Talk:List of Philippine laws

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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 articles
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Naming/scope of this page, inclusion criteria, xreffing, etc.

The page says: "This is a list of Republic Acts that have been mentioned in Wikipedia". Why just Republic Acts? That restriction seems to me not to be useful. Why just RAs which are mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia? It seems to me that mention elsewhere in Wikipedia is not a good criteria for choosing what to include here, though references to the page(s) mentioning the item would probably be useful if that xref info is available or easily obtainable.

Much of importance and interest is embodied in other instruments (there are CAs, RAs, BPs, PDs, EOs, PPs, and probably a hundred other sorts of pronouncements with varying levels of legal effect). The Immigration Act, for example, is Commonwealth Act No. 613, and has been amended by R.A. 118, R.A. 135, R.A. 144, R.A. 503, R.A. 749, R.A. 827, R.A. 1901, R.A. 4376, R.A. 5171, R.A. 5701, P.D. 524, and perhaps by other instruments. The Philippine Family Code, for another example, is embodied in Executive Order 209 which apparently, and apparently during a brief period of vast executive authority, superseded Title III of Republic Act No. 386 (the Civil code of the Philippines).

I don't think that this Wiki page is very useful in its present form, but think something along this general line would be useful even though I cannot easily come up with sweeping concrete suggestions about changes. AFAICT, RP laws have lots of contradictions between one another and are horribly unorganized.

Barring serious objection, I will probably revise the inclusion criteria requoted above and will begin adding mention of various instruments (not just RAs) to those currently mentioned here. As I do so, I will probably add external links to places where the full text of the acts can be read (probably mostly on www.lawphil.net and www.chanrobles.com).

Comments? Suggestions? Objections? -- Boracay Bill 05:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering

