Talk:Gloria Macapagal Arroyo/Archive 1

Defaced...but I can't seem to figure out how to fix it
King of new here. The page was defaced and I was going to revert it, but when I go to "edit this page" from the article tab, it just shows the article as it seems it SHOULD appear, but not how it actually does. What's with that?

The timing seems off to me for her having been a classmate of President Clinton's at Georgetown. The article says she took her BA in 1968 and then went to the school of foreign service at Georgetown. Clinton graduated from the SFS in 1968 and headed to Oxford that autumn. 163.1.78.138 11:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC). (Her official website biography indicates that she received a B.A. in Economics from Georgetown, although other sources indicate that she transferred her Georgetown credits to Assumption College in the Philippines and took her degree there. What is certain is that she did attend Georgetown simultaneously with Clinton for at least two years and perhaps longer as a member of the same School of Foreign Service class.)

(What is also clear is that her academic work at Georgetown in the School of Foreign Service was distinguished as she was a consistent Dean's list student and that her transfer credit would have contributed to the honors granted by Assumption College.)

Is she a member of the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language (or whatever it is called)? -- Error


 * According to this article, yes. -TheCoffee 06:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
A large amount of content was deleted by various anons. I did my best to revert it, but some of it seems NPOV, and I slapped a tag on it. I'm referring it to cleanup. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 06:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I editted it for NPOV and removed the tag. There doesn't seem to be much debate about it here anyway. This article could use a lot of work, particularly concerning GMA's second term. TheCoffee 09:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a historical situation where it is very difficult to judge what is the truth the article mostly ignores the suppressed opinions. An example: For journalists the Philippine became the most dangerous country in the world besides the Irak. Killing of members of Human Right Watch organisations were incredibly growing. Believing The Manila Times freedom of demonstration etc. is less than under Marcos dictatorship. Regarding a lot of messages in 2006 its possible that the Edsa II was a well prepared putch against an elected president (see the DVD about the live of Estrada), and that the real winner of the elections 2004 was Poe. Economy: There are missing all problems caused by the present government: "In the Philippines surveys show that more people than ever go hungry and say they eat only one full meal a day. Hunger drives the poor to work harder and longer yet they earn less and less and pay more for food." (Manila Times 07.12.2006) etc.

Arroyo's succession to the presidency in January 2001/Shooting of Military
"Protesters numbering in the thousands marched to the presidential palace on May 1 and demanded Estrada, who had previously been arrested on charges of plunder, be released and reinstated. The protesters refused to be pacified and violence ensued. In response, several protesters and prominent political leaders were arrested. Arroyo eventually stopped the protests and survived the first serious challenge of her administration, the first of many in the coming years."

Why you delete the information about the shootings and killings of protesters? 02 Nov 2006


 * Because nobody was killed. Coffee 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course: The military shooted, several were killed, many wounded - like in China, not so much dead!! 9 December 2006

"Boring"
At one point, GMA taught economics in Ateneo de Manila University. My history teacher, a student of hers, says she was horridly boring. ^_^ -TheCoffee 06:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lol... my sister said that economics is really boring whoever your proffesor is... - insanedriver

yeah economics is boring. i saw Mareng Winnie (Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod) teach at UP. we know how she can make politics really interesting in her show on tv but inside the classroom, you can see students in half-sleep. lolz. - jbvillarante

To each his own, this isn't really the place to discuss this. Sorry for filling space with useless info but I think economics is fascinating especially when very simplistic notions sometimes lead to counter-intuitive results. I suggest you read: The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford to gain a better appreciation for econ :) You could read Freakonomics by Steven Levitt but I think it's overrated. The first book explains real world phenomeno with more eco theory, the second uses only simple statistical tools to find patterns and correlations. Responsiblebum 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i may have taken out of context. i was referring to economics as a subject in class, which is boring. but really if you read stuff on your own and really study the theories then you compare them with actual data from the government and the reality you can observe in your everyday life, economics can really be amazing... - jbvillarante

Support for Kerry?
I removed this sentence:


 * the Filipino President also denounced U.S. President George W. Bush and publicly supported Bush's opponent in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election,Senator John Kerry.

I don't remember her supporting Kerry. In fact I remember the Philippine Star's headline the day of the US election being something like "Place prefers Bush victory". If someone's going to put that sentence back in, please include a reference. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)


 * If I remember correctly, the Philippines and I think either Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Singapore were mostly pro-Bush according to a CNN article in 2003. --Akira123323 13:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-election
Arroyo was not "re-elected" in 2004 for she was elected as vice-president is 1998. She wasn't elected as presidemt until the 2004 elections so i've edited the article. Circa 1900 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) The Philippine Charter does not allow reelection of the President. 05 February 2007

I've gotta say it
For a president, she's pretty hot. 69.58.249.133 09:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Surely not as hot as this babe???


 * Nah, Arroyo needs to do a Playboy centerfold . . . "Women of the Presidency" 69.58.249.133 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You think our president's hot? Well, I think your senator's hotter. I'm referring to Hillary, of coure. -SomeoneWhoChoseNotToSignHisUserName

I'd tap it. :) –24.247.164.42 06:58, 25 February 2006 (next time, please sign your comments with ~ )

if you mean me then sorry, i forgot and then was just too lazy to go back and do so :) WookMuff 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole talk page section makes me puke a little in my mouth every freaking time I read it. ;) --Chicbicyclist 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Midget
She must be pushing 4'9" or so? --Grocer 14:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds about right to me - somebody I know (who stands at about 4'11") received an award from her; apparently the President was significantly shorter than the recipient despite wearing very high heeled shoes!

Problem with article - incomplete sentence
It looks like someone started but saved before he or she was done editing. From the article:

Coup d'état
Main article: 2006 Philippines coup

On Friday, February 22, 2006, there was an allege

The President, through the Department of Education, declared a moratorium on all classes from elementary to high school level. Some colleges and universities also suspended classes. By the virtue of Proclamation No. 1427, she declared a State of Emergency for the whole country in an attempt to quell rebellion, which many fear might be a prelude to the institution of martial law. The Government's first move after declaring the State of Emergency will be to disperse the demonstrators, particularly the groups picketing along EDSA. It is reported that former Philippine president Corazon Aquino is among those protesting. 137.104.74.34 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

i really think this is biased...
i have to do a reaction paper regarding GMA's ruling in the Philippines. I thought I could find something out of here, but lo and behold! i really think this article's biased. where are her positive projects? hey, i'm not a staunch supporter of her. i'm just a student trying to learn things in a non-biased perspective. heck, why don't you mention her "rolling stores" even though it sounded cheap? please do something.
 * Okay, I placed a neutrality dispute notice on the page. There will be a discussion of neutrality here soon. :) --Noypi380 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this page has problems. Tried to change and edit the structure, and it was reverted by a bot. The neutrality dispute tag disappeared too. I have to write all over again. Weird. --Noypi380 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * For the meantime, I tried to fix some sections, especially the "presidency" section. I think its better now, but the scandal sections should be changed. Brought back the neutrality dispute tag, as requested by the anon user, who still needs to explain why he/she disputes the articles's NPOV. :) --Noypi380 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If there's no explanation, they I don't see why the tag should stay? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, the tag was removed. :) --Noypi380 11:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I still feel like the article is biased. Looking at the table of contents, the "Scandals and coup plots" section is just as big as the "Presidency" section. And there's a lot of anti-GMA info that isn't met with responses. The "Human rights violations" section, for example, doesn't mention that there's no evidence linking the PNP/AFP to the killings. And lots of paragraphs are leaning against GMA and include unsourced info. An example...


 * The policy went into full force in 2002 although critics claimed (What critics?) that it unnecessarily breaks certain traditions (Example: Labor Day must only be celebrated on May 1). Businessmen often complained (What businessmen?) that the government was always too slow and too late to announce when the holidays will take effect. To this day, people demand (Which people?) that a full-year schedule of holidays be released during the year before so that appropriate calendars can be printed well in advance. The government still has yet to respond to the demand. (Why do they need to?) 

I won't put a NPOV tag on the article right now, but I intend to fix it up sometime over the next few days. Coffee 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, first of all I've merged the "Scandals" section into "Presidency". This way there won't be an anti-Gloria-info-goes-here section for people to inflate, and hopefully coverage can be more well-rounded. I also merged the "Campaign for a new mandate" into "2004 election", since really they're the same issue. Coffee 17:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Based on the anon's quote, the problem is not the POV, but verifiability. If the "critics", "businessmen", "people" are too many, it would be impossible to cite all their names, right?. :) For a solution, the contributors who added the quoted section should also add their sources (such as weblink). :) --Noypi380 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why you put away this quotes? "In August 2006 opposition lawmaker Cayetano said “immediate members” of the family of Mrs. Arroyo were hiding a multimillion-dollar bank account in Hypo-und Vereins Bank AG, in Munich, Germany. The account number was given by the congressman, exposing it as bank account 87570-23030-32100-6271-571. The amount found in the “secret bank account runs to the tune of $500 million,” according to Tribune sources (www.tribune.net.ph). The First Gentleman has vehemently denied the charge of Cayetano. He went to Munich and got a certification from the bank but with a difference in bank account numbers (!).(09 September 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.67.242.233 (talk • contribs) 17:53 September 9, 2006.


