the 1935 constitution. The History section of the article says, "Depending on the definition chosen for these terms, a number of persons could alternatively be considered the inaugural holder of the office.", and contains clarification and explanation of that. I think that the infobox should give either the 1935 or the 1986 date, with an explanatory footnote providing and explaining the other date and mentioning/linking to the further information in the History section. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should start at the First Philippine Republic and ends with his capture at Palanan, Isabela. According to this, the start is when he was inaugurated as president under the Malolos Constitution and ended with his capture. Also note that there are different dates on when the Malolos Constitution came into effect. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source supporting Aguinaldo as President (and not supporting Bonifacio, Sakay, etc.)[edit]

Re this edit, I found Tucker, Spencer C. (2009). The encyclopedia of the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars: a political, social, and military history. ABC-CLIO. p. 8. ISBN 9781851099511., which says, "Although the republic never received foreign recognition, Filipinos consider Aguinaldo to be their first president." Perhaps that will do as a supporting source. I dug around a little trying to find a .gov.ph source but didn't find anything better (There may be something, somewhere; I didn't dig around very much. I did find a lot of misinformation, confusion, and imprecision out there, e.g. this, which says, "President Aguinaldo whose presidency was inaugurated on June 12, 1898 in Kawit, Cavite, ..." -- that date being the proclamation date of the Philippine Declaration of Independence, and being six days previous to Aguinaldo's June 18 proclamation of a dictatorial government headed by himself). Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the refs to cite the source mentioned above and removed the {{fv}} tags. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section headings[edit]

In this edit, I made a number of changes to section headings. One change relates to WP:UE. The others were capitalization changes. MOS:HEAD says that All of the guidance in [titles] applies to section headings. That guidance says, in part, "The initial letter of a title is capitalized (except in rare cases, such as eBay). Otherwise, capital letters are used only where they would be used in a normal sentence (Funding of UNESCO projects, not Funding of UNESCO Projects)." Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition of Laurel as President[edit]

The article currently says

... Laurel was not recognized as a Philippine president formally until the Macapagal administration. The recognition coincided with the movement of the Philippine Independence Day from July 4 to June 12. ...

I'm going to put {{cn}}s on both those sentences. I've seen several sources supporting the first sentence, but I'm not sure about their reliability. I have misgivings about the second sentence because I know that there is a common misconception that the year referred to there is 1962, when the move actually took place in 1964 (more info about that in the Independence Day (Philippines) article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on President of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of PNoy[edit]

Please add the picture of pnoy. Sonebody added already PDuterte, but i changed it as pnoy is still the incumbent. Newbie here, so please help. Jeff datingaling (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) Jeff datingaling (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inauguration of Rodrigo Duterte[edit]

We will edit this article replacing PNOY to Duterte on June 30, 2016 in 12 at noon.--Nothing7898 (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo[edit]

@RioHondo, Filipino women have three options on what surname to use as a public figure. Either their maiden name (Grace Poe Llamanzares), married name (Leni Gerona Robredo) or both (Miriam Defensor Santiago. Both Macapagal and Arroyo are her legal surnames in the Philippine context. Her relation to the previous Macapagal president is an important footnote to her bio. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I dont question the custom for Filipino women in politics. I question the use of WP:OFFICIAL names/surnames in Wikipedia. The WP:Common practice for Philippine names is to only have one surname with the maiden surname becoming her middle name.--RioHondo (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If she becomes known as Gloria Arroyo then the "Macapagal" can be dropped but as long as reliable sources use both names then both surnames are to be used. There is also no consistency among Filipina public figures which surname to use: maiden name (Grace Poe Llamanzares, Loren Legarda Leviste, Jamby Madrigal Valade), married name (Corazon Cojuangco Aquino, Imelda Roumualdez Marcos, Leni Gerona Robredo, both (Eva Estrada Kalaw, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. And that's just the presidential and vice presidential candidates. There are other women who use either of the three. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we'll make GMA an exception. Even though she is commonly referred to as just Pres/Congw. Arroyo and her administration, Arroyo Administration.--RioHondo (talk) 03:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling and use of Malacañang Palace and variants thereof in this article[edit]

In this edit, I corrected the title in a couple of cites which garbled the word Malacañang to agree with the title used in the cited works. I also corrected one mispelling (as Macalañang Palace) in the article body.

I also moved an unsupported paragraph which explains the distinction between Malacañang and Malacañan up ahead of a paragraph which uses the Malacañan term. I've tagged the paragraph explaining the distinction with {{cn}} and de-bolded Malacañan Palace where that term is used. I checked the Malacañang Palace article and did not find any info about that distinction there -- it probably ought to be explained there. Perhaps the Malacañan Palace usage ought to be removed from this article -- it seems to me that its mention here supplies more confusion than information. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on President of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister discussion[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Prime Minister of the Philippines#Prime Minister office assertions prior to 1978 appear problematic and comment there as appropriate. Thank you. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 15:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

a p[edit]

what is the program in precedent Joseph Estrada Barquez (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:President_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1201234421"