Based on the numbering, it appears here are three kinds of RA acts, pre commonwealth, commonwealth and post commonwealth. Is this the case or is it simply that pre commonwealth and commonwealth acts were given new numbers? If it is the case that there are 3 kinds, how are these usually referred to? E.g. how is RA1876 of the pre commonwealth era distunguished from RA1876 of the post commonwealth era?60.234.141.76 12:36, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, Philippine laws were really called "Republic Acts" from 1946-1972 and from 1986-now. Before independence, they were merely just called "acts". During the Marcos era, they were called "Batas Pambansa" (national law). Before independence, the law would be numbered as Act followed by the number (for example Act 3346). A Batas Pambansa would be succeeded by a number (for example Batas Pambansa 134). An RA would simply be RA followed by the number (for example RA 9337). Since the title is really a reference to the modern RA, the name on the table was kept for convenience, but I will modify the titles to make sure that they are not all RAs. --
    Akira123323 14:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The numberings of the Republic Acts (not PD, EO, or BP) are consistent. Therefore the numberings of Presidential Decree (started with 1) is not in connection with the numberings in the Republic Acts last used before the Martial Law in 1972. (Republic Act 6635 was passed in 1972, while the next republic act, RA 6636, was passed in 1987). In my opinion, indeed there are different numberings: pre-commonwealth, commonwealth, republic (except 1972 to 1986), PD, and Batasang Pambansa (last 2 were in Marcos era) -Frj1947 17:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen, and contrary to the nomenclature described in this article, legislative instruments exist which are are designated as Act, Batas Republika(??), Batas Pambansa Bilang, Commonwealth Act, and Republic Act (perhaps Act and Batas Republika are two alternative designations for the same group of instruments (??)). Executive instruments exist which are designated as Executive Order, Memorandum Order, Administrative Order, Memorandum Circular, General Order, Special Order, Presidential Proclamation, and Presidential Decree; some of these are defined in chapter two of the Administrative Code of 1987 (EO292) (some provisions of EO292, incidentally, appear to to be inconsistent with the 1987 RP constitution). Numbering of executive instruments appears to be inconsistent, with the same designation and number having been used for different executive issuances (examples here and here). Also, there is some interworking between the aforementioned items, such as parts of RA386 having been superseded by EO209 and with EO209 then having been amended by EO227(1987) and further amended by RA8533. -- Boracay Bill 01:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC); modified by Boracay Bill 05:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hope this helps. Only Congress has the power to make laws (which can be defined simply as the creation of legal rights and the imposition of legal obligations). The executive instruments defined in the Administrative Code are not laws, but in a loose sense, instructions by the President to the members of the executive department on how to implement the law. For while Congress has the duty to make laws, it is the President with the duty to execute the laws of Congress. I'm not certain about the particulars in the numbering of Executive orders and other such executive instruments, but I think that the number is reset to 1 at the start of each calendar year. Thus, when these executive orders are cited in legal pleadings, it is necessary to cite the year it was issued, otherwise the reader or judge would be at a loss as to which executive order is being referred to.
However, when Marcos declared martial law, closed Congress, and imposed his 1973 Constitution, he took upon himself the power of Congress to make laws. The most common form he would use in making his laws was through Presidential Decrees. From 1972 to 1978, all laws came from Marcos alone. The Batasang Pambansa (which replaced Congress) was convened in 1978, with the traditional power to create laws (known from 1978 until 1986 as Batas Pambansa Blg. ___) However, even with the Batasang Pambansa, Marcos chose to retain the power to make laws by decree. So, from 1978 until 1986, there was this unusual situation where both the Batasang Pambansa and Marcos had the power to make laws. Since during that time Marcos allies controlled the B.P., there was hardly any conflict.
Then, when Cory Aquino was installed in 1986, she closed the Batasang Pambansa and also opted to retain the Marcos power to create laws herself until the time Congress was convened again in 1987. Because the term "Presidential Decrees" had fallen in such disrepute during the Marcos era, Aquino chose to make laws through "Executive Orders" during the year and a half she had such power. The two most famous laws created by Aquino through Executive Orders were the Family Code of 1987 (E.O. 209) and the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292). These two Codes should have been enacted by Congress, rather than the President, and many feel they were rushed in order that there would be no need for congressional approval. However, since Congress reconvened in 1987, the President no longer has the power to make laws, and the Executive Orders issued are limited to implementing the laws of Congress. Similarly, only Congress, and not the President, has the power to amend those "executive orders" or "presidential decrees" which are in fact laws. That is why The Family Code (E.O. 209) was amended by a subsequent Republic Act, for example. Its quite confusing, but thankfully not too many laws are affected by this discrepancy.
As to the nomenclatures in the article, it is wrong to designate those laws enacted before 1946 as Republic Acts, since the Republic of the Philippines did exist yet during that time. Pre-Commonwealth laws were known as Public Acts (or simply, Acts), while laws passed during the Commonwealth government were Commonwealth Acts. It is also wrong to call the Marcos-era laws as Republic Acts, as they were either known as Batas Pambansa Blg. (for laws passed by Congress) or Presidential Decrees (for laws passed by Marcos). I also understand that the criteria for citing the particular laws in the article is based on their reference within Wikipedia. While that may be a valid criteria, it might leave the impression that these were the most important laws passed by our Congresses when in fact many of them are relatively innocuous in nature. --Anyo Niminus 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info, some of which I had figured out for myself and some of which was new to me. I would have thought that the 1987 Constitution, which provides that it takes effect immediately on ratification (2 Feb 1987 according to jlp-law.com), would have immediately terminated any authority that President Aquino had to rule by decree in favor of constitutionally mandated legislative processes. I see, though, that EO209 is dated 6 July 1987 and EO292 is dated 25 July 1987. Perhaps I fail to understand because I am not legally trained.
Regarding this page, it seems to me from the foregoing and from looking at the History of the Philippines page that this page would benefit from a reorganization into sections along the following lines, with each section having an explanatory intro and with each section referring to the laws therein by the appropriate designations:
  • Pre-Spanish era, pre-1521, is there any legal carryover to the present?
  • Spanish rule era, 1521-1898, is there any legal carryover to the present?
  • American Colonial era, 1898-1933, laws are designated "Act"
  • Commonwealth era, 1933-1935, laws are designated "Commonwealth Act"
  • Pre WW-II 1935 RP Constitution era, 1935-1941, laws are designated "Republic Act"
  • Japanese Occupation and 1943 RP Constitution era, 1941-1944, is there any legal carryover to the present?
  • Post WW-II 1935 RP Constitution era, 1944-1972, laws are designated "Republic Act"
  • Martial Law and 1973 RP Constitution era, 1972-1986, laws are designated "Batas Pambansa", "Presidential Decree", and "Presidential Proclamation"
  • Post-revolution and 1986 RP Constitution era, 1986-1987, laws are designated "Executive Order"
  • 1987 RP Constitution era, 1987 to present, laws are designated "Republic Act"
I hope that is somewhere close to being correct. I have divided the sections above partly according to the dates of the various constitutions rather than on the Nth Republic divisions made on the Philippine History page, which divisions don't match the dates of the various constitutions. Perhaps there is a better way to do this.
Considering the several designations for Philippine laws, I think that this page should be moved to something like "List of Philippine laws". Also, the article intro should probably make it clear that the list it contains is not comprehensive. -- Boracay Bill 07:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with these divisions, and that "List of Philippine laws" is a more accurate designation. No Pre-Spanish era or Spanish era laws remain in effect today, and I can't think of a Japanese-era law that also remains in effect. If I'm not mistaken though, the Commonwealth government was in rule from 1935 to 1941, and that the laws during those six years are the ones called "Commonwealth Act". It was only in 1946 that the laws came to be titled "Republic Act".
While the 1987 Constitution took effect beginning 2 February 1987, Section 6, Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) allowed Aquino to "continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened." Transitory Provisions It was on 27 July 1987 that the "first" Congress (actually the 8th Congress) was convened. --Anyo Niminus 11:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a draft revision, which is currently located here. Unless there is objection, I intend in a day or two to move the present Republic Acts of the Philippines page to List of Philippine laws, leaving behind a redirection link to that page, and then to replace the contents of the new page with my draft page. In the meantime, please look over my draft. Feel free to change anything which needs changing. -- Boracay Bill 06:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page and revised its content per the discussion above. -- Boracay Bill 00:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Act # 1

