User talk:Zamboanga-city

Zamboanga del Sur article
Please provide references in your edits on the Zamboanga del Sur article. Several of the edits you made before are contentious and are arguably erroneous, such as:
 * "the entire Zamboanga district became a chartered city" = not really, the original territory of the chartered city of Zamboanga only included what is now Zamboanga City and Basilan Province.
 * "the eastern portion of Zamboanga City was further divided into another independent province and named Zamboanga del Sur" = not really, as Zamboanga City did not encompass what became Zamboanga del Sur

I didn't need to provide my sources when I made the reversion, as I was not the one making the edits with contentious claims. If you have supporting sources then please cite them in the article. Thanks. Dakilang Isagani (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Dakilang Isagani, we will give you, and others in your predisposition, a chance to redeem yourself and your feeling that YOU do not have to provide your source for your erroneous statements about Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga City, although Wikipedia's mandate requires you to do it. We will provide you one source of historical, legal, correctness for you and the world to absorb, and in turn we want you to reciprocate in the same manner, without any hesitation or continued argument, YOUR side of the source of reference to your erroneous claims. Then, we all can compare notes and move forward with proper history.


 * The entire District of Zamboanga under the Department of Mindanao & Sulu remained one single quasi-government entity from 1913 - 1920, and then became a full-fledged CIVILIAN government afterwards in the form of a Province, with ancient Zamboanga City as its provincial Capital.
 * When Zamboanga City was created as a Chartered City in October 12, 1936, the actual city territory is as stated in Commonwealth Act No. 39, Article 1 - General Provisions, Section 2 - Territory of the City.
 * However, since the remaining territory of the Zamboanga Province that Zamboanga City's new charter was removed from did not have any form of provincial government to take over its provincial governmenance requirements, the new City of Zamboanga was relegated that temporary task under its single Congressional District encompassing the entire previous Zamboanga Province, with the new chartered City of Zamboanga designated as its host Provincial Capital "until otherwise provided by law", as spelled out in Commonwealth Act No. 39, Article VII - Transitory Provisions, Section 49 — Assembly District: Provincial Capital.
 * The onset of World War II caused the delay of the transitioning of the remainder of the "Zamboanga Province" that "Zamboanga City" was placed in charge of as its provincial capital and part of the singular Congressional District.
 * The legal change finally came after WWII and The Philippines getting its independence from the United States, when REPUBLIC ACT NO. 711 - AN ACT TO CREATE THE PROVINCES OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE AND ZAMBOANGA DEL SUR was enacted by the Philippine Congress and approved on June 6, 1952. Thereby, Zamboanga City was no longer legally the parent city host of the former Zamboanga Province.
 * The Congressional District (legally separate from any provincial or chartered city governance) remained the same for Zamboanga City, Basilan City, new Zamboanga del Norte and new Zamboanga del Sur, until Zamboanga del Norte got its own later, and Congress grouped Zamboanga City, Basilan City and new Zamboanga del Sur under one combined Congressional Representative in the Philippine Congress.
 * How many like you, Dakilang Isagani, continue to corrupt and misrepresent Philippine history in "changing" Zamboanga del Sur's provincial territory to "include" that of the independent chartered City of Zamboanga is a disgrace to your kind and the freedom of the Filipino people, including that of innocent residents of both independently sovereign governments! Now, you, and others like you, need to cite ALL your sources or STOP changing HISTORY!

So, here's a reference for you to absorb:

FIRST NATIONAL ASSEMBLY First Session

Begun and held at the City of Manila on Tuesday, the sixteenth day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-six.

( COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 39 )

An Act Creating The City of Zamboanga

Be it enacted by the National Assembly of the Philippines:

Section 1 — This Act shall be known as the “Charter of the City of Zamboanga.”

ARTICLE 1 — GENERAL PROVISIONS

'

Section 2 — Territory of the City
'.

The City of Zamboanga, which is hereby created, shall consists of the present territorial jurisdiction of the municipality of Zamboanga, the municipality of Bolong, the municipal district of Isabela, the municipal district of Lamitan, and the municipal district of Maluso.

ARTICLE VII — TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Section 47 — Change of Government.

The City government provided in this Charter shall be organized immediately after the appointment and qualification of the City Mayor, and the appointment and induction into office of the members of the City Council, as herein provided, or as soon thereafter as possible. The territory of the City, upon completion of the organization of the municipal government, shall cease to be under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Government of Zamboanga.

Section 48 — Conduct of Elections in Zamboanga.

For the effectuation of the purposes of the Election Law in the election of public officers for the City of Zamboanga, the duties which are by said law made incumbent upon provincial boards and municipal Councils shall be performed by the City Council of Zamboanga, and the duties imposed by said law upon provincial treasurers and municipal secretaries shall be performed by the Secretary to the Mayor.

