Talk:Mambukal

Changes to Mambukal

Hi Isagani! I saw that you made changes to my entry on Mambukal. Thanks for the edits, I had a hard time simplifying it, so thank you. BUT I would like to dispute your removal of Mambukal's reference as a township. If you read Republic Act No. 1964, s. 1957, the area is legally-designated as a "townsite," the same designation as those areas that eventually became towns, eg. a township. Provincial ordinances and Murcia municipal council resolutions, especially those authored by my father before, calls the area a "township" and that certain municipal resolution calls "for the abolishment of the Mambukal Township and reverting territorial jurisdiction back to the Municipality of Murcia." I am not yet in Negros, so I cannot secure a copy, but I can.

As a township, Mambukal as a resort does not pay payables or taxes to the Murcia LGU, rather, it's collected as its own and sent directly to the coffers of the province, like any town would. See the fiscal records of Mambukal, the township and resort have different legal designations. The law was not repealed nor ammended in the LGU code, the code simply does not mention a township as an area with a government structure, but nevertheless does not abolish existing townships. I want to highlight it as a legal anomaly, where a township does in fact still exist in the Philippines. I have consulted a friend in the Capitol to fact check items I mentioned here, no dispute given. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 02:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I'm reversing the edits again for two main reasons:

• Mambukal is a resort. RA 1964 talks about a townsite, not a township. A townsite is simply an area marked for acquisition by the government, with lots to be divided and disposed of in order to accomplish something. In most cases, townsites become the core of settlements such as barrios, towns or cities. In the case of Mambukal, RA 1964 explicitly marks the townsite as a resort. Nowhere in the text of the law does it confer the status of Township to the area. Note that townships as administrative entities had already been abolished since the later part of the American Period. By the 1960s, the only local government divisions below the province level were Municipalities, Municipal Districts (later abolished or converted to regular municipalities) and Barrios (later made into Barangays). Mambukal is none of these, since it's a resort. But even for argument's sake that it is a township: the Constitution enumerates only three types of local governments: provinces, municipalities/cities, barangays; even the Local Government Code does not say anything about townships. Townships have been null and void as far back as the Commonwealth Era. But again, none of this matters because Mambukal is a resort.
• The management of Mambukal as a resort ≠ a local government unit. Like any other resort, there is a managing corporate entity for Mambukal. In most cases resorts are managed by private corporations (think Disney or Atlantis). In the case of Mambukal, it's the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental, which is another corporate entity, but a public one. The resort is encompassed within the bounds of Murcia, but due to the special revenue arrangement in RA 1964 its revenues largely accrue to the Provincial Government, which owns and manages the resort — a not unusual arrangement, since the Province did put up the money to develop the resort. Calling Mambukal a township (which RA 1964 says it is NOT) is akin to declaring the Makiling Forest Reserve or Enchanted Kingdom a township. No one would call these areas that term.

It would certainly be helpful if you have texts of these resolutions you were referring to, so that details about the matter can be brought to light. As far as I'm concerned, and with the evidence presented, Mambukal has never been other than a resort. I get the feeling that all these Murcia municipal resolutions seek to obtain a share of the resort revenue by trying to get Negros Occidental to relinquish control over the resort to them. But again, this will be made more clear with actual textual evidence. For now I will restore the article to my version which unambiguously refers to Mambukal as a resort and nothing more. isagani (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

See this legal document, a contract between the City of Bago and the TOWNSHIP of Mambukal. http://www.bagocity.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/resolutions/2009/09-460.pdf RepublicaNegrense (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

What this proves is that there is a corporate entity named "Township of Mambukal" that corresponds to the entity administering the resort on behalf of the Provincial Government. However, the article is about the RESORT, not the entity that administers it.

How this administering entity got the title of "Township" remains unclear, but to keep calling the Resort a "township" (implying that it has its own local government structure) remains misleading since:

* Mambukal is NOT a fully-functioning township now. Townships (in the sense of the American-era local government type), were only created in specific non-Christian areas of Luzon, Misamis and Mindoro up to 1909; all of these were later abolished by Act No. 2824 in 1919. Read further on and you'll find out what powers and responsibilities come with fully organized townships, which Mambukal does not currently possess (it's not divided into barrios, it doesn't have a township council or township president). Mambukal does not even have a set of elected township officers; what it does have is, according to your own source, a manager, just like any resort.