Anyone know what the first ever act? --Howard the Duck 07:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That info is probably in this book. Online, I found this. -- Boracay Bill 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Republic Act No. 1 (the first ever law passed by the independent Congress)... anyone think this should be included? --Howard the Duck 11:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rep. Act No. 1 itself is very unremarkable, just a temporary spending measure until the 1946 budget was approved. For me, the fact that it was the first law passed by Congress post-independence is interesting only as trivia. In considering the first ever law, the Philippine legal system recognizes until today even those unrepealed laws passed during the American era as having equal weight with those passed by the post-1946 Congress. These would include laws enacted by the Philippine Commission prior to 1907. One such law, The Land Registration Act (Act No. 496, circa 1902), is still very relevant today as it still governs the system of land registration in the Philippines.
What I'd be more interested in is what is the oldest law still in effect today, and The Land Registration Act may well be it. At least one Spanish era law, the Spanish Civil Code remained in effect in the Philippines until 1950. --Anyo Niminus (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to chanrobles

Is there a reason why there are links to chanrobles.com? Why not to lawphil.net instead? Ed558 (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's more comprehensive/complete. Although I have some concerns on actually including them in the article at all. I suggest deleting the section. Moray An Par (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted all the links leaving just a main link. I think that all the links are not appropiate for an encyclopedia. If people wanted a comprehensive list, they can go elsewhere.--Bruce Hall (talk) 06:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commission Acts

I am sure I have come across references to one or more Commission Act. Do they exist as such, or is it another name for (Public) Acts? Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Fri 20:13, wikitime= 12:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Philippine laws. 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.

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).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article overhaul

Greetings,

This is a suggestion that he whole article must be revamp in order to be more informative and less enumerative. Due to the extent of the laws passed by the Congress every year, the article will only be more lengthy as the time goes by, especially, not all laws are covered by this article and only notable ones are displayed, it will be more appropriate if laws are grouped in a collapsible section in accordance to its particular time period (preferably, by historical period e.g. laws of the First Philippine Republic, Laws of the Commonwealth Era). The article must focused on the legal fields and subjects of the Philippines and the legal system of the Philippines, further discussion on the Legal system of the Philippines, highlights the unique blend of Common Law and Civil law system as well as the recognition of Sharia law and customary law. A section on the History of Philippine legal system and the discussion on particular section of legal fields. Similar articles that could serve as basis and reference includes Law of Thailand, Law of Singapore. Law of Germany, Law of the United States, Law of France etc.

