Talk:Vice President of the Philippines

[Untitled]
On Tolentino, I know that this could be controversial, but historically, he still was a VP of the country, though just for a moment. Even though there was the EDSA Revolution that deposed the old regime, he was still proclaimed VP of that old existing order (regardless of the truth of the electoral allegations).

Tolentino served as VP before the revolution, and that historically should be recognized, since Salvador Laurel himself became VP during that Fourth Republic himself after the same revolution, and not only the Fifth Republic. The Fifth only came into effect after the new constitution, in 1987 and Laurel got the VP position earlier, in 1986, after EDSA. Hence, Tolentino was a VP, and just because he was not recognized by the new regime should not mean that his name should be removed from the list. Hope that I clarified that. I don't want to be unfair to that old order kasi. :-) --Noypi380 16:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course, and indeed, it's an interesting question. The Batasan Pambansa proclaimed both Marcos and Tolentino, and Marcos and Tolentino did take their oaths, in private, although Marcos took his in public (for the 2nd time) before leaving; then Tolentino proclaimed himself afterwards... The thing is, on the day Marcos took his oath, Aquino took hers, too, and while using a modified version of the presidential oath, she ended up appointing Laurel, her Vice-President, as Prime Minister, even though it was for a very brief period, since the government became officially, a revolutionary one. I don't think it's unfair to Tolentino not to consider him a Vice-President, because by staying in office, the claims of Aquino and Laurel are the ones that endured, furthermore, once the 1987 Constitution was ratified, Tolentino accepted it, and even served as senator. Most of all, when he died and his family asked for, and was given, permission to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, it was for all his achievements except Vice-President, which was never mentioned in the official honors gven by the Philippine state. Perhaps to be fair, we could say, Tolentino was proclaimed Vice-President in 1986 but never got to serve. Gareon


 * Okay, :-) --Noypi380 00:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Please note the Office of the Vice-President website is wrong, Trias is not the first VP, unless Aguinaldo's official presidency is dated to Tejeros, which it is not. Tejeros was one of the protogovernments prior to the first recognized (by Filipinos) national government, the Malolos Republic. I strongly suggest this be clarified. Gareon 08:51, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Done, I corrected that part, Mariano Trias was never a Vice President of the Philippines. --Noypi380 15:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Mariano Trias
First he needs an article. Second, he seems to have been recognized as a Vice President by today's government. So even if technically he didn't become a VP, but he is recognized by the government (as evidenced by the OVP website), then does he automatically become one? -- Howard  the   Duck  09:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I feel so because he has done the capacity of one. ¡Viva Cavite! --Justox dizaola 09:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, an article would be good, but unsure if he really is a VP of the PH. Let's wait for Gareon, although I expect him to disagree that he is a VP of the PH, and so do I. :) --Noypi380 15:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason I asked the question was because I'll panning on nominating List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines as a WP:FL, and with the reference there posted is at OVP site, and Mariano Trias is listed as a VP. The question here is where we could get a citation that Trias isn't a VP, not just our interpretation of historical events. -- Howard  the   Duck  01:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here I am, to disagree. It isn't about the contributions of Trias, but rather a more basic question: which do we recognize as the first formal Philippine government? The consensus seems to be, the Malolos Republic. Therefore, everything that came before, was a preparatory government, but not a government per se, though it may have fulfilled the functions of a government. If Malolos was the first Republic, and thus, government, then Trias could not be the first VP. He served in that capacity prior to Malolos: because if you accept all the previous governments as formal governments, we'd have to renumber our republics, beginning with the Biak-na-Bato Republic; and then you would have to consider the claim that Bonifacio was our first head of state, reordering the list of our presidents. Ditto for government ministers/secretaries: if you based it on Malolos, your first cabinet's clear; if not, how far back do you go? The Katipunan? Tejeros? The confusion in the VP website is caused by simply lumping together everyone who bore a similar title, ignoring the official chronology. Even government historians can be sloppy and make mistakes.Gareon 03:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But can it be said that the present government accepts Trias as the first VP? Also, what we need here is a citation (website, book, etc.) that Trias isn't accepted as the first VP by historians. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Haha, can we say Gareon is the book? :) Answering the question, that won't be necessary, the 1935 constitution, which has the first ever VP provision in the history of the state, is more than enough. :) --Noypi380 04:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But how can we explain the Trias isn't a VP when he appears on the roster provided by OVP.gov? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Since wikipedia is NOPV, it might be fair to restore the previous para. we had: that, i think, helped explain the issue. the thing is, since the vp was made so irrelevant during martial law, no real resources have been devoted to studying the position. and until someone files an inquiry with the nhi, it's all he said, she said. Gareon 08:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not a NPOV issue but a verifiability issue. We don't need to disprove that he's VP, because he's pre-1935. It is up to the historians to prove that he's VP, none that I know have done so, although yes checking nhi would be best. The site of the Office of the VP does not also prove Trias was a VP, rather, it proves that the web site has dubious reliability. Until a better source is found, we should not mention Trias in the list, because if we do, we would just confuse the reader more. The list already is the most accurate possible in my opinion, hope to see it as a featured list soon. :) --Noypi380 15:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the OVP website's history of the vice-presidency, the first name mentioned with regards to Vice-President is the name of Mariano Trias. Probably they have something that can prove he's the first Vice-President?  -- Sky Harbor  12:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, we'd have to disprove by citing somebody credible (like a book or some historian) that Trias wasn't a VP, and it should be mentioned in this and on the list article. otherwise, the list article wouldn't pass FL. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