 * Reasons it was removed:
 * Lack of link to actual article.
 * The Daily Tribune is generally not considered to be a reliable source.
 * Copy-violation - most of what you posted was a direct-copy&paste.
 * I've edited your other contribution about election fraud and added a less biased source and tried to give it a more neutral POV. We need a source for this claim about the bank accounts so we can track down a better source and make it more neutral. --Edward Sandstig 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think that it is biased. People just don't see what good things GMA has done for this country. I would be really happy if her great projects would be included here. Jamskienetopia 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Jamskienetopia 16:57 March 5, 2007

Biased? My God! Where have you been! Look at our country! Do you see anything positive? My God! You must be blind! Look, Philippine History is repeating itself, look at the late President Marcos, he did "good things for the country" but that was all a scam! He changed our form of government, to parlementary, just like what Gloria is doing, and in parlament, Gloria can become a dictator, like Marcos. Gloria is doing what Marcos was doing back in the 70s, please read Philippine History, and try to compare Marcos to Gloria, better yet, compare both Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos to Gloria, because she's the imbodyment of both of them! And if you enjoyed yourself during Marcos' Martial Law, "May God Have Mercy on Your Soul." - Greg - 12:24PM - 16 March 2007
 * How dumb can you get. Almost every single thing you said is inaccurate, I feel embarassed for you. You don't see the stock market near all time highs, the strong peso at 6 year highs, the 5 consecutive years of stable economic growth, inflation at the lowest level in decades? The only bad things happening are because Gloria's enemies are doing their best to tear the Philippines to pieces. You better keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further. - JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Inaccurate? Ferdinand Marcos did alot of good in his first term in office, the Philippines' was even declared, "Asia's Strongest Economy." But that all ended, in 1972, when he declared Proclamation No. 1081, Martial Law, then in the next year, 1973, Marcos proclaimed a new constitution that instituted a parliamentary system, thus making him a Prime Minister, thus allowing him to stay in power, until "PEOPLE POWER." You say inaccurate? Now we look at Gloria Arroyo, showed a lot of promise, like Marcos did, but just last year declared Proclamation Number 1017, just like Marcos did. Marcos declared Martial law to quell increasing civil strife and the threat of communist takeover following a series of bombings in Manila, he also quell increasing opposition against him, suppressed the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed him, when Gloria declared 1017, she did the same, she suppressed her opposition, the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed her. Just this year, the Philippines was declared "Most Corrupt Government in Asia," now you tell me if that's progress. Now she wants to change our form of government to a parliamentary system, making Gloria a Prime Minister, allowing her to stay in power, just like Marcos, you tell me my information is inaccurate, maybe it is YOU who should "keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further." - Greg - 03:20PM - 18 March 2007

Elections
In 2006 Clinton John Colcol, designated as “official receptionist” and tabulator by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in the last May 2004 polls in South Upi, Maguindanao, came out with the fact he was part of the group that manipulated the results of the elections.

In his affidavit, the witness revealed that he was allegedly directed by election officer Haidi Mamalinta to ensure that Mrs. Arroyo would get more than three thousand votes and FPJ less than two thousand votes in South Upi. “The truth is that GMA got almost one thousand plus votes only, and FPJ got 2, 700 plus based on the 31 canvass votes out of the 35 precincts,” (Daily Tribune 09/02/2006).(09/09/2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.67.242.233 (talk • contribs) 17:59 September 9, 2006.

Confused
I am really confused, but I do not seem to be able to find out where Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was born. On this article it says she was born in San Juan, Rizal in the info box. But when I click the link it goes to San Juan, Metro Manila. In the text it says she spent her first years in Lubao, Pampanga however. On that article it says that both her father and herself are from that place. On none of the external biographies I can find a definate statement on her birthplace. This must be a known fact however. She is the current president of the Philippines! Can anyone help me with this? Magalhães


 * This is still also a problem for me in my translations to other wikis.--Jondel 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * San Juan was part of Rizal province at the time that she was born, since Metro Manila wasn't organized until 1976. This page says she's from San Juan. I think I added the info about her spending her "first years" in Lubao, Pampanga (I got that info here). I'm not sure why she was born in San Juan if her family lived in Pampanga though. Coffee 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe she was born there in a hospital or so? Magalhães 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Diosdado Macapagal lived in San Juan up to the time he became president. Congressman Macapagal (which is the time Macapagal moved to San Juan after returning from a foreign posting in Washington) like all congressmen, had a Manila home and an official though seldom lived-in home in his district. After his presidency, Macapagal moved to Forbes Park. See his autobiography "From Nipa Hut to Malacanang".Gareon 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "UN blacklist" allegation
I have been unable to find any sources from the UN about this supposed blacklist. So far all we have is that one report from the Inquirer. I've reworded the sentence to clarify that the "blacklist threats" were only mentioned by the CHR Chairperson. --Edward Sandstig 21:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No comments? Should I just remove it since there really was no threat of being blacklisted? --Edward Sandstig 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the economy? PLEASE HELP ME
As someone who studied economics, I think she's all talk. The best she's done is not make things worse. Economically, we're more stable but we're not progressing. Filipinos are still among the most unproductive and expensive laborers in Asia (perhaps the world). We rely too much on remittances to fuel demand. Investments in infrastructure will help but institutional reforms to increase the Filipino's potential productivity are non-existent. I personally do not believe our current situation is sustainable (Those high skilled OFWs will eventually migrate).

Manufacturing output is down, investment is down, bank lending is down, inequality is on the rise, jobs creation is mediocre if not worse, etc. (just check the business newspapers: BusinessWorld, Inquirer, Philippine Star)

Check Cielito Habito (ADMU economics director) for a more credible source for critiques. If you read Asian Development Bank's outlook for the Philippines it's just politely saying were muddling along. No clear direction or momentum at all.

Also, institutional reforms for the economy was suppose to be embodied in the Charter Change (which I'm for). But I was sorely disappointed to find nothing but political reforms that will make things worse by further concentrating power to the elite and infringing on our freedoms.

Responsiblebum 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cielito Habito was my economics teacher in ADMU. One thing I remember him saying was that the good thing about having a bad president (referring to Erap) is that it makes is so much clearer to recognize a good president (referring to Gloria). Then again, perhaps you have a point... aside from the growing GDP, shrinking inflation, well performing stock market, shrinking unemployment, lowering poverty rate, record high per-capita income, improving manufacturing performance, rising tourism rates, strengthening peso, shrinking budget deficit, rising investments, rising government revenues, improving fiscal discipline and macroeconomic fundamentals and overall economic outlook... if you can look past all these "statistics" and "facts" about the economy, perhaps you could say it's "all talk". *sarcasm detector explodes* --Coffee 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Coffee are you a trained economist? or did you just take a couple of eco subjects? I don't mean to be condescending, I ask only because it would make my explanations easier. Especially about shrinking inflation and strengthening Peso; they're not always a good thing. An analogy can be drawn in ERAP's time. Inflation and the Peso was better. Also, it is not actually the Peso strengthening but the dollar weakening. Just look at our exchange rate with other currencies. Peso either depreciated or is stable.

Also check out what Ceilito Habito said in the following about the economy: http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=28081 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=26834 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=25537 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=24153 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=21488 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=20163 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=18747 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=17506 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=16304 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=13782 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=12558

One of the articles mentions that the shrinking employment is largely a product of the unemployment redefinition. Also most employment was generated through OFWs (more than any other time). If the economy is so good than why aren't we generating enough jobs to minimize this? It also states the higher GDP per capita can be explained by the weakening dollar and inflation. Same can be said of the lower poverty rate because it is defined by those living on less than 1 USD a day (in fact more Filipinos as a percentage of population are hungry now than ever). Record investments by foreigners are still paltry compared to our neighbors (do I need to explain why this comparison is important?). You will also find that consumers and local businessmen do not share the view of improving economic outlook. Foreigner equity investors, like Joey Salceda, yes but they have a conflict of interest (I'll explain if you wish). There are many studies that show that the relationship between stock market and short & medium term economic performance is tenous at best. Still very much debated. As for stok market performance vis-a-vis sustained long run performance, fahget about it. Plus our macroeconomic fundamentals hasn't really changed (i.e. engines for growth and potentials for that growth).

Improving manufacturing performance is just plain wrong .

Also, sarcasm is unnecessary. If I appeared overtly hostile and unreasonable I apologize. I'm not here to just wail on GMA without rational basis. Also, I truly prefer GMA over ERAP but I do not believe she is doing half the good that she says or could be doing. Responsiblebum 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you linking to a column...especially inq7.net. Most of their columnists are not exactly neutral. The peso is also appreciating faster than other currencies, so that kinda throws the whole "the dollar is weakening argument). An appreciating peso is not always a good thing but for a country that has huge outstanding foreign debts, an appreciating peso is a good thing.


 * Besides, the talk pages aren't exactly intended for discussions of these type of things.--Chicbicyclist 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Record investments by foreigners are still paltry compared to our neighbors (do I need to explain why this comparison is important?).


 * Maybe it has to do with the fact that our neighbors did not recently experience a political crisis and their infrastructure spending is not as paltry as ours. Speaking of infrastructure spending, Gloria can't do that, not yet anyway, until macroeconomic numbers are up and the government's financial standings are better(which, she is doing a good job with). She only started heavily focusing on infrastructure the last couple of months as well(which is understandable, considering the country's high debt levels acquired in the last few decades, especially in the Marcos years. You fix that, then you have money at hand. Appreciating peso also helps alot).--Chicbicyclist 06:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the inquirer isn't very neutral or well informed sometimes (I also read BusinessWorld and Philippine Star; which also reported the drop in manufacturing output). But Ceilito Habito is a highly respected economist and it's hard to argue with his economic logic. It's also hard to argue with consumer and business surveys. And it is in agreement with ADB's medium term outlook for the Philippines. I forgot to add that many Asian currencies are trying to hold down the value of their currencies hence Peso's appreciation is faster (also because we started at a lower baseline than others). I also remember an economist saying we save some money on our debts through appreciation but lose more from the depreciative effects on OFW remittances. Also it makes smuggling more profitable and widens the trade deficit while killing our export industries. Sidenote: One professor of mine wanted P70=$1 to help industrialize the country. But it's complicated so I leave it as a sidenote.

