Talk:Politics of the Philippines

Untitled
This article is very poorly written from a ligustic standpoint and not up to Wikipedia standards. Aditionally, it is very horribly biased and favors heavily the personal opinion of the author.

Eek, I agree. I can't even touch it with a ten foot pole. I'll try to rephrase, delete POV stuff, wikify, correct gramamr tommorow. Too tired.--Chicbicyclist 11:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

edit it!
This article on the philipines is very biased and based purely on the authors point of view. CHANGE IT!

Biased i2 about the liberal party. remove the bias. aside from that, i feel this ok. i will remove it now.


 * Justox dizaola 05:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article is reeking of biasphobia. I edited some of it but I am limited of my knowledge of the Philippine Government. Someone needs to grab a book and see to this article's revision. JonSnow 23:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a little bit of editing myself, but I have to agree that this article is very biased. --Akira123323 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

biased pala ito..tsk tsk..be fair..imj doinf my assignments eh..ty!````me..


 * Damb... This need great clean up... Kendelarosa5357 (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Corruption?
In addition, maybe we should add a section regarding the presence of corruption and electoral fraud? Maybe a historical perspective describing methods and techniques, and countermeasures.

203.87.175.41 11:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I can edit the page, but I am neophyte in wiki, so I won't be able to wikify it.Yeye 09:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT
May I suggest that there should be a longer and more detailed portion of this article which refers more to the Local Government since it has practically the largest number of political offices and political positions in the Philippine government. God bless Charlie alpha (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Important notice
The government section of the "Outline of the Philippines" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist.

Thank you.

Split government of the Philippines from the article
It deserves its own article. Nuff said. Moray An Par (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Other countries have two separate articles, so it's not a bad idea. -- Joaquin008  ( talk ) 10:18, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Google Scholar has some nice articles that can be used in creating a "politics" article as a "government" article should be easier to make. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 16:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd probably give this a go. Here's a sample outline, and most must be brief (powers, manner of election, appointment, brief history): BTW, I tried looking for a WP:FA/WP:GA-class "Government of Foo" article and it appears Wikipedia doesn't have one. That could've been a good model. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 15:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) National government
 * 2) Executive branch
 * 3) President
 * 4) Vice President
 * 5) Cabinet
 * 6) Bureaucracy
 * 7) Legislative branch (Congress)
 * 8) Senate
 * 9) House of Representatives
 * 10) Judiciary
 * 11) Supreme Court
 * 12) Court of Appeals
 * 13) Court of Tax Appeals
 * 14) Sandiganbayan
 * 15) Constitutional Commissions
 * 16) COMELEC
 * 17) COA
 * 18) CSC
 * 19) GOCCs
 * 20) Local government
 * 21) Local government hierarchy (Autonomous region->Province/City->City/Municipality->Barangay)
 * 22) Local chief executive (Regional governor->Governor/Mayor->Mayor->Baragay Captain
 * 23) Local legislatures (Regional Legislative Assembly->Sanggunians
 * 24) Regional trial courts
 * 25) Autonomous regions

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Batasang Pambansa Complex Main Building.jpg (discussion)
 * Facade of the Senate of the Philippines.jpg (discussion)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Malacañang Palace (Cropped).jpg

Length and History
This article is now 72kB long, which is well above the 40-60kB recommended size. Most of that is the current History section, which is almost 40kB by itself. Given that is long enough to be a standalone (and I think it would be a reasonable quality one), I think it would make sense to split off most of that into its own article, leaving behind a summary. The question then is how much should be included in this summary. My preference would be keeping it quite small, perhaps with only pre-independence and post-independence subsections, or no subsections at all, and sticking to information that directly relates to topics covered elsewhere in the article. A smaller History section would leave more space for expansion on the current political structure and situation, which is probably where this article's focus should be. (There's also a bit of history scattered in other sections, which could be kept or excized depending on what works best for those sections.) Such a split would also allow the spun-off history article to get a bit more detailed, although it's already reasonably comprehensive. Any thoughts? CMD (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With the article now at 89kB, I have split off history to Political history of the Philippines. CMD (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Implementation of the party list system
It's possible to be more specific about the implementation of the party list system. Current text says it "was not implemented until 1998." It would be more accurate to say that it was implemented in 1995 with the passing of the Party-List System Act (Republic Act 7941). The year 1998 is relevant because that was the year that party list elections were first held. I don't yet have a secondary source for this, otherwise I'd make the edit myself. --Aingotno (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Found a source and made the edit. --Aingotno (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That source shows as a 404 for me, and it has two different sets of page numbers. Could you check? CMD (talk) 09:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've now fixed it for me. Thanks. Aingotno (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC)