Talk:Congress of the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Reverted edits because the previous content by Excellent 15 is copied from this site. --Jojit fb 01:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline[edit]

The colors aren't entirely accurate since the colors represent the lower house only totally ignoring the upper house. --Howard the Duck 06:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Official seal[edit]

There must be a image of Official Seal of the Congress in this article. I notice that some Countries' Congress or Parliament has it own official logo. why that Philippine Congress has none??, if possible please consider this source...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each house has its own seal; the Congress as a whole doesn't have one, as far as I know (it helps that the two Houses's seats are in separate locations). Previously there was a seal here but it was removed for being unfactual. –HTD 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've know the Philippine Congress has it's own official seal, i found it in this source, if you are confused, please do some further research for this issue...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that was the one that was deleted for being unfactual. There were no sources that the seal was ever used: the only instances that it would've been used was on joint sessions and that never made an appearance. –HTD 05:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To reduce length?[edit]

I noitce that User:Howard the Duck, deleted the Senate and House of Representative composition to reduce length. It seems that this article needs to be shorten so that some important details and information about the Philippine Congress must be deleted?, i begun research about different Parliament and Congress of different nation In WP,And i found out that Several National legislature contrast some of the details in this article e.g. ,almost all legislature contains the official seal (which deleted on this article due to unfactual), and Legislator composition (also deleted due to serves as a padding to the article). If ever, I have few suggestion and request to this article, because i found few mistakes in this article that needs to be correct:

  • Bring back the Official seal and the legislators composition.
  • Delete the section Congresses of the Philippines, But transfer the timeline to sectionHistory, Because it serve as the padding to the article. (this is due to redundancy of the information that already exist in Template:Philippine legislative periods
  • Summarize the two existing sections: Powers and Lawmaking.
  • Lastly, Organize the article properly.

I hope my idea can help to make this article a better one. Regarding to my request, Please follow this suggestions to spread correct information, and to make it clear and easy to read to the readers. Please, grant my requests...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Congress has no official seal. None. Zero. The Senate and the House of Reps. have their own respective seals. Emphasis on "own." If there's any law/rule of Congress that cites the seal, I'll be happy to ask an admin to bring that back. On special sessions, the maces of the Senate and House of Reps. are there, but never the mace where the supposedly Congress seal appears.
(For further information on why the supposed "Congress seal" was deleted, see this. –HTD 18:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I haven't read this when I placed the list at the bottom. Would you be OK with that?
I dunno who added Powers and Lawmaking sections, but those are quite important areas. Ideally, it should be in prose form, but I actually prefer it in outline form as it is easier to understand.
Ideally, this article should be about the Congress in unison, not the Senate and the House of Reps. separately. Ergo, any of the features/history in which both houses jointly have, it should be here. If it's exclusive to them, it should be at their respective articles. –HTD 17:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Powers section needs a rewrite[edit]

The Powers section of the article needs a rewrite.

The Implied powers subsection currently says, "It is the essential to the effective exercise of other powers expressly granted to the assembly". I am unable to parse this.

The Inherent powers contradicts provisions of the Article VI] of the Article VI 1987 RP Constitution.

  • Article VI, Section 15(3) says explicitly, "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. ..."
  • Article VI, Section 15(4) says explicitly, "Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

My understanding is that these are powere explicitly granted by the constitution, not inherent powers.

There may be other problems or constitutional conflicts as well. I don't currently have time to suggest rewritten content, but I may revisit this as I get time. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info re American half century[edit]

I was navigated to this article from somewhere else, and noticed that the table in the History section glossed over the Fil-Am war period. I attempted to correct that with this edit. I'm not happy with the results, and I notice that the textual content of the Revolutionary era subsection glosses over the Taft Commission period prior to the end of the Philippine-American War. I have promlems with internet connectivity and time-constraints at present, and don't know how well I'll be able to engage here with others in the near future re improvements to the article in this regard but, IMO, improvements are needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Congressmen[edit]

This edit caught my eye. It changed an unsupported assertion reading

The House of Representatives is composed of a maximum of 250 congressmen.

to read

The House of Representatives is currently composed of 297 congressmen. Sec. 5 Art. VI of the Constitution states that the House "shall be composed of not more than 250 members, unless otherwised fixed by law..."

The 250 member limitation is specified in Article VI, Section 5 of the 1987 constitution. I looked at the House of Representatives of the Philippines and the Party-list representation in the House of Representatives of the Philippines articles and googled around a bit trying to identify the law or laws which changed that limit, but I was unable to quickly find that information. I think that it would be useful to identify those laws here and, as applicable, in other related articles.

Also, "The House of Representatives is currently composed of ..." flouts WP:DATED. Something like "Since the passage of Republic Act [number], the House has been composed of ..." would be better. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Congress of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Congress of the Philippines. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion[edit]

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) 19:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congress_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1201100583"