Vietnam's infrastructure spending is higher than ours yes; BUT we still have better or comparable infrastructure than they do right now. They started from a lower base. Anyway, I don't care so much about infratstructure as much as actual economic reform. Raising taxes is not refrom. It's like stepping on less/more gas on a car's engine. You can go slower/faster but your potential speed is the same. Actual reform should be changing the engine. The economic engine. Make it more efficient through structural reforms. Instead we've slipped in global competitiveness surveys. I seriously doubt the government will do anything tangible with the competiveness summit. I'm not voting for her again unless I see changes (e.g. rationalizing agrarian reform, more flexible labor market, rationalizing tariffs and industrial policy, NOT SIGNING TRADE DEALS THAT ALLOWS JAPAN TO DUMP TOXIC WASTES ON OUR COUNTRY, etc).

Final Note: On the reduction of Non-performing Loans, we did a regression on it before. Early on, it was caused by the redefinition of NPLs not a drop in ACTUAL NPLs.

I initially just wanted to put a criticism topic up and tried to get some people to help. But it seems I have to back up what I say for you guys to believe me, hence help me. Responsiblebum 06:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not an economist, I just had that one economics class in college and I keep up with business news (I like reading good news, so the business section is my refuge). Chicbicyclist is right though, talk pages should be for discussing changes to the article, so I'd rather not continue down this path. :p --Coffee 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I will prepare the section myself. I'll not explain when a strong peso and lower inflation can be bad or good then? I like good news too but the lies are getting intolerable since GMA isn't using the goodwill I see here to make harder more productive reforms. “Iron Lady of Asia” my ass. She can't earn the goodwill of the majority she might as well not lose the goodwill of the educated and make hard reforms. I hope someone trained in economics will help me write the section and answer criticisms though. Responsiblebum 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as foreign companies own the natural resources (mines, timber, beaches, railways, airports, land, oil, fishing rights), the Philippines will always find itself in debt and beholded to everyone else except our own citizen's... debate all you like, while the economy continues to spiral downward, poverty and hunger increases, and OFWs ("modern day heroes") continue to die at the hands of abusive employees....  enjoy, you damn economists with your theories while the people suffer. Kick around the same ideas and ignore the root problems. Do you also agree that we can't increase the minimum wage just 125P? let's just eliminate the minimum wage then! let's earn just 100P a day to attract foreign investors.... let's eliminate all education and save some money! brilliant! wonderful IMF-WB reforms.... user:peoplestruth
 * Better continue this debate in World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc, this article is about this head of state. Let's keep this discussion about improving this article. :) --Noypi380 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting view broughth the Manila Times in December 2006: Data twisted The comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown in the newspaper is wrong. The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs. As percentage of GDP, remittances have increased to 13.5 percent of GDP. But why should Arroyo get credit for these remittances? Filipinos have been leaving the country because not enough jobs are being created at home!) Remember that the relatively low GDP growth rate in 1999 was because the economy was still recovering from the Asian crisis. Inflation: Estrada has done better. Unemployment: Estrada has done better. Estrada has spent more for social services, education and health than any other President during the last quarter century. This performance shows his serious commitment to improving the lot of the great majority of Filipinos. He has invested more in human capital than any other president during the last quarter century. Estrada has managed the budget. Arroyo mismanaged the budget totally—operating on a reenacted budget for three of the last three years and incurring the highest deficits measured in three ways: national government deficit, consolidated public sector deficit and public sector borrowing requirement. (Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics, Manila Times, December 11, 2006). (02 March 2007)

RXN to peoplestruth, though this is not the right place

 * As long as foreign companies own the natural resources (mines, timber, beaches, railways, airports, land, oil, fishing rights), the Philippines will always find itself in debt and beholded to everyone else except our own citizen's... debate all you like, while the economy continues to spiral downward, poverty and hunger increases, and OFWs ("modern day heroes") continue to die at the hands of abusive employees.... enjoy, you damn economists with your theories while the people suffer. Kick around the same ideas and ignore the root problems. Do you also agree that we can't increase the minimum wage just 125P? let's just eliminate the minimum wage then! let's earn just 100P a day to attract foreign investors.... let's eliminate all education and save some money! brilliant! wonderful IMF-WB reforms.... user:peoplestruth

'''I will try to answer your issue with raising the minimum wage. The others will have to wait (if ever). I'm sorry this is out of topic and I'm rusty but I think this is important for peoplestruth (and everyone) to consider.'''

The answer is, we could… but are you willing to pay the price?

To elaborate, let me give the following oversimplification. We make the following premises:

1.) Money is worthless by itself without goods/services to trade with. The value of money lies in the willingness and ability of other people to trade goods/services for it.

2.) Income = Consumption i.e. The economy as a whole can only consume as much as it produces; and earn so long as others consume another's production. Or simply one's consumption is another's production and one's income is another's consumption. This is a derivation of the GDP equation: GDP = consumption + government spending + investments + net exports. We've taken out net exports and discounted investments effects on productivity to simplify matters. GDP, crudely, is the income part.

Now let us set up a hypothetical closed economy of 12 people. 10 are employed and 2 are not. Each employed person produces 1 unit of bread and 1 unit of milk for a total of 10 for the economy. Each good is priced at P10 and the people are paid P20 each. The 2 unemployed persons aren't part of the formal economy so their income and consumption is not recorded. Assume they're in the shadow economy. To illustrate the equation is givenː


 * Income of 10 people = consumption of 10 people
 * 10 x P20 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 10 people
 * P200 = (P10 + P10) x 10 people
 * P200 = P200
 * income = consumption

Please note that there are only P200 worth of bills circulating in the economy therefore the entire GDP of the economy (10 bread and milk) is “priced” at P200. This is important because money is worthless by itself. It is only important if you can trade stuff for it. In this case, bread and milk.

Now let us raise the wage of P20 to P25… (This also raises money supply by P20 but let's not get into that).


 * Income of 10 people = Consumption of 10 people
 * 10 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 10 people
 * P250 = (P10 + P10) x 10 people
 * P250 = P20 x 10
 * P250 ≠ P200

How can this be? Sure workers get more pay but the economy still produces the same amount of goods (10 bread and milk). All that money can only still be exchanged for 10 bread and milk. And how can you increase total wages to P250 when your total sales are P200?

Two things happen hereː 1.) People start charging each other more for their goods to cover the increase cost of wages. 2.) People start bidding up the price of the goods in an attempt to buy more goods (after all they have more money now).

Either way this put upward pressure for the price of goods until the equation balances. So thatː


 * Income of 10 people = Consumption of 10 people
 * 10 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 10 people
 * P250 = (P12.5 + P12.5) x 10 people
 * P250 = P25 x 10
 * P250 = P250

Back to square one people still can only buy 1 bread and milk each. It's as if nothing happened EXCEPT FOR A LOT OF INFLATION (i.e. 10 bread and milk is now “priced” at P250). Unfortunately this isn't usually the case because of sticky prices and menu costs. Prices do not change in the short run. So firms may lay off workers or close up shop if they can't operate until prices adjust. Leading to unemployment. Let us assume 2 people are laid off.


 * Income of 8 people = Consumption of 8 people
 * 8 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 8 people
 * Noteː the economy now produces 8 bread and milk due to less workers
 * P200 = (P10 + P10) x 8 people
 * P200 = P20 x 8
 * P200 ≠ P160

How can the economy operate this way? Through dissaving. Firms/people can use up their savings until they can charge higher prices. Unfortuntely, this isn't sustainable and causes the capital stock of an economy to go down. I took capital stock out to simplify matters. This happens until prices adjustː


 * Income of 8 people = Consumption of 8 people
 * 8 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 8 people
 * P200 = (P12.5 + P12.5) x 8 people
 * P200 = P25 x 8
 * P200 = P200

Now we have less people employed (8people), less overall production (8 bread and milk), and inflation (8 bread & milk = P200). Will the employed and productivity go back to previous levels? Maybe, but it takes a lot of investments to put up a factory or business so it takes time. And what if minimum wages rise again w/o a corresponding increase in productivity? Firms will be even more reluctant to invest.

Caveatː I admit the real world economy is a lot more complicated than this. For one thing inequality is not factored in. This model assumes everyone's labor is valued equality. This is not realistic like most economic models, but the whole point is that raising the minimum wage without a corresponding increase in productivity will only result in inflation. If you think the reason for our workers ills are greedy capitalists then why are so many SMEs filing for exemption from minimum wage increases?

I don't think I'm good enough to be called an economist. But “damn” economists advocate a more sustainable mode of growth through growth in productivity. What if you doubled productivity in our model?


 * Income of 10 people = consumption of 10 people
 * 10 x P20 = (2 bread + 2 milk) x 10 people
 * P200 = (P10 + P10) x 10 people
 * P200 = P200

People earn the same amount but now they can consume twice as much. Certainly more sustainable than raising the minimum wage. How? try the reforms I mentioned on top (in reality some inflation might be desirable when the growth happens but it's complicated).

It is unfair to say economists still advocate the same tired old ideas without studying economic history. Economic theory has gone a long way since mercantilism, classical economics, Labor Theory of Value, Say's Law, and communism to name a few obselete ideas.