'''

Section 49 — Assembly District: Provincial Capital
'''.

Until otherwise provided by law, the Province of Zamboanga and the City of Zamboanga shall constitute, as one assembly district and the capital of the province, only for residential purchases of the provincial government, shall remain as heretofore.

Section 50 — Provincial Building and Properties.

The buildings and properties which the province shall abandon upon the transfer of the capital to another place will be acquired and paid for by the City of Zamboanga at a price to be fixed by the Auditor General. ARTICLE VIII – EFFECTIVITY OF THIS ACT

Section 51 — Effectivity.

This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved:

____________________________________________

Speaker of the National Assembly

This Act was finally passed by the National Assembly on September 23, 1936.

Approved:

__________________________________________________

President of the Philippines

(Manuel P. Quezon)

Signed on October 12, 1936

Some points that require your scrutiny
You have sources, but you're misinterpreting them. I am far from the one changing history here. I fully understand the contents of CA 39, and none of it actually supports your claim. Kindly review the points I make below and see:
 * The territorial definition in the Commonwealth Act basically contradicts your statement that the entire Zamboanga district became Zamboanga City. Here's how it all went down:
 * Moro Province districts (Lanao, Sulu, Zamboanga, Davao, Agusan, Cotabato) became full-fledged provinces in 1920. Zamboanga Province (consisting of what are now Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Norte/del Sur/Sibugay, and Basilan) was one of these new provinces.
 * Zamboanga City was incorporated from a portion (namely: the municipalities of Zamboanga and Bolong, and what is now the province of Basilan) of Zamboanga Province in 1936. The newly-chartered city no longer belonged under the jurisdiction of the said province. Although for the purposes of assembly/congressional representation (which is different from local government), the chartered city was grouped with its mother province. The city government was a separate entity from the provincial government, and neither had any power over the other.
 * Zamboanga Province (note that Zamboanga City was no longer part of the province here) was divided into del Norte and del Sur, although for the purposes of congressional representation, Zamboanga City was grouped with Zamboanga del Sur. Again, the city government and the provincial governments of the two new provinces remained legally separate entities that had no power over any of the others.
 * Zamboanga City did not assume jurisdiction over its mother province just by virtue of remaining as the capital. An analogous situation today would be Bacolod City governing the entire province of Negros Occidental just because the provincial government has decided to keep its offices in the city. Seems very childish and simplistic to claim the province as part of the city just because the provincial capitol is there, isn't it?
 * The claim that Zamboanga Province was not able to function after the incorporation of Zamboanga City (thereby compelling the city to assume governance of the entire province) seems more like fiction. To be a legal part of Zamboanga City, Zamboanga Province had to be legislated to be included within the city's territorial limits - something which did not happen! Even if Zamboanga Province was "crippled" by the loss of its economic hub, this would not automatically legally endow the chartered city to take over the functions of the provincial government. The fact remains that when ZDN and ZDS were created, there was a Zamboanga Province that existed, from which these two new provinces were created. And note that RA 711 did not divide Zamboanga City, it divided Zamboanga Province.
 * Congressional district arrangements do not alter the status of units of local government. Through all the years that Zamboanga City was grouped with Zamboanga Province and Zamboanga del Sur, it remained its own entity, and did not exercise control over territories outside its jurisdiction. The same is true with the aformentioned provinces: they did not exercise jurisdiction over the chartered city. It's because congressional districts are simply not local government units (ever heard of the second district of Ilocos Sur receiving IRA shares as its own congressional district, or being given the power to legislate its own "congressional district laws," or building its own "Congressional district hall" where the congressman, the congressional district agriculturist, accountant, veterinarian, architect, health officer and the "Sangguniang Pandistrito" hold office?). Congressional districts are simply electoral constituencies that are place for electing local representatives to the national legislature. Congressional districts do not have an elected governor/mayor and provincial board/city council, only provinces/chartered cities do. Nor do congressional districts have a corporate status that would enable it to function as a legal entity.
 * Why is ZC included in the infobox for ZDS? To keep a uniform, unbiased template for all provinces. If you actually took notice, it's the province without independent cities being taken into account that take precedence in the statistics. Independent cities are clearly marked as such, and ample explanation is given in the links that lead to the Cities of the Philippines article which I have largely overhauled to explain the independent status of cities such as Zamboanga. But because most of the government's statistical information actually often groups independent cities with their associated provinces (such as Ormoc and Leyte, Cotabato City and Maguindanao, Cebu City and Cebu Province), there was a need to present two configurations: one with the provinces just by themselves, and another with the provinces including the independent cities associated with them. So in order to present accurate information, both had to be used in the infobox in order for those who wish to clarify the claim that Cebu is the most populous province, or that Zamboanga del Sur actually does not exercise jurisdiction over Zamboanga City (but often is grouped with it) can find out that these two claims really represent two different conceptions of what a Philippine province is - all within one box!