i don't know if a newspaper column would suffice: http://www.inq7.net/opi/2004/jul/08/opi_mlquezoncol-1.htm Gareon 13:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's great, now to convince everybody, we'd need another one. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait... it says there Arturo Tolentino isn't counted too. -- Howard  the   Duck  13:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now I'm confused..hahaha...but quoting from the article, The second mistaken inclusion is that of the name of Arturo Tolentino. Tolentino cannot be counted as veep because the country rejected the official Fourth Republic proclamation of Marcos-Tolentino as the winners of the 1986 snap elections. Dubious reliability again. If that is the case, it's like saying that Jose Laurel was not a Prez, coz the commonwealth did not recognize it. Or the Spanish never came and colonized, when for a moment, it was not recognized by the Portuguese in the 1500s due to conflicting claims. We need more sources, more sources. :) --Noypi380 14:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note. Notice this source saying that Trias was 1899, not 1897, is in fact, wrong. Be wary of unreliable sources. :) --Noypi380 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

the phil. daily inquirer's opinion section is classified as a source of dubious reliability?Gareon 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, :0 I didn't see that... :) thought it was an English tab (MQ3 wrote it too) hehe. :) --Noypi380 02:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

it's not that, i was genuinely curious if newspaper articles don't count :) Gareon 05:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Opinion articles are ok too. --Noypi380 11:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus
On second thought, we might not find any sources other than the official site. If that is the case, let's just start making consensus. Who agrees to use the OVP site (again, coz its the official source) as the basis of the article and list? This would mean that Trias would be mentioned as well (to NPOV it we have to say that he was not a veep at independence, etc) But IMHO, an excellent source other than the official site would be best. :) --Noypi380 15:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * i think the portion pointing out trias being the first filipino to have the title of vp, but pointing out this was before the establishment of formal government (1st republic) would settle it. do not in the case of laurel, he was not recognized as president until macapagal, five administrations after the war. the particular circumstances of 1986 led to a pretty incontrivrtible refusal by the public, the ulimate judge in such things, that the marcos-tolentino proclamations were void. so again, the best that could be said is that while tolentino was sworn in secretly, and then attempted to take his oath as acting president, both were never recognized by the public. it belongs in a grey area as one regine was abolished and replaced with the present republic. i mentioned elsewhere we should look at how france handled a similar situation with the vichy puppet regime and the free french government in exile under de gaulle. The simplest is: afree first, which is the first government? Malolos? Or earlier? If it's Malolos, then Trias wasn't the first VP. If it's earlier, is it the Biak-na-Bato Republic? That would make Malolos the 2nd Republic; was it Tejeros Convention? Then Trias is first VP, Biak na Bato becomes 2nd Republic, Malolos the 3rd Republic, Laurel's the 4th Republic, 1946 the 5th Republic, then after the Bew Society we had the 6th Rep. and are now in our 7th.Gareon 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that clears it up for Trias and Tolentino, is that ok with the rest? Howard, what do you think? Can it be a featured list already? --Noypi380 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How about saying that the present regime recognizes Trias as VP, when he was elected at the Tejeros convention. Then, we'll cite the OVP website, then that'll clear matters. Other things (like Aguinaldo's term) won't have to be added because it is immaterial. Then we can say Trias was recognized (but did not serve) as the first VP and Tolentino was elected (after all he, was proclaimed the winner, whether you like it or not), but also did not serve. the OVP websote is clear about this, and we can't find other sources having a definitive list. And I bet the FL reviewers may not know about this. What we need is a carefully-constructed explanation.-- Howard  the   Duck  09:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review
Peer review/List of Vice Presidents of the Philippines. -- Howard  the   Duck  07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fernando lopez2.jpg
The image Image:Fernando lopez2.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.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:VPSealPhil.png
 * File:ArturoTolentino.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --04:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Dates of Aguinaldo's term(s)
A discussion taking place at Talk:President of the Philippines appears to impact this article as well. Some editors of this article may want to comment there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Residence
Im looking for sources that PICCCuntil 2005. Bonvallite (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Gloria Macapagal Arroyo
@RioHondo, Filipino women have three options on what surname to use as a public figure. Either their maiden name (Grace Poe Llamanzares), married name (Leni Gerona Robredo) or both (Miriam Defensor Santiago. Both Macapagal and Arroyo are her legal surnames in the Philippine context. Her relation to the previous Macapagal president is an important footnote to her bio. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup, no issues there. Only their WP:common surnames as referred to in media are President Arroyo (not President Macapagal Arroyo), Senator Santiago (not Senator Defensor Santiago) and Senator Poe (not Senator Poe Llamanzares).--RioHondo (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * She is always referred to as "Macapagal Arroyo" not just Arroyo. Try moving the article and see where it gets you. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Her WP:Commonname is really GMA - Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, only her common surname is just Arroyo in all news outlets is what im saying.--RioHondo (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Her surname is based on whatever title her name is right now. She uses both surnames now so she must be referred as such. If she drops her dad's name and just use her husband's then the timeline should reflect that. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Vice president salary
Can anyone check what the correct salary grade for the vice president is? Saw in RA6758 (https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1989/ra_6758_1989.html) VP get salary grade 32. There's a reference to new salary grades here https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2016/02/19/executive-order-no-201-s-2016/ but not sure which one is which? 50 pesos is clearly not right. 112.205.229.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

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. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Coconut Palace Court.jpg