Final Note: The minimum wage needs to be increased sometimes yes. But it must take into consideration the productivity of workers and not just the supposed cost of living figures supplied by BAYAN. Otherwise it helps no one in the long run. And let's be honest, local Filipino productivity sucks compared to OFWs and other foreign workers. Why is that you think?

I hope you would answer intelligently and in the spirit of seeking the truth. At least put as much effort as I tried in answering you peoplestruth. Questions? Criticism's? Clarifications? I do not mind if you use the Labor Theory of Value to justify yourself. Responsiblebum 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Normally I wouldn't get myself into this kind of discussion because I do not believe in mixing politics with economics. But... given the criticism of economists and the World Bank / IMF above I will try to chip in a bit here. You are absolutely right that raising minimum wages does indeed lead to inflation in the long run given the usual assumptions. However, there is at least one reason why it needn't be so simple. First of all I should make it clear that I am no expert on the Phillipino economy so what I am saying here are just ideas that you can use or throw away it they do not apply to the specific topic. With regard to the statements about economists and economics as a science I have nothing to add to the response above. If you do not like economists then don't argue with them. I don't start a debate with an physician just because I think gravity is unfair... and I respect that though gravity seems simple to me it isn't so seen from a scientific point of view. So show some respect peoplestruth.


 * The concept of efficiency wages comes to mind. If wages are already very low it may indeed be the case that productivity would increase if wages were raised. This is due to the fact that people who eat healthy or at least decent food and who can afford proper treatment at hospitals tend to be more productive. Once that has been achieved they might also be motivated to work harder and more motivated if payed well.


 * However, the best way to raise wages is simply to make the workers more productive and hence more valuable in the eyes of the people who pay them. Wages are best determined through the market mechanism and not through laws and biased politicians striking deals. However the market it self needs to be efficient in order to work and this may be the root of the problem. If employers are not being held responsible for the way they treat workers then workers cannot be expected to trust their employer and so the whole idea of an efficient labour market is pretty much down the drain.


 * In the long run wages aren't the real problem. The real problem is the dependance on unprofitable businesses like agriculture and manufacturing of clothing and cheap electronic parts/devices. I'll elaborate on this below because it belongs together with the discussion of the IMF and World Bank but just to make a long story short long run success isn't achieved by employing people in inefficient industries deemed too unproductive and unprofitable to exist in the Western countries. If the East asian countries are exploited by Western companies it is because they do nothing themselves to evolve and achieve growth through innovation and knowledge-intensive industries. Let's face it... anyone can operate a machine or work at a farm. You cannot compete with the outside world if you continue to rely on these industries.


 * With regard to the criticism of the IMF and the World Bank lets be clear on one thing. The East Asian economies needed drastic reforms to recover from the crisis in 97-98. Governemnt policies had been completely unresponsible and simply blaming the problem on foreign investors isn't going to solve the problem. As clearly demonstrated above you cannot consume more than is being produced and hence you cannot spend more than is being earned. And to earn money you need to invest money. The East Asian economies suffer (with the exception of Japan and to a certain degree a few others) from one major problem: They are acting as wages dumpers on the world market. Why do you think so many Western clothing industries (among others) set up factories there? Because labour is cheap! This of course is not sustainable. Sure, it is good for the local economies now (increased emplyment) but these economies need to cut spending and increase investment to evolve. Otherwise East Asia will not evolve into financially stable and healthy economies.


 * AND... above all you need to settle political differences and prove to the people who are going to invest in your country that you can run an efficient, non-corrupt and stable government without the support of the military. And the political opponents need to make the same realization and put down their arms so that there can be peace and stability. As long as this does not happen The Phillipines are going no where. I am not choosing sides here, I am just telling you what it looks like from a Western perspective and why the IMF / World Bank act the way they do. MartinDK 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments MartinDK. UPDATE: Nov 9,2006 I'm going to update the model to start with 2 unemployed people as well as introducing inequality. Peoplestruth countered that he himself wouldn't ask for a rise in minimum wages in the initial conditions. Though it really shouldn't matter. Not sure if I'm capable of introducing inequality though. Responsiblebum 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great discussions, everyone, but I really think we should stop this debate. Just a suggestion. The talk page sections are getting really long and cluttered. I think we should all focus these energies to improve the quality of the article instead of arguing amongst ourselves about political stuff. It's a fine line, I know. The minimum wage thing was very informative but it was a response to a political point. Let's try not to do that anymore. Humbly, Chicbicyclist 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree. However, I felt I had to make a few things clear because the tone of the debate was getting ugly. Politics definately shouldn't influence the content here in Wikipedia. But sadly all too aften it does and so it becomes impossible just to ignore. But like you said it is a fine line and I hope this debate has been settled now. Cheers, MartinDK 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Satisfaction ratings
Hello! Below could be the text for PGMA's satisfaction or performance ratings:

According to the 3rd Quarter 2006 Social Weather Survey of the Social Weather Stations: net satisfaction with PGMA inches up to -11. This is from 37% Satisfied and 48% Dissatisfied with the performance of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for an unfavorable Net Satisfaction Rating of -11. (The number -11 should be read as "minus-eleven," not as "negative-eleven"). This is slightly up from the 2nd, which had 34% Satisfied and likewise 48% Dissatisfied, or Net -13, correctly rounded.

President Macapagal-Arroyo's national net rating has been unfavorable for nine consecutive survey rounds, ever since the Third Quarter of 2004. PGMA's Net Satisfaction score is favorable only in the Visayas, where it grew to +6 in September from +2 last June. (The number +6 should be read as "plus-six," not as "positive-six".) It became slightly less negative in Metro Manila, at -41 now compared to -47 last June, and in the Balance of Luzon, at -10 now compared to -13 in June. In Mindanao, it dipped insignificantly to -8 now, from -7 in June. --Pinay06 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinay06 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Okay, also can we trim down the criticism section? its as long as the presidency section, and dunno if all the data there should be there. The survey info can be placed in the public perception subsection. The presidency section now has two important subsections: domestic policy (economy, etc) and foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, etc.) --Noypi380 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Presidency section
After trimming the "critics' corner", dunno how to do that eh, the article can now grow from the economy subsection (better use normal speak and not econ speak), since Arroyo herself stated that she expects her legacy to be economic growth, job creation, and putting the "fiscal house in order". And without her saying so, probably also the modernization of defense, the ambitious nationwide public works agenda (2006-2010), and the privatization of money losing state businesses can be added in the presidency section. Assuming she really is carrying these things through. Wadja think? --Noypi380 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Alston Probe
I have added the latest update on the Alston-UN probe on the Melo Commission and the extrajudicial killings, and I'd like to know if the Philippine Star can be counted as a credible source. Franck Drake 15:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, it has the second highest readership among the country's broadsheet newspapers. Certainly credible. TheCoffee 02:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

One important witness Alston's, Cheche Bustamante-Gandinao, was killed on March 11, 2007. "She was witness to the killing last month   - of her father-in-law, Dalmacio, then the provincial Bayan Muna chairman. She had earlier told media she feared for her life.   - The murder last Saturday was committed just a few meters away from a military detachment in Sitio Nabuolan, Barangay Guinalaban in Mindoro Oriental." http://www.tribune.net.ph/20070313/headlines/20070313hed1.html I think this is an important information because it shows the difficulty to get witnesses. For me the Daily Tribune is a very clear and true paper because it always reports both sides though its very clear in the opinion (for democracy and constitution, against manipulations, also very critical to the present government. 194.113.40.41 15:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (16 March 2007).

216.99.39.34 15:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I think the Alston report should be mentioned in the Human Rights section of the page, as it speaks directly to claims made by the administration and the Melo commission and is about Human Rights.

Clean-up Sections on Human Rights and State of Emergency
As stated in the reasoning why this article was not accepted as a feature http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Gloria_Macapagal-Arroyo clean-up is badly needed. Sources and style should be discussed here on how we can improve both content and accountability. I can work on the Human Rights and State of Emergency sections. 15:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
This article uses highly biased sources. A president who is probably not elected has no interest that the truth comes out. But this article follows to a far degree the official statements and tries to suppress the view of the opposition. Edsa II (2001): Mrs. Arroyos disclosec in a video recording that this was a well prepared putch including certain parts of the military, deceiving the church to get their support etc. - during the hearings against detained president Estrada it turned out that it was Estrada who refused to be bribed. Arroyo did immediately after her grip to power. - the well known "Chavit" Singson disclosed himself as a lyer. He could not even put the money in the boxes (they were much to small) as he claimed he gave them to Estrada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.113.40.41 (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

Some of the bias has, by now, been removed.--Pine oak 02:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased and Unbiased Point of View
(Wikipedia or whoevers in charge of this article, please do not delete this, you are suppressing our freedom to speak our mind, whether it is biased and unbiased it dosen't matter. To think this is an unessessary discussion is suppressing our right to speak our mind.)

I also think that it is biased. People just don't see what good things GMA has done for this country. I would be really happy if her great projects would be included here. Jamskienetopia 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Jamskienetopia 16:57 March 5, 2007

Biased? My God! Where have you been! Look at our country! Do you see anything positive? My God! You must be blind! Look, Philippine History is repeating itself, look at the late President Marcos, he did "good things for the country" but that was all a scam! He changed our form of government, to parlementary, just like what Gloria is doing, and in parlament, Gloria can become a dictator, like Marcos. Gloria is doing what Marcos was doing back in the 70s, please read Philippine History, and try to compare Marcos to Gloria, better yet, compare both Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos to Gloria, because she's the embodiment of both of them! And if you enjoyed yourself during Marcos' Martial Law, "May God Have Mercy on Your Soul." - Greg - 12:24PM - 16 March 2007

How dumb can you get. Almost every single thing you said is inaccurate, I feel embarassed for you. You don't see the stock market near all time highs, the strong peso at 6 year highs, the 5 consecutive years of stable economic growth, inflation at the lowest level in decades? The only bad things happening are because Gloria's enemies are doing their best to tear the Philippines to pieces. You better keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further. - JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Inaccurate? Ferdinand Marcos did a lot of good in his first term in office, the Philippines' was even declared, "Asia's Strongest Economy." But that all ended, in 1972, when he declared Proclamation No. 1081, Martial Law, then in the next year, 1973, Marcos proclaimed a new constitution that instituted a parliamentary system, thus making him a Prime Minister, thus allowing him to stay in power, until "PEOPLE POWER." You say inaccurate? Now we look at Gloria Arroyo, showed a lot of promise, like Marcos did, but just last year declared Proclamation Number 1017, just like Marcos did. Marcos declared Martial law to quell increasing civil strife and the threat of communist takeover following a series of bombings in Manila, he also quell increasing opposition against him, suppressed the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed him, when Gloria declared 1017, she did the same, she suppressed her opposition, the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed her. Just this year, the Philippines was declared "Most Corrupt Government in Asia," now you tell me if that's progress. Now she wants to change our form of government to a parliamentary system, making Gloria a Prime Minister, allowing her to stay in power, just like Marcos, you tell me my information is inaccurate, maybe it is YOU who should "keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further." - Greg - 03:20PM - 18 March 2007

Wikipedia is not a message board, a soapox, or just any online site that you can think of where you can express your personal opinions. Find another place where you can criticize or praise PGMA, regardless of your political convictions. This talk page is for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. --- Tito Pao 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How can you discuss the article, without discussing the subject of the article? --- Greg - 10:27AM - 24 March 2007
 * We should limit discussion on grammar and POV issues, not on whether PGMA is the greatest or worst president. -- Howard  the   Duck  11:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

... but the user expects to read the truth. And if its too difficult he wants to understand why. Imo the evidence goes more and more against Mrs. Arroyo, as Archbishop Cruz wrote (lying, cheating, stealing...) 194.113.40.41 13:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If the evidence goes more against PGMA, then one cannot just sugar-coat the evidence, just to make this article unbiased. Like 194.113.40.41 said, "the user expects to read the truth." -- Greg - 11:00PM - 28 March 2007

I beleave the article should be about her life story, her carea and (if proven) corupition. It is not a political manafesto. The talk page is for digusing stuff such as an article's POV, bias, sources and quality. Talk pages are not a political soap-box either.--Pine oak 03:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Things could be a lot worse, at least it's not as bad in the Phillipines as it is in Zimbabwie, so it's not all bad. --Freetown 05:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some of the POV has, by now, been removed.--Pine oak 02:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

There are always three sides to every story, in this case: lozada's side, gma's side and the truth. Hopefully the Philippine senate would be able to solve the puzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.53.36.187 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the senate can give us some light about the issues because as long as some senators have their own personal agenda no puzzle can be solve. I think as a encyclopedia articles that should be written here should be about her life story as Pine oak says,and program and laws passed during her service in the government. All allegations about her crime should always be labeled as accusations because as of now they are still allegations it would be really biase on her part if we says things that still don't have proof.58.69.218.181 (talk) 05:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To those who insist on discussing the *subject* instead of the *article*
This is a generic, final warning to those involved in the last few subtopics who still do not get the point that Howard and I, titopao, have been saying all along.

Wikipedia is not a forum, a message board, a soap box or, for that matter, Wikipedia is not the Plaza Miranda. If your only purpose on making all those rambling statements is to write in your criticisms or praises (in case you're from the other camp) on this talk page but have no plans in helping improve the article, find yourself another website. I don't care what your politics are, and I don't give a damn if you're pro/anti Gloria or Erap (it doesn't matter anyway), but if your debates won't help us make a better article, then don't do it here.

If you have a point to make and want to have it included on the article, make sure you name your sources. For that matter, you cannot use blogs, forums, message boards, social networking sites or other similar self-published site as sources, per the external links policy. (The acceptable exceptions would be official blogs and official websites.) Unsourced statements on any article will be challenged, and if found controversial or libellous, will immediately be deleted, per policy...if not by me, then by other editors.

For the users concerned (Greg (210.23.188.87), 192.127.94.7, 194.113.40.41), the standard user warnings have been placed on each of your user talk pages. I have placed higher-level warnings because you still persisted in engaging in unproductive debate despite adequate warnings by me and Howard. All of you have been duly advised. --- Tito Pao 05:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Touché. Wikipedia is not Plaza Miranda. Very good hehe. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I will stop posting my political opinions, but may I be frank, I think this is very unfair, you are suppressing my right to freedom of speech, OK, I will not post anymore of my political opinions, I would like to say something else, I think this article will not be truthful, because the one's incharge of this article will not listen to as you call it "political rantings." One more question before I go, do you know websites were I can express my "political rantings?" -- Greg - 5:10PM - 29 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.84.20.21 (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Note that Wikipedia is not a democracy in the sense that we're here to build encyclopedic articles, not political diatribes. This is why we emphasize that discussions should be about improving the article, and also why we discourage discussion about anything not related to the building of the article in question. We're here to discuss how to make the article better, not how to make the President better (although I share your view that we deserve a better government). --- Tito Pao 11:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can use PinoyExchange.com. Wikipedia isn't the right place to do this. We all have a freedom to express as long as it's within legal lines, but Wikipedia is not the place. Talk pages are for the article, not the article's subject. So at 2006 FIFA World Cup, we discuss how to improve the article, not to discuss how England and Sven Goran Ericsson chokes big time. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For starters, if you can give us news articles about PGMA and/or Erap, whether it casts them in a positive or negative light, you can use the information on those articles and have them properly referenced. The more, the merrier (or, as my classmate used to say, "the merrier, the better"). Just that, make sure it's not an op-ed piece (definitely a no-no) or (if it can be avoided) one of those tabloids with scantily clad starlets. --- Tito Pao 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have an idea though, to be fair to the Arroyo supporters, in the article, put up a section for the Anti-Gloria side and another section for the Pro-Gloria side, so that the article will be balanced, I've seen this in other articles. Just making a suggestion. -- Greg - 12:07PM - 30 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.1.98.134 (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC).


 * That is what we did at 2006 state of emergency in the Philippines. If anyone can contribute to the article go ahead, but please, debating on talk pages endlessly achieve nothing. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * And, of course, make sure that you can back it up, so that other editors will not mark the edits as original research (which is a no-no). --- Tito Pao 14:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rights come with responsibilities. If you have a right to freedom of speech, it's your responsibility to follow the rules, and not vandalize, and/or put libelous statements. 122.53.102.230 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

economy
Dear "TheCoffee", you always delete economic matters etc. if they are critical to Mrs. Arroyo. But this is not a government board. If something is wrong please right or correct it.

I found many very critical voices and they are in accordance with my experience and that of my friends.

Here again quotes from Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics, Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), Archbishop Cruz. "But if you consider the opinion of the opposition it seems to be quite different:   - - - According to Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics the comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown above is wrong. "The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs. As percentage of GDP, remittances have increased to 13.5 percent of GDP. But why should Arroyo get credit for these remittances? Filipinos have been leaving the country because not enough jobs are being created at home!). - In a Speach to the Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV) Melendres said: "What happened to our biggest textile manufacturers? U-Tex (Universal Textiles) and Gentex (General Textiles) were forced to close. And that includes tire manufacturer Sime Darby." - "Thanks but no thanks to Mrs. Arroyo and then President Fidel Ramos but now we are importing agricultural products." .   - Archbishop Oscar V. Cruz added: "Millions of Filipinos precisely suffer from joblessness. The other millions of workers receive starvation salaries. The rest of the million Filipinos have to leave their homes and families in order to find work abroad." .194.113.40.41 14:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm reverting these additions is because they don't reflect the actual consensus view of the economy, just a collection of skewed views from individuals. Benjamin Diokno was Erap's finance secretary, of course he'll take an Erap-defending anti-Gloria position. That second blurb about closing textile manufacturers and agriculture imports lacks context and is probably insignificant in the big picture. And the third blurb... Oscar Cruz isn't even an economist, just a rabid anti-Gloria nut. TheCoffee 00:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * nobody has the autonomy of truth.. truth is different from our individual point of view. wikipedia is a venue to share information based on existing facts and supported by literature and not by mere opinions. this is not an editorial board. 24.193.29.5 10:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear 24.193.29.5, Why you added "Headline text ===="? I hope we all want that the truth has a chance to come out. And that means that both sides have a chance to share their knowledge. I hope that this time there will not happen so much cheatings during and after the elections like 2004 (the believe of cheatings are not mere opinions but based on existing facts. and supported by literature)Truth111 22:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
If no one objects I'll remove them. The article is neutral enough for me. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course I object. Only if you and others don't remove the critical parts (f.e. "economy") and the parts of the cheating of the elections 2004, and add a report about the unresolved parts of the power grip 2001 I could agree.Truth111 12:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I've rarely edited the article (go see the history tab) so don't accuse me. As for economy and your other demands, it won't be that hard isn't it? There are lots of website around... -- Howard  the   Duck  16:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (To Truth111) For the nth time on this very talk page: this is not a forum', so please save your comments elsewhere. If you have gripes about GMA and want to include them on the article, make sure you cite your sources appropriately. Thank you. --- Tito Pao 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Need statistics for lack of jobs being the principal reason that people leave the country
I removed the sentence about lack of jobs being the principal cause of people leaving the country. We need statistics to back this up rather than claims from an economist who used to work for Estrada. If I'm not mistaken, low wages are the principal reason for people wanting to leave the country, and that's not exactly something you can blame on the government. In short, many of the people leaving, already have jobs, but decide that they need to earn more to help their families. If you can provide an impartial source that says bluntly that the people leaving are jobless, then we can return that sentence. --Edward Sandstig 16:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