The question now is: where does the claim that Zamboanga City had jurisdiction over the entire former Moro Province district of Zamboanga fit in here, then?

Hope this clears things up. Responses are certainly expected. No hard feelings (hopefully), and please remain calm and civil. I'm just another editor that likes the truth! Dakilang Isagani (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How Does It Feel to be On The Opposite Side of a Dogmatic Twist of FACTS???
The historical facts were presented to you, and others like you, in the same manner as you present dogmatic twisted facts about the original and historic Zamboanga City and its namesake birth-child in "Zamboanga" del Sur (Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga Sibugay NEVER have done your kind of dirty work - ever! But you and others like you choose to do so, and the only conclusion the world have as to why you continue to tell a lie is because you have evil ulterior motives!  However, WE the people of Zamboanga City, the ancient town and chartered city, will continue to fight your lies and zeal to try and change facts of history!).
 * It is good to see that you and others responded in the same way we have when historical facts were twisted to present an "erroneous fact!"
 * Zamboanga del Sur's present territory was only a jungle and hunting ground for the villagers of the original place of Samboangan over 400 years ago!
 * Zamboanga del Sur wasn't born & named from the original grown-up town of Zamboanga City until June 6, 1952, a mere 56 years ago - a child!
 * The official web site of Province of Zamboanga del Sur NEVER EVER CLAIMS to own/associate in any way to the chartered Zamboanga City - only YOU!
 * YOU and your COHORTS are deemed as revisionist literary terrorists who have an evil agenda against the City and People of Zamboanga City!
 * We will not rest until the truth is told here in Wikipedia in accordance to their strict standards of FACT-BASED entries in their wiki encyclopedia!

We will no longer permit your lies to be allowed to be presented as having any semblance of truth. You have a chance to redeem yourself/yourselves and make factual presentations as presented by the official government of the Province of Zamboanga del Sur, and forever remove any erroneous reference to Zamboanga City being in any way shape or form associated with the Province of Zamboanga del Sur. We will allow you some time to make the permanent changes.

Your LIES must stop now!

Where are the actual arguments in here?
You're not doing a great job of making your arguments any clearer. If you really want to let the truth out, then let's see some credible sources on your part (and not CA 39 and RA 711 - which I have effectively explained DO NOT help you in anyway). And in response to what you've just brought up: Clearly, you are in denial of what has unfolded. Sorry real history didn't turn out to be the way you've fantasized it, but somebody has to speak for the truth. The truth is what I've presented before, and you've failed to address them with useful counter-arguments, only retreating to name-calling without actually substantiating your claims. Give something useful and maybe you won't look so foolish. One way to accomplish this is by using your big words such as "cohort" or "dogmatic" (wow, wrong use) towards things that count in this discussion, such as facts. -- Dakilang Isagani (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So what if ZDS's territory was "only a jungle" (despite it being inhabited by people who have lived there for centuries - how dare you ignore them, by the way) or if ZDS was only created 56 years ago? What does that have to do with the "ancient" Zamboanga City exercising jurisdiction over Zamboanga Province? Answer THIS please. Silence on this matter or inability to effectively explain your side is proof that you're only making up these claims, which is rather sad. :-(
 * Again, as explained before: all the articles on Zamboanga del Sur, Cities in the Philippines and Zamboanga Peninsula actually explain that Zamboanga City is independent from any province, but is often grouped with ZDS for statistical purposes. What's factually wrong with that? NOTHING. Filipinos still associate Zamboanga City with ZDS, and many out there still think it is part of the province. That's why it's important to mention the city in the ZDS article in order to let people know of its independence from the province.

How can you not get what was said above?
Okay, translation: Erroneous claim (Zamboanga City belongs to Zamboanga del Sur...) = Intentional deflection (Zamboanga del Sur belongs to Zamboanga City...).

You get it? You surely get the feeling of being "affected" by it, so therefore we are successful in getting the message across to you and your cohorts.

You don't have martial rule over this open Wikipedia process, and we've tried our due diligence to let the truth sink in to your attitude... so, we'll continue our editing efforts... We still hold hope for you and your dogma, but we digress. We have a public dictionary you could borrow...

Failed.
Sorry, you just failed proving what you've been claiming before. Proves you're the one making up these fantasies. You clearly have no facts, so there's nothing left to talk about here. And NO ONE is saying that ZC "belongs" to ZDS. Find one instance in Wikipedia and you'll find NONE. I rest my case and hopefully you can take time to reflect on this little episode. Wikipedia is not the place for unfounded claims. -- Dakilang Isagani (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your Failure to Convince the World of Repenting your Erroneous ways is Duly noted
Case CLOSED.