Talk:Constitutional reform in the Philippines

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Constitutional reform in the Philippines article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Politics

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Title change

This article needs a more precise title, like Proposed Revisons to the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, since Charter Change could also refer to changing the UN Charter, etc.

I totally have to agree. "Philippines charter change" doesn't sound very encyclopedic. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that, the title is inappropriate to this article, could somebody change the title, I recommend Charter Change (Philippines)...-121.54.2.91 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to add the modifier "Philippines" to the title. Does anyone else use charter change? It could refer to other documents, but does it? I have never heard it used by anyone to apply to any other charter except the Philippines. The fact that the title of the article has survived so long without a need to revise or even add a "not to be confused with" tag (See Template:confuse) argues in favor of leaving it alone. Only the Philippines uses Charter Change. If there needs to be an article on the United Nations charter then they should have an article entitled "Charter Change (United Nations)". --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I note that User:Sairyu changed it without commenting here. He said in the comments section, "(moved Philippines charter change to Constitutional reform in the Philippines: Charter change or chacha is a colloquial name commonly known to Filipinos only. Some Wikipedians doesn't even know what charter change is but may have an idea of what...)"--Bruce Hall (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed the most common, or if you prefer colloquial name, by which constitutional reform is known among 100 million people, the 12th largest country in the world, the 3rd largest English speaking country. It is therefore more appropriate for the title of this page.

Wikipedia:Article titles, which lays out the rules for titles, says, "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by....Wikipedia article titles have the following characteristics: Recognizability – Titles are names or descriptions of the topic that are recognizable to someone familiar with (though not necessarily expert in) the topic...." Latter referring to common, or colloquial, names it specifically says "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." One example given is Bill Clinton: "The following are examples of common names[4] that Wikipedia uses as article titles instead of more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternatives: Bill Clinton (not William Jefferson Clinton)"

Charter change is the most common and descriptive name. The fact that those outside the Philippines are ignorant of the meaning argues in favor of using it. They need to be educated. That is the purpose of Wikipedia. People Google "charter change" wondering what is going on and then they come to Wikipedia to explain it to them. They will not Google "constitutional reform" because nearly all the sources, e.g. news articles, will refer to it as "charter change". Charter change is common, colloquial like Bill Clinton and should be used here in common, colloquial Wikipedia. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Another example: Big Dig. Can you get more colloquial then "the Big Dig" to refer to a tunnel project?

P.P.S. I didn't know any of the naming conventions until I looked it up. I hope that I don't come across as too strong above. Part of that is my own personal style and part of that is my strong belief that we should not be embarrassed or make excuses for a Filipino English term which is as legitimate as an American or British English term. The 100 million in this country has just as much right to influence England as Britian's 60 million. (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo, Nograles, Pimentel Cha Cha

Definately, they have to file this landmark futile attempt to extend the 2010 term of PGMA via a Trojan horse: House Speaker Prospero Nograles today said he is ready to sit down with Senator Aquilino Pimentel to discuss the Senate-endorsed Charter change aimed to turn the country into a federal system of government. But he clarified that he will support it if the implementation should take place after 2010.[1]

Today, Philippines embarked in a landmark step to change and overhall the 1987 constitution, that is, 21 years ago. Rep. Monico O. Puentevella on May 7, 2008, filed House Concurrent Resolution No. 15 which supported Senate Resolution No. 10. Unlike the Pimentel Senate Resolution, Puentevella included the option of holding a constitutional convention, but excluded the People's Initiative mode.gmanews.tv, House resolution supports change in form of government --Florentino floro (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, Not an Online Forum!!!