-Perhaps you are right in a formal manner. But the increase of the OWFs is at any case a sign that the economy worsens for most people. Me and many friends are personally concerned and pretty angry because we have to support meanwhile even for daily needs. See statistics and surveys about the hunger problem, the medicine problem - a hospital refused to make an operation after an accident without confirmation from abroad to take the fees (the confirmation came too late). For me this means that Arroyos government failed in vital parts.Truth111 21:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "to support meanwhile even for daily needs"? And kindly elaborate on this whole hospital asking for confirmation before conducting an operation. I still don't see how any of this is relevant, stuff like people not getting proper medical care, or people leaving the country for greener pastures has been happening even in Marcos' time. Please don't return the passage unless you can provide a real source. --Edward Sandstig 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Jose Pidal
An anonymous user with the IP address 203.177.106.235 removed the paragraph on Jose Pidal stating it was unreferenced. I have returned the paragraph and added links to an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and a blog entry from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. When you find something that lacks a source, request a citation first, then remove it if no source materializes after a number of weeks. --Edward Sandstig 13:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
Let's open an offcal Wiki photo gallary on her at the bottom oof the page. There are so many pictures.--Pine oak 19:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC) It would be nice.--86.25.54.205 00:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To few pictures in the commons.--86.29.251.10 07:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there are too few.--Pine oak 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal Life?
No mention of her husband and their children? Not even a link directing to Mike Arroyo? -Leoisiah 06:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's covered in the "Early life" section. TheCoffee 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

TheCoffee is biased... probably Arroyo's personal assistant or something. are you gonna erase this now?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 links to his Wiki-page.--Pine oak 02:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, fix the contradictory pronouns dotting the article. "He" denotes a male. "She" denotes a female. - Mirlac

2007 SONA
BBC reported this event today.

--Florentino floro 13:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

2010 Ambition
In her SONA speech, Arroyo categorically announced her candidacy for the 2010 presidential (or prime minister) race. Even if she promised to step down when her six-year term ends in three years, Arroyo served notice that she should not be treated as a lame-duck President: "I am not an obstacle to anyone's ambition. But make no mistake." In the 56-minute SONA speech at the joint opening of the 14th Congress at the Batasab in Quezon City, a beaming Arroyo, dressed in a red terno, said she "will not stand idly by when anyone gets in the way of the national interest and tries to block the national vision. From where I sit, I can tell you, a President is always as strong as she wants to be."

--Florentino floro 05:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're putting in your own interpretation of the article. I've edited to reflect what's written in the Inquirer and in the included excerpts of her SONA. --Edward Sandstig 10:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the title "2010 Ambition" is bias. The strong words in her SONA do not necessarily lead to her trying to stay in office longer nor have I seen any clear actions on her part to do so.  While she may desire that, she has not clearly moved to do so, or at least I haven't seen it.  I have edited the subtitle and the content to be more neutral.--Bruce Hall 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

She joked
President Arroyo joked during a speech in Subic Bay. She joked about being a "congresswoman" in Pampanga. A-yao 06:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ran for senator in 1987?
It was recently added to the article that GMA ran for senator in 1987 and placed 24th. It was backed by this reference, but I'm doubtful... I've looked up many sources and never heard of her running for senator in 1987. If you re-add this line to the article, could you please find a different reference? I suspect this editorial reference got the facts wrong. Thanks. TheCoffee 14:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC) I did not find a different source too. Probably you are right.Truth222 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK.. she did not run for senator in '87.. geez people.. it was cory and marcos' time then.. gloria was still perfecting her scheme then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ousting of Estrada/How Arroyo became President
Okay, ousting of Estrada. For Christ's sake... Gloria Macapagal's loyalists(on her payroll of course) are trying so hard to hide the fact that she indeed "stole" and i repeat "stole" the presidency. the allegations made against President Estrada we're based on false or non-existent premises. The charges that we're filed against him were not supported by any substantial evidences. Plus, okay. He did not resign nor was he impeached. the constitution of the Philippines says and i will paraphrase, that the vice president may only take over if the president 1. dies... 2. is impeached.. and lastly 3. if he resigns. NONE of these happened at all. Estrada left The presidential palace so that he could rest in his home. There were no resignation letters. With the help of the media and other powerful friends including the chief justice of the philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo snatched the presidency. She was sworn in illegally. How can another individual be sworn in as president when the other one is still active? i do not know why there is so much debate about this issue even from supposedly objective observers from abroad. and The Coffee (username from wikipedia) please edit your own stuff ok? i know you are a gloria loyalist and have deleted some of the truthful negative posts about gloria and her chronies before... and all you others.. thanks...

p.s. i was there when all of this happenned you know. i love the philippines but i cannot stand the sight of it now. it's condition, no matter how hard we try to make it sound pretty... is in fact not pretty... not at all.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to share a quote from the Daily Tribune (08/30/2006) http://www.tribune.net.ph/20060830/commentary/20060830com1.html that seems very important for the historical discussion about 2001; "The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, after having given the documentary on the life and times of the now detained leader a triple X rating, thus banning it from being shown publicly, has consented to the showing of this documentary, on condition that some three-fourths of the documentary be cut out.

Not surprisingly, the portions that the censors board wanted cut were those that show Gloria Arroyo, caught on video, in a forum of a civil society group, proudly confessing that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada, along with some five groups of treacherous military officials whom she had even identified and congratulated; the video clip of then Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. and his clique of justices that went to the Edsa Shrine, where Davide was distinctly heard as saying he would be swearing in Gloria as the acting President but later swore her in as President, along with the item on then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban, as recounted in his book, Reforming the Judiciary, of his and Davide’s early morning plan to swear in Gloria, even when they were aware of the fact that there was no vacancy in the high office, as Estrada had clearly not resigned and other documented evidence of the deliberate collapse of the impeachment trial; the fact that the second envelope, which the then opposition claimed contained “damning evidence” that the Jose Velarde account was Estrada’s, only to be discovered later, when the envelope was opened at the Senate, that it contained proof to the contrary. It was Jaime Dichaves who owned the account, as the bank documents in that envelope showed." Who knows more?Truth222 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg
Image:Ph pres arroyo.jpg 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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, 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) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation #48
is a 404. --75.85.14.12 (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Health Issues and NOTICE
I think my earlier edits on health were deleted. But now, this mysterious illness again surfaced. It is a FACT that Arroyo is sick. And later on, if like the Litany of Health Curse in the GMA cabinet would turn to epidemic proportions, like starting with Bunye, to Raul Gonzales kidney, it is very sad that if this HEALTH edit of mine again will be deleted, I would not be credited with my prophecy of GMA's later hurting. Vide my impeccable predictions on: and [ http://judgefloro.blogs.friendster.com/luis_armand_angel_judge_f/2007/11/memorandum_of_d.html]

Now, HOW can this article be NEUTRAL if this HEALTH subsection is not RETAINED. In several autos of world leaders, Health section is the most important encyclopedia neutral article.

Hence, I notify the ADMIN to watch this health section, lest it be deleted again. Sincerely

--Florentino floro (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Your gov't is nothing but a complete corrupt group- shame on you- you are a clear view of people that does'nt have any conscience at all!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.237.255 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Misspelling
In the "Honors and Awards" section, the title of the Forbes magazine issue is misspelled. It should be "Forbes magazine's 100 Most Powerful Women in the World". (Woman -> Women) 131.107.3.41 (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing Report about a meeting with former President F.Ramos and the OWFs
I remember there was a report about a meeting with former President F.Ramos with interesting informations on the desolate situation of OWFs. I did not find anymore here or in the archive. Who knows where I can find again? Truth222 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I don't understand what the following contribution meansTruth222 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember that when she was 10 years old she was 7 foot tall with a booger on her right cheek and when she turned 19 she maked out yao ming :) and then when she was 30 years old she had sex with Mike Arroyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokojoshua (talk • contribs) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth222's edits
Estrada wanted to avoid victims and left office - Can this actually be confirmed? Do we have mind-readers that can confirm that this really was the reason that Estrada left office? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First thank you very much for seriously answering. Edsa II/III: I remember that Estrada gave no order to shoot on the people, but Arroyo. Further he himself wrote to the senate that he temporarily would leave the palace to solve the case peaceful (I confess I dont remember the exact reason and dates of this writing).Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A statement from Estrada claiming that was the reason isn't really enough especially when you consider that he had already lost support of the AFP and the PNP. It would be like a boxer who lost a match saying that he lost because he let the other guy win. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are statements of his lawyers too.
 * Do you really want to say that the army would disobey the elected president? At this time his name was Estrada! Then it was a mutiny or even a putch with the support of the army.Truth222 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Massive crowds in the hundreds of thousands were gathering daily for a week to protest after the impeachment trial turned into a farce. In the face of such popular unrest the military "stepped aside".  Let's put things in some context. If hundreds of thousands of people were gathering DAILY for a WEEK to protest and an impeachment trial had turned into a sham and the country was destabilizing due to the power vacuum and everyday life and commerce was disrupted, wouldn't a resignation for the good of the country not be a perfectly understandable action in the face of the loss of confidence in his administration?  Should any one man's position be worth more than the stability of the entire country?  If the Philippines had a parliamentary system a resignation would have been the easy and obvious solution and that's why cha-cha advocates have a good case in proposing reform.  However, the Philippines has a presidential system and Estrada refused to resign and chose to cling to the presidency.  He was evicted. Now one can say he had legitimate reasons to do as he did but to suggest that he left office out of benevolence or some altruistic end would be inaccurate. Ridacto (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

She was elected in pretty doubtful elections - This is an opinion many Filipinos share, and certainly the Garci tapes and such lend credence to this, but "pretty doubtful" isn't the sort of thing you read in an encyclopaedia. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Governor from Ilocos Sur and close friend of Arroyo. - Don't really see how this is relevant considering he was reportedly a "friend" of Estrada as well. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think his relation to Arroyo is essential. The famaly ties are close. F.E. Arroyo is Godmother for his children. That could explain his obviously wrong allegations. In the Senate hearings 2006 he could not even put the money into the boxes.


