Wikipedia

Talk:14th Congress of the Philippines

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Untitled

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Are the results of the constituency elections official? Any chance of getting a list of representatives per party? (I'd compile it, but some of them have more than one party listed.) —Nightstallion (?) 11:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not exactly but people elected under the Liberal Party (Atienza Wing) have no party unless they were under a national/regional party allied to the Lakas or KAMPI Party like the Padajon Surigao, SARRO, Kilusang Diwa ng Taguig and the BALANE Rizalninoynapoleon 10:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Could someone correct and fill in the sectoral representatives table? —Nightstallion 11:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Never mind, did it myself; the representatives themselves, however, weren't listed on the EC homepage... —Nightstallion 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Juan Miguel Zubiri

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to this link, the COMELEC says Zubiri was nominated by Lakas-CMD. I don't even think the COMELEC recognizes TEAM Unity, after all, it's not a political party, but a coalition. --Howard the Duck 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Majority and minority bloc

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion

It should not be included since its not permanent. Besides the members of the Senate should just say the name of the Senators, Party affiliation, and their terms as Senators. Rizalninoynapoleon 14:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

For example this table from the 12th Congress:

Senate

edit
Senator Partya Term Term Start Term End
  Edgardo J. Angara
LDP
1
2001
2007
  Teresa Aquino-Oreta
LDP
1
1998
2004
  Joker P. Arroyo
Aksyon/independent
1
2001
2007
  Robert Z. Barbers
Lakas-NUCD
1
1998
2004
  Rodolfo G. Biazon
LDP
1
1998
2004
  Renato L. Cayetano3
Lakas-NUCD
1
1998
2004
  Noli L. De Castro
independent/LDP
1
2001
2007
  Franklin M. Drilon
independent
2
2001
2007
  Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada
PMP/independent
1
2001
2007
  Juan M. Flavier
Lakas-NUCD
2
2001
2007
  Gregorio B. Honasan1
LDP/independent
2
2001
2004
  Robert S. Jaworski
Lakas-NUCD
1
1998
2004
  Panfilo M. Lacson
LDP
1
2001
2007
  Lorna Regina Legarda-Leviste
Lakas-NUCD
1
1998
2004
  Ramon B. Magsaysay, Jr.
Lakas-NUCD
2
2001
2007
  Blas F. Ople2
LDP
2
1998
2004
  John Henry Osmeña
NPC/Alayon
1
1998
2004
  Sergio R. Osmeña III
PDP-Laban
2
2001
2007
  Francis N. Pangilinan
Liberal
1
2001
2007
  Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.
PDP-Laban
1
1998
2004
  Ralph G. Recto
Lakas-NUCD
1
2001
2007
  Ramon B. Revilla
Lakas-NUCD
2
1998
2004
  Vicente C. Sotto III
LDP
2
1998
2004
  Manuel B. Villar, Jr.
independent/Lakas-NUCD
1
2001
2007
^a Political affiliation at the beginning of Congress.
^1 Elected on May 14, 2001, to serve until June 30, 2004 to complete the unexpired term of Teofisto Guingona who was appointed Vice President in 2001.
^2 Appointed Foreign Secretary in 2003.
^3 Died in 2003.
If there's a new senate president, then there'll be a new vote, hence new majority and minority blocs, hence new edits, hence it's really not permanent. And not everything that was done on other congresses will be done here; there were no partylists before. And if anyone can come up on how the senators voted on the senate president election the better, since it is important to see which senators belong to the majority and minority bloc especially in the multiparty system RP has. If RP has a 2-party system we wouldn't need a majority bloc column since it'll be pretty straightforward. --Howard the Duck 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Unless someone comes up a better reason, I shall be removing the NPIV notice and restoring the bloc column shortly. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Seeing no one has offered rebuttals and other opinions, I'll commence readding them and remove the NPOV message. --Howard the Duck 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
No way. This issue is not resolved yet. Besides, I look at the pages of the U.S. Senate and there is does not say who is in the majority or minority bloc. Rizalninoynapoleon 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm not for grouping them into majority of minority blocks, there's no need for that, their political parties should at least show their CURRENT PARTY AFFILIATION, not whether they are with the administration or with the opposition. And polarization of the Congress can't be clearly defined, they sway overnight. The vote for the senate presidency isn't sufficient to establish a senator's pro-administration, anti-admin stance, they don't correspond to their membership to the majority or minority. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
The table isn't saying who's the admininistration or opposition, it's saying who's at the majority and who's at the minority. The words "majority/minority bloc" are tossed around everyday and it is vital to define who belongs to those.
And you won't need that in the US Congress (or any other two-party system in that matter) since it is certainly clearcut, the blues (and one indy in the House) are the majority while the reds are the minority.
Also, if you'd notice, the LP and NP never voted on the same page. --Howard the Duck 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
Does anyone else wants to say something? If there's no objection I'll reinstate them. --Howard the Duck 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
No way this is not resolved yet do put it yet until there is an agreement Rizalninoynapoleon 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
How can there'd be an agreement when there are no arguments issued? You can't just filibuster this. --Howard the Duck 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Reindent: Unless there is an argument, I'll reinstate this, since no argument=agreement. Filibustering is bad. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here is my compromise, no putting of who is in the majority/minority bloc since their party affiliation will be enough and follow the examples from the 10th to the 13th Congresses. Rizalninoynapoleon 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
You call that a compromise when only your system is included? LOL. Tell why it isn't a bad thing to add the majority and minority bloc in a multi-party system. --Howard the Duck 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's been half a month, and there's still no reply. If no one comes up with a reasonable argument I'll do it myself and remove {{POV-check}}. --Howard the Duck 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's Christmas already... unless there's a compelling argument I'll be doing it when Simbang Gabi comes along. --Howard the Duck 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
This issue has grown stale. There is no dispute, and honestly, the info is outdated by now anyway, so I am removing the tag.Drew Smith 02:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 14th 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}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 14th 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:14th_Congress_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1195685665"