To everyone who keeps on adding STUPID and IMMATURE statements in the main page and talk page, please stop and if you may, you are free to commit hara-kiri to do everyone a favor to end your worthless life for the sake of everyone's benefit. Do not vandalize this Wikipedia entry about the Philippine Charter change. You may hate Charter change but this is a Encyclopedia entry, take your stupid, uneducated voices to the forums! Triadwarfare (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to remove comments by on this talk page even when they are clearly off-topic, but I did so anyway. The comments were from years ago and were cluttering up this Talk page making it more difficult, especially since the comments were in all-caps, to see the more legitimate and helpful comments. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging other articles into this

Do we need four separate articles? Maybe we should combine People's Initiative, Constitutional Convention (Philippines), and Constituent Assembly (Philippines), into Constitutional reform in the Philippines. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Constituent Assembly" term not in the Constitution

The term "constituent assembly" does not appear in the 1987 Constitution. All the Constitution requires is a vote of the members of Congress without saying how they should vote. Indeed some argue that the Philippine Congress can pass amendments like the US Congress does, like any other bill, just with a different margin required for passage. To say that the Constitution requires a constituent assembly is an interpretation of the Constitution and therefore a creditable WP:Third party source is needed. The Constitution itself cannot be used as a citation. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Constitutional reform in 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) 03:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current events

The article needs more information on ongoing and recent events regarding the Duterte administration's efforts on constitutional reform, many of which can be seen in this article. Best wishes. Hijo de Caridad95 (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 04:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional reform in the Philippines → Charter Change – Per WP:COMMONNAME PyroFloe (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move, Charter Change already redirects here, this page was moved multiple times and was not explained thoroughly enough to the talk page as to why by @Yellowdesk and @Sairyu

Multiple reliable sources including CNN, Rappler, Philstar, Inquirer, Manila Times, Manila Buleltin, ABS CBN, GMA News, and many more, refer to it as "Charter Change".

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]

Adding to that: According to Google Trends, if you notice, the most prevalent country in terms of search interest over time for the term is the Philippines, Charter Change is the most common term worldwide for Philippine Constitution Amendment.

[10]

If we coincide this with Google Ngram results, the year where it peaked is 2006, Google Trends results for Charter Change also peaked in 2006, thus concluding that they are correlated, making it the most common term for the constitutional amendment in the Philippines.

[11]

Adding to that, even the Government cites it as Charter Change as seen from the House of Representatives and Senate official government websites.

[12] [13]

Let me know what you think. PyroFloe (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to the name change, as Charter change is more common. "change" should have a small c however. CMD (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Still ambiguous. "Charter change" is a generic term used in international media and across the English WP for even those not related to the Philippine charter. Charter change should redirect to Constitutional amendment instead just as its shorthand "Cha-cha" should redirect to the dance or remain as a dab page. I strongly propose that this article be moved instead to Amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines in line with the articles at Category:Constitutional amendments and not limit its scope to the amendments to the 1987 constitution as PH constitutional reform is not solely a Fifth Republic issue or undertaking. Constitutional amendments and reforms have taken place in 1940, 1947, 1976, 1981 and 1984 on top of the ratification of the 1935, 1943, 1972, etc and the article must include all of that. IMHO, limiting "constitutional reform in the Philippines" to the current 1987 charter is WP:OR and must be rectified.--RioHondo (talk) 07:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Potential ambiguity is not that critical an issue, per WP:PTOPIC. I agree the scope should be widened under any title (although I'm not sure how defining article scope is original research). CMD (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Haha sorry i was referring to the recentism associated with the term Chacha or Charter change and how it has applied only to the recent 1987 charter amendments when in fact this practice has been going on for decades earlier. I dont oppose keeping Charter Change as a redirect to this article but the article title must keep its natural disambiguation and country-specific precision per WP:AT--RioHondo (talk) 10:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not all readers live in Philippines. This is not how it is known internationally. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per oculi. cha cha, con con, and con ass are common terminology in the Philippines (as in the PDI he4adline /Cha-cha by con-ass or con-con, and that probably ought to be mentioned here, but I think the current article name is good. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per comments above. I also changed the target of "Charter Change" to Constitutional amendment because that isn't supposed to redirect here in the first place anyway. I support RioHondo's proposal to move this article to Amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 12:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.