 * Later the Sandibayan Court used his wrong allegations only against Estrada but not against the other accused. They prevented Estradas laywers to ask him questions as it should be.Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Which allegations specifically? If the other defendants were not party to those specific allegations, why would the SB acuse them of such? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Singson was a friend of Estrada's too, privy to the gambling sessions Estrada participated in with dubious characters thought to be related to the underworld. That's what made him an important witness. Also remember that what made Singson's testimony even more compelling and dramatic was that he was turning on Estrada because of what he perceived to be an attempt on and threat to his life.  He wanted to sing like a bird while he was still alive.  Suspected politically motivated deaths linked to those who crossed or were in the position to cross Estrada include the cases of Bubby Dacer, Edgar Bentain, and John Campos. Ridacto (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you followed the hearings you know that Chavit Singson was proven as lying: He could not put the money into the box which in his statement he had handed out to  Estrada as a bribery!Truth222 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

During senate hearings later (2006) it turned out that some of the important presumptions were wrong. (Compare http://www.tribune.net.ph/20060330/headlines/20060330hed1.html) - I fail to see how that sentence referencing an article in The Tribune fits in with the preceding paragraph. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It concernes the main crime.Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I read through the article and basically all I saw was Estrada trying to pass the blame to Singson. The sentence isn't appropriate in a paragraph detailing Arroyo's succession to the presidency. Also, please be a little more careful with the sources you use. The Tribune is known to be biased towards Estrada, if you don't believe that, then please provide a single article where they have criticized the former president. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But if you consider the opinion of the opposition it seems to be quite different: According to Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics the comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown above is wrong. "The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs. As percentage of GDP, remittances have increased to 13.5 percent of GDP. But why should Arroyo get credit for these remittances? Filipinos have been leaving the country because not enough jobs are being created at home!)(Manila Times December 11, 2006) - We've discussed this a number of times. I attempted to at least leave mention of the opposition's view on this a while back. As to the increase in number of OFWs and claiming that people are leaving because of lack of jobs, you've failed to provide statistics that prove that this is the case. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Benjamin Diokno was Secretary of Budget and Management in the Estrada administration. He can hardly be called impartial. When he defends the Estrada administration he is pretty much defending his own record. Ridacto (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Economy: There was already a version that showed both sides as you mention above. Why it was removed?


 * Newer quote: "She earned for the Philippines a world wide title as the 2nd most corrupt country in the world. The World Bank (WB), the US Department of State, and just last week, the Asian Development Bank (ABD) have supported this finding, calling attention to the “worsening” corruption in the country."


 * Or: Tribune Thursday, 13 March 2008: Former gov’t finance officials: Economy ‘not gaining momentum’ Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know why it was removed, but it's possible that whoever removed it found the section too lengthy or inappropriate for the article. As to corruption, we should note that Pulse Asia's survey for one, was defined by public opinion and refers to corruption in the Philippines as a whole, in contrast to Estrada and Marcos being listed in the world's top 10 most corrupt world leaders in 2004. I'm hoping some of the other contributors will chime in so we can decide whether to reintroduce the section containing some of Diokno's comments. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probaly for the best if they were added to give a sence of copleatness

--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Video with confession Arroyos that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada
Showing Mrs. Arroyo, "caught on video, in a forum of a civil society group, proudly confessing that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada. It seems its no falsification. Of course that would change the whole view on the events of 2001." Daily Tribune 02/20/2008: ‘We went from frying pan to fire’ Edsa II a mistake, says CBCP head "The church issued yesterday what amounted to a public apology for its pivotal role in installing then Vice President Gloria Arroyo to the presidency in a 2001 military-backed revolt that ousted popularly elected President Joseph Estrada."Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * A link to this video could be an interesting addition to the article. Do we have one? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I am from the Philippines and call me ignorant but is this video really existing? Because I haven't heard of it, sorry.58.69.218.181 (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither have I, but if it does exist, it would be interesting to see it. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would indeed worth having.--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to that video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh9bECSgfq, it includes criticisms of EDSA 2.- Philippinepresidency (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Tsismis yan. Daily Tribune is an opposition mouthpiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.70 (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Her Excellency"
Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The term "Her Excellency" is used when addressing a high ranking official from a foreign country directly, either orally or in writing. In an encyclopedic article, it sounds only deferential and sycophantic, if not outright ridiculous. It should be deleted.Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.64.26.197 (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph about Lagdameo's disappointment in Arroyo in "Succession" section
I removed the paragraph because it isn't appropriate to the section. The section deals with Arroyo taking over the presidency and it being declared legal by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court later declares that the take-over was illegal, then fine, we can ammend that section with that information. A religous leader giving their opinion and expressing disappointment over the aftermath of EDSA II, however, just isn't relevant to issues of succession. Even former presidents such as Aquino and Ramos expressing disappointment wouldn't be relevant to the section since they do not affect whether or not the decision was ruled legal. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are consequent you must delete almost the whole paragraph. The "people power" also is irrelevant for the court and was not possible without the deceived support of the church leaders. Further: Read the decision of the court, it sounds partly like yellow press and would never be adequat to international standards.Truth222 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, the term "people power" isn't used in the paragraph, second, the first paragraph has everything to do with how she came to power. I won't be reverting for now, since we've already both violated the 3-revert-rule. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph doesn't belong in that section, or anywhere in the article. It makes the section biased, and it's obvious that adding it is only an attempt to sway people's opinions. It is best to present facts of the events, not people's opinions and spin-- otherwise every article about a political leader will be filled with quotations of people's opinions of them. TheCoffee (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is biased in the present form. I think its necessary for understanding to know the partly changed role of the church. Edsa II was to a far degree based on very personal "moral" issues of the church especially Cardinal Sin. (Compare the quotes of Puno's official answer to the laywer of Estrada.):

CBCP president Archbishop Angel Lagdameo said last January the church-backed Edsa II was a mistake as the installation of then Vice President Gloria Arroyo as president was merely going from the frying pan into the fire. “It did not respect the rule of law. It did not give the duly instituted political institution a chance to assert itself and prove its strength to handle such a political turmoil”

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president and Iloilo Archbishop Angel Lagdameo expressed disappointment in Mrs. Arroyo, saying which has become known as Edsa II, which happened between Jan. 17 and 21 in 2001 installed a president who is now being adjudged in surveys as the country’s “most corrupt” leader.

The former President Corazon Aquino apologized, she is “also guilty of being part of the Edsa Dos” that ousted then President Estrada. She said “Lahat naman tayo ay nagkakamali. Patawarin mo na lang ako” (We all make mistakes. Please forgive me). At this point, President Erap stood up, bowed to her and clasped his hands in an Asian gesture of thank you. (The Daily Tribune 12/24/2008)62.67.242.252 (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear The Coffee: I hereby add the quote of the court, which I mean: "Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern.[3] Two days later or on October 13, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines joined the cry for the resignation of the petitioner.[4] Four days later, or on October 17, former President Corazon C. Aquino also demanded that the petitioner take the “supreme self-sacrifice” of resignation.[5]" Why should Corazon Aquino make only a joke for her apologizing?Truth222 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Health section
We need a health section here: why? Health section is a must in heads of state. It is not news but real deal, since if a President dies or is incapacitated, the very first news on the hospitalization. I added news on this but they were deleted. So, I hope that we have a health section on this:. I ask all of you: had you known of any President who had been more hospitalized than Gloria? Oh, I am sure not. ---Florentino floro (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible adition
The growing human rights crisis The New People's Army (NPA) groups known as "Sparrow Units" were active in the mid-1980s, killing government officials, police personnel, military members, and anyone else they targeted for elimination. They were also supposedly part of an NPA operation called "Agaw Armas" (Filipino for "Stealing Weapons "), where they raided government armories as well as stealing weapons from slain military and police personnel. A low level civil war with south Moslems, Al-Qaeda sympathizers and communist insurgents has led to a general break down of law and order. The Philippines government has promised to curb the killings, but is itself implicated in many of the killings.

Extrajudicial Killings Summit

The 22nd PUNO Supreme Court is set to hold a National Consultative Summit on extrajudicial killings on July 16 and 17, 2007 at the Manila Hotel. Invited representatives from the three branches of the government will participate (including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the PNP, CHR, media, academe, civil society and other stakeholders).

Puno will give the keynote speech and closing remarks. Puno searches for major solutions to solve forced disappearances.

During the first day of the summit, the speakers will present their respective papers comprising significant inputs from their respective sectors, while on the second day, the participants will break out into 12 groups (chaired by a Justice) and take part in a workshop. Local and international observers (the diplomatic corps and representatives from various international organizations) will be accredited.

Puno announced that "the summit highlight will be a plenary session where each of the 12 groups shall report to the body their recommended resolutions. The reports and proposals will be synthesized and then transmitted to the concerned government agencies for appropriate action".

