Talk:Coat of arms of the Philippines

Doesn't the emblazonment clearly contradict the blazon, which makes no mention of the lion or eagle? --Daniel C. Boyer 18:33, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes it does. This is a confusing issue, as the law omitted the eagle and the lion deliberately. However, the law, under a provision of the Philippine constitution, says such changes require approval in a national referendum. Therefore, while officially the blazon omits the eagle and the lion, the old blazon which has the eagle and the lion, applies. Confusing, yes. But alas, a result of a poorly-thought-out law.

Gareon

Eagle
The eagle on the Coat of Arms of the Philippines is incorrectly drawn. It was copied from the coat of arms of the United States. The eagle's wings is pointing west and east not northwest and northeast. Both pair of feets are holding both arrows and olive branches not in seperate feet. Notice the seals of the Department of Foreign Affairs], Department of National Defense, House of Representatives and the Senate all have the same design. -Exec8 19:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For a closer look at the seal click on

Discussion transferred from Tambayan
Whenever you see any Philippine legal document, what image do you see? Image 1 or Image 2? I haven't seen anything other than the internet that the eagle really looks like the American bald eagle whereas most official seal of different branches of government shows otherwise. Decide. --Exec8 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Image 1 is more correct, Image 2 is a sloppy rendering of the national coat of arms based on coinage (in coins, you cannot color in the eagle so it has to be represented purely in gold). Reference to the appropriate laws clearly states the eagle on the coat of arms as an American bald eagle. Reference can me made to various books on national flags and coats of arms, and it's clear the authentic representation is an American bald eagle in proper (or natural) colors. Please note that the illustration (no.1) is used in the Republic of the Philippines website (gov.ph) and is therefore, definitive. Here is something written by Teodoro Atienza, who was head of the heraldry division of the Phil. National Historical Institute:


 * "On January 7, 1946, President Sergio Osmeña, revived the Philippine Heraldry Committee and the most important accomplishment of the body was the re-designing of the Coat-of-Arms. The new design was authorized under Commonwealth Act. No. 731, passed by the Congress of the Philippines on July 3, 1946. The design which was approved by the President of the Philippines on the eve of the inauguration of the Third Philippine Republic, was designed by then Captain Galo B. Ocampo, a member and Secretary of the Committee.


 * "Under this design, the Philippine Sun with its eight rays occupies the point of honor and located in the center while the three stars, representing Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao occupy the upper portion of the shield. On the right side, on a red field, the Lion Rampant of Spain; on the left, on a blue field, the American Eagle. Beneath the arms is a scroll with the words “Republic of the Philippines” inscribed.


 * "On June 19, 1978, President Ferdinand E. Marcos, issued Presidential Dcree No. 1413, declaring the theme Isang Bansa, Isang Diwa (One Nation, One Spirit) as the national motto replaced the words “Republic of the Philippines” inscribed in the scroll found beneath the arms.The revised design was finalized by the National Historical Institute and approved by the Office of the President on July 31, 1978.


 * In consultation with the National Historical Institute, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Memorandum Order No, 34, dated September 10, 1986, restoring the original feature of the Republic Seal which were adopted forty years earlier." Gareon Gareon

I Agree to what Gareon had said but why the coat of arms illustrated in image 1 only used in one website alone (www.gov.ph) and not as standard to any other philippine government websites (and legal documents) like the foreign affairs, senate, house and the judiciary. I think there were no clear laws nor orders stating standards in reference to the color of the eagle. Moreover, when you would look into the upper corner of the www.gov.ph website it shows image 2. --Exec8 00:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hey. Here is another source you guys can compare, from the Senate. It explicitly states that we use the American Bald Eagle. BTW, I would prefer to use image 1, or some update of that. --Noypi380 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

There is an easy enough explanation: carelessness and ease of use. It's a pain in the butt to render the national coat of arms correctly, and most people base it on our coinage, which means you copy a copy of a copy, and what you have is a degradation of the image. The same could be observed in the presidential seal after cory aquino restored it to the pre-martial law design. it was sloppily rendered until finally, recently, entirely new renderings had to be authorized. but up to now, the old sloppy renderings are more common than the correct one.

again, it's much easier to base the coat of arms on the coinage, which reduces things, than to go back to what it should be. also, some parts of the rendering can change over time, even the manner in which heraldry is portrayed changes, which means details aren't 100% the same as before, in heraldry, it is the essential elements that must be exact.Gareon


 * I agree to that. After a thorough research, the eagle really was the American bald eagle, and Image 2 became the standard of what documents we see today. Its sad to say that we dont see the eagle in detail in any other sites or documents. --Exec8 11:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is a consensus then. For the sake of being as accurate as possible, the image to be used is image one. The one with the superbly rendered eagle, which is really based on the United States eagle, who governed the country about 40 years. Congratulations! Wikipedia possibly has the world's best rendered image of the Philippine coat of arms! Nice, although the lion still can still be improved. It should be based on the Spanish lion of the Coat of Arms of Spain, or some Philippine colonial flag during the Spanish times. --Noypi380 16:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was image 1 dropped? The one appearing now is definitely wrong, it has a golden border which is completely wrong! Gareon

Commonwealth of the Philippines coat of arms 1935-1945
Does anyone have a copy of the coat of arms from this period, the maiden in front of the volcano? It would be a nice illustration to show progression. Chris 13:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wait wait wait...
It's been 9 YEARS and they haven't ratified or rejected the change/removal yet? 68.39.174.238 09:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

From the looks of it, yes, it has not been ratified. (Or at the least, not implemented)
 * A plebiscite needs to be done in order for the changes to officially take effect, although the government has been using the new unratified version frequently. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Request
Can we have an image of the "new" coat of arms? -- Howard  the   Duck  11:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, email me. Gareon (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you just upload it here? You can add all of the disclaimers. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I put up an image of the "new" coat of arms. Can anyone delete the doubles I accidentally posted at Image:542px-Revised-Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Philippines.png and Image:Revised-Coat_of_Arms_of_the_Philippines.svg.png? Thanks Mk32 (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can tag them with db-author. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks! Mk32 (talk) 13:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Old coat of arms
Anyone have pictures of the old coat of arms, such as the one that says "REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES" or "ISANG BANSA, ISANG DIWA"? Josh (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, if possible, could someone make images of the old coat of arms? I think they would be a useful addition to the article. Josh (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree with this idea. If possible please enhance the this page by adding more images of historical coat of arms, just like the request above. Please also include the coat of arms of Second Philippine Republic, Here's a helpful source ...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coat of arms 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104144908/http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/first-republic/emilio-aguinaldo/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/first-republic/emilio-aguinaldo/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160527002034/http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/ to http://malacanang.gov.ph/presidents/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Referendum
Article XVI, Section 2 says "The Congress may, by law, adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, or a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people. Such law shall take effect only upon its ratification by the people in a national referendum." We have a coat of arms and a Great Seal of the Philippines. Is the constitution only asking for a referendum on a new seal, and not on a new coat of arms? (Supposedly you can also change the flag without a referendum.) Now, it seems that the Great Seal was created on 1998, so is that the one that is not ratified, or was its creation a mere modification that makes it not "new" enough? Howard the Duck (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)