* There is no proof that Mambukal was a township in the American-era sense of the word. As mentioned before, townships were only created in non-Christian areas prior to 1909. Note that in both Act No. 1583 of 1907 and Act No. 2657 of 1916 San Quintin was identified as a township but in the next page which lists all of the entities that made up Occidental Negros at the time, there's no mention of Mambucal/Mambukal, only Murcia. And this was before all townships were abolished in 1919. If it had really existed it would have made an appearance in any of the laws of the American period. A search on Google Books (which has all the scanned versions of American-era laws) or Web Archive (which has free copies of most of the laws) comes up with NOTHING in the way of Mambucal being referred to or established as a township, only that it's a "health resort" or that it has hot springs.

I therefore propose to stick to discussing the resort and remove the infobox that misleads readers into thinking that Mambukal has its own government (which it does NOT; it's a RESORT). My latest edit does mention the word "Township," but makes it clear to readers that the topic of the article is the resort, not the entity that administers it. I see this as the best compromise. isagani (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• My apologies. Agreed. I will revert some of my own edits for clarity. But still, I can supply documents in hard copy that proves the area is a township, a legal entity with its own government. As the "Township of Mambukal", the governor is concurrently its mayor. The fact that it does not remit taxes to Murcia is already enough proof that it is independent of the town administratively. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 10:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Any area can be made free from interference from local governments, especially in the case of national parks or military reservations. How Mambukal obtained "township" status and what that means is has not been satisfactorily explained, especially since townships have been abolished as local governments in 1919. Please provide this when you have the actual sources. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• How can a resort not remit taxes to an LGU if it's just a mere resort? By now, if your argument holds water, the Murcia LGU have a right to barge inside the facility and collect taxes. It can even shut the whole facility itself! RepublicaNegrense (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal arrangements such as tax exemptions can be written into law, and are not at all unheard of. Murcia cannot just shut down the whole facility since clearly there is a special legal arrangement in place; an explanation of the legal arrangement is necessary for this article to be longer under dispute. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• Here, the acting governor talks of the facility as a township, and not part of Murcia. Who are we to dispute him, since he was virtually acting mayor of the township himself! I challenge you to produce actual documents that abolished its township status and I will also produce documents pertaining to Mambukal as a legal township. http://www.visayandailystar.com/archives.visayandailystar.com/2007/August/11/topstory7.htm RepublicaNegrense (talk) 10:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm very much inclined to learn more about this specific legal arrangement, but what's currently lacking right now good verifiable sources. I've shown you the sources I used, and they're all saying Mambukal had never been considered one. You have to explain the legal arrangement in order for this article to be longer under dispute. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, I WROTE THE ARTICLE to pertain to the township, NOT the resort. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 10:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The article fails to explain what is meant by the legal term "township" in this context. Because in the Philippines townships have not been a thing, at least under national laws, since 1919, calling Mambukal a township is read as an assertion that it is a form of local government. Please provide a satisfactory explanation that explains how it became a township and what that means. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I intended to write about it as a legal anomaly, since it was constituted as a township under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines. You cannot use an American era source to dispute its status as a township. It is a township, the province regards it as a township, the national government via BIR and Bureau of Lands regards it as a township, the disputing Murcia LGU regards it as a township and wants its abolition. Therefore, it is a township. It being a LEGAL ANOMALY and an ISOLATED CASE does not make it non-existent. If I wanted to write about the resort, I would have not written about its legal status. I have already called on fellow Negrense wiki editors to add more legal sources about the matter. RepublicaNegrense (talk) 10:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Please provide your BIR and Bureau of Lands sources. If you actually wanted to write about the township, you would provide an explanation of how it became one, and what that means. Please don't cite R.A. 1964 further; it clearly uses the word townsite and NOT township. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• By the way, I just learned that the Provinces of Negros Occidental and Negros Oriental is planning to use Mambukal as a precedent to establish a TOWNSHIP between Kabankalan and Mabinay, in order to house the regional government center which they can both administer. How can they, government officials serving the province for years, lawyers some of them, consider that as a precedent if it is not a township? RepublicaNegrense (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The passing references to it as a "township" are few and weak, and it appears to only be a legal term created by the Provincial Government that has no equivalent in national laws. To keep referring to it as a township without first providing evidence how it became so and what that status entails in the current times leads readers into thinking that it is a form of local government—an explanation for this necessary. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Summary: Where is this Commonwealth Era law you speak of? When I was saying American Period, I was referring to all laws from 1900 until 1946, none of which, according to the resources available to me, reliably explain how Mambukal is considered a "Township." Only when you can clearly demonstrate which specific laws constituted Mambukal into a Township (R.A. 1964 is NOT it), and explain the nature of the "Township" status is, can you remove the dispute tag I've slapped onto the article. I do appreciate learning more about the topic, though. The more reliable sources you can provide, the better we can come to an understanding. isagani (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mambukal. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160617132725/http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/ to http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/

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) 12:07, 31 May 2017 (UTC)