The earlier slated Malacañang-sponsored "Mindanao Peace and Security Summit (July 8-10, 2007 at Cagayan de Oro City), focussed on how to make the anti-terror law, or the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, more acceptable to the public.

On July 16, 2007, Justices, activists, militant leaders, police officials, politicians and prelates attended the Supreme Court's two-day summit at the Manila Hotel in Manila City to map out ways to put an end to the string of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Bayan was set to launch their "silent protest", but expressed support for the high court's initiative. Director Geary Barias, chief of the police's anti-killings Task Force Usig, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez, re-elected party-list Representatives Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna) and Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis) attended. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno said that the "National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions," would help stop the murders. Delegates were given 12 to 15 minutes each to share their insights and knowledge about the matter. Yniguez accused the government of failing to actively pursue investigations on the hundreds of killings and the Catholic Church was alarmed that victims have been denied their "fundamental right" to live.

Based on Yniguez-church's count, the number of victims of extrajudicial killings has reached 778, while survivors of "political assassinations," was pegged at 370. He also noted 203 "massacre" victims, 186 people who involuntarily disappeared, 502 tortured, and others who were illegally arrested. Yniguez similarly criticized the government's alleged insistence on implementing its Oplan Bantay Laya I and II (the military's counter-insurgency operation plans which militants have said consider legal people's organizations as targets).

Meanwhile, Bayan urged the Supreme Court to "check serious threats to civil liberties and basic freedoms" including the anti-terror law or the Human Security Act of 2007, which took effect on July 15 despite protests from leftist groups.

Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. will join Bayan and other leftist groups as petitioners in their formal pleading before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the law. Human rights lawyer Atty. Edre Olalia of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) will serve as lead counsel. Bayan chair Carol Araullo said the respondents will include members of the Anti-Terrorism Council headed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Raul Gonzalez. Earlier, [CBCP president Angel Lagdameo] pointed out at least 5 provisions of the law that may threaten civil liberties: Sec. 19 allows detentions of mere suspects for more than three days in the event of an actual or terrorist attack, while Section 26 allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, and prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others; Sec. 39 allows seizure of assets while Sec. 7 allows surveillance and wiretapping of suspects; Sec. 26 allows the investigation of bank deposits and other assets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Flora Fiona Kriesha Mckay (talk • contribs) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well?--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

EDSA III uprising
I will again delete the- propably – wrong info with the policemen. No quote says something like this:

NYT: "...resulting in three deaths and more than a hundred injuries.” Published: May 2, 2001 "...Four people died and more than 100 were wounded in the clashes between security forces and rioters.” Published: May 7, 2001 CNN: "...Four people died and more than 100 people were wounded" May 7, 2001 Web posted at: 12:55 AM EDT (0455 GMT) The question must be: Why did neither the military nor the police shoot during EDSA II?

1. Estrada gave no order to shoot, or an order not to shoot. (Compare the statements of his lawyers 2. As user Edward Sandstig assumes, the police and the army would not obey the elected president during EDSA II. Then it would be a mutiny or even a putch with the support of the army.

"A statement from Estrada claiming that was the reason isn't really enough especially when you consider that he had already lost support of the AFP and the PNP. It would be like a boxer who lost a match saying that he lost because he let the other guy win. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)"


 * The NYT article specifically states that "Two police officers and one protester were killed during the clashes". It's on page 2, and here's a direct link. It's in the second paragraph if you're still having trouble finding it. As to whether or not Estrada gave the order to shoot, that isn't what was being debated. You had originally claimed that "Estrada wanted to avoid victims and left office", which is something which can't be proven and smacks of POV. Whether you could consider EDSA II a putsch (or coup d'etat) really depends on the level of participation by the military. If their principal contribution was not acting, then I don't think it qualifies. If evidence does come out however, such as the video you were previously talking about, then perhaps it would qualify. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama statement

 * abs-cbnnews.com, Senator Obama's statement on the US Visit of President Arroyo--Florentino floro (talk) 06:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why this link has to be in the external link section? --Efe (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And why post this even be here in the talk page? TheCoffee already told you to stop doing this. And oh, I'd expect a really loooong reply... -- Howard  the   Duck  06:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Alright, today, I posted a query on the and pending resolution or reply to my query, from TODAY, I will not longer copy paste my edits in the articles'talk page. Instead, I will bear the burden of putting in my yahoo email back up all my daily edits, so that later on, I will be able to have them ready if needed against vandalism and wrong edits/ reverts. This for sure, answers why I copy pasted the Obama statement link which is so Notable, in the article. If you think it is a wrong edit, then amend or revert it.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mindanao conflict
Why is there nothing mentioned in this article about the Memorandum of Agreement the government has agreed upon with MILF and the violence that erupted after the Surpreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional? Magalhães (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Honestly, it is bothering me as well. However, due to the fact that nobody has yet to come up with a sound writing of it (as far as I know), it might be due to the complexity of the issue. --Animeronin (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 200 back.jpg
The image Image:Php bill 200 back.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Impeachment
I added this sub-section, after a careful study of the Impeachment and trial in the Senate of Bill Clinton Please do not delete this, for this is heavily supported by Wikipedia reliable sources foreign and local.--Florentino floro (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Economy
"But if you consider the opinion of the opposition it seems to be quite different: - - - According to Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics the comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown above is wrong. "The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs." (Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics, Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), Manila Times, Monday, December 11, 2006 ("Hunger records reach new high").

A new report of the United Nations shows that "poverty reduction in the country has lagged far behind that of Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and China—countries that started with higher levels of poverty incidence than the Philippines but have successfully managed to lessen, if not virtually eliminate, extreme poverty.

According to the country team report, there were 27.6 million poor Filipinos in 2006, a 3.8-million increase from the 2003 data. (Manila Times, April 03, 2008, "Philippines Trails In Poverty Reduction, Says Un Report" Dear admin: I still believe its important to share the view of the opposition. Wikipedia should not be a board of a government.Truth222 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm reverting your changes to the article because the quotations and data about the economy are outdated, the apology of Cory was retracted as a joke, and overall makes the article imbalanced. We can't just fill the article with individual points of view. TheCoffee (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Im shure its possible to find a better form, better expressions. But I think its essential that both main opinions are represented. UN studies and similar US studies should not be ignored.Truth222 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To TheCoffe: You always undo my edits. But you should read whats now in the article: "This is higher than previous recent presidents when compared to the 3.8% average of Aquino, the 3.7% average of Ramos, and the 2.8% average of Joseph Estrada." If there is a - probably biased - comparison with other presidents like Estrada, its necessary that this gets a balanced view by adding the view of the opposition.

Similar "Succesion": Quote: "[G.R. No. 146738. March 2, 2001]  ... PUNO, J.: ... On October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the presidency ..."

Its obvious that the church played a vital role. Why a change in the considering should be omitted? pls accept that there a different views.Truth222 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulse Asia survey on "Most Corrupt President in Philippine History"
I restored the deleted part because it is not true/accurate to say that the survey is opposition sponsored. According to Pulse Asia:

The survey’s sampling design and questionnaire are the full responsibility of Pulse Asia’s pool of academic experts and no religious, political, economic or any other form of partisanship has been allowed to influence the survey design, the findings generated by the actual surveys or the subsequent analyses of survey findings.

Pulse Asia undertakes Ulat ng Bayan surveys on its own without any party singularly commissioning the research effort. (See Table 1) (See Table 2) (See Table 3)

Thanks.

Loloige (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Abbreviation?
Just a curious anon passing by...isn't Arroyo more likely identified as GMA? Since that's the case, shouldn't that be put in the article as well? 24.83.117.204 (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC) No. GMA was the TV Station as GMA-7. The correct abbreviation would be PGMA (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo). So that there would be no confusions about the TV station and the Philippine President abbreviations. happygoth09 (Talk)14:21, 17 Sept 2009 (UTC)

Physical height
I have read she is only 5 foot 2 inches tall, and thus the shortest filipino president ever!--86.29.240.184 (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Improve the article about her.
She will rule like Stalina Demonyita forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.68.114 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere's Reverts
Therequiembellishere, I'd like to inquire: Why you are removing the list of Philippine presidents link denoting Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th president? Lambanog (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Biography
There is lack in her biography, she is a member of "Academia Filipina", this institution, based in Manila, is the co-regulator of the spanish language in brothership with some others in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.18.21.3 (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Term ends in?
When will her term ends? After she has voted? After election day? or what? Harel (Not what you think?) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Royal Blood"
The term "Royal Blood" is archaic, and should be avoided for clarity. It also potentially violates WP:NPOV because it infers that the monarch/royal house lives on (though it's been powerless for centuries)... and gives such an individual's political ambitions more "legitimacy". But the Philippines is a democracy, and such claims are irrelevant as to technical eligibility, so it only serves as promotion. Why not use a more contemporary and descriptive term like "a direct descendant of [such and such] monarch"? And... because this individual (Gloria) would not be notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry on being a descendant of a powerless monarchical line, there is probably no merit to including a reference to it in the introductory paragraph of the article. If I see no reasoning put forward to the contrary I will probably end up changing it. Let me know if/why I am wrong here. Thanks!Retran (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since my proposal was not contested here on discussion I changed it. I changed it a week ago on the Diosdado Macapagal article (which has less attention) to test if it would be disputed on a live, but less-important article. Since this change had to do with neutrality I would appreciate a note here on talk as to the argument why a reference to "royal blood" is appropriate, neutral, and most importantly, notable. I feel it's important to also to question the notability of even including a mention of direct relation to a dead royal line in introduction, but I won't approach that issue now. Retran (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)