I hope this aforementioned recommendations should be taken into proper consideration. 203.87.133.166 (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing article

Notifying @Sanglahi86 and Joshuasevilla: as the main contributors. What are the plans for this article? Really this article would be split into years, but some of these new articles would be infeasibly small while others would be quite substantial themselves. I think we may just split the largest years for now, but I'd like to hear if there are any plans for this article, if any. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) I don't look at this article much, but I have a couple of comments:
  • If the concern is displayed article length, I'd consider eliminating the Notable laws section. The stated criteria for determining notability here are (1) having been mentioned in Wikipedia and (2) being otherwise notable. I don't know what the criteria are for being otherwise notable, but I've never had any reason to look at this section.
  • I think splitting by years would be a detriment. I usually come to this article with an RA number in mind which I'm looking for info about. Having to go on to another article from this one because the law I'm interested in happens to fall in a split-out year would be an annoyance. If I have a list of several RA numbers I'm looking for info about and those RAs happen to fall into separate years, it would be a large annoyance.
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It depends how much detail there is for each year. If it's the same level of detail for every year as for 2009, there would really be no other option. The article itself only goes back to laws from 2000, so it has much more room to expand within its scope. I completely agree with your criteria for the notable laws section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Onetwothreeip, Wtmitchell, and Sanglahi86: First of all, this article is where all my contribution to Wikipedia is concentrated being just a simple task of listing laws from the Congress' online archive while "standardizing" the language in here in Wikipedia. I just hope that by using a "uniform" language for each "type" of law helps viewers of this article especially when sorting the tables especially while Duterte is aiming for federalism. I really have no "clear" "intended" plans for this article except continuing the process I have started until at least as far back as the Cory Aquino years wherever available in the Congress archive in their website. I am afraid I will mostly depend on online non-governmental websites (with questionable content) going past the Cory years. I am just a bit busy sometimes with some short term freelancing gigs. I use a desktop to view and edit this article so I am not really sure how users using the mobile site wants in terms of the presentation of this page - the "affected municipalities/cities" and the "affected provinces" columns can be as short as a single word and can be as long as being a list of all provinces of the Visayas or Luzon or Mindanao. But I hope that my choice of using this columns are understood by the users. I also choose creating tables for each year because that is how most of us see time and history, particularly. But there is an option of creating separate tables for each Congress like what is done (in a separate article) here: Laws of the 13th Congress of the Philippines. I am not sure which would be preferred by users. So, I am not sure whether putting all the archive of R.A.s from the Cory years to the present in a single table, or putting them on tables by year, or tables for each different Congress. I can also understand the existence of a "notable laws" table as long as they serve to highlight the more-or-less the more "significant" laws that has nationwide "significance" (if you get what I mean by that vague language) but as of now, I notice that the "notable laws" section in some years are haphazard collection without any centralized curation or moderation - this is one of the main reasons why I have started contributing to this article. In short, I have really no clear idea of the best presentation for this content. I have an idea though how to enrich the "bare bones" structure the current presentation has now with the table of contents high above pointing to hidden tables of content for each year - by adding an always open table of "significant/notable" laws of national importance for each year first, followed by a tog-gable(hidden) complete table listing all the laws passed that year. (Replace the word "year" in the last sentence with "each seated Congress") if you prefer a table for each Congress. - Joshuasevilla (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2019 (PHT)
I think what should happen now is that the biggest yearly sections should be split into new articles, but this doesn't have to happen all at once. The articles for laws in each Congress seem to be untenable since they're either not even close to complete, or they would be far too large if they were. In comparison the notable laws table seems to be a minor issue but generally we should remove all laws that don't have their own Wikipedia articles from that table, although they can be added again if an article for that law arises or if there is something appropriate to link it to. Most importantly I think you can just take your time and contribute to these articles on whatever basis is comfortable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NEED INFO (???)

This edit caught my eye. Editing the article, I see a lot of instances of "(NEED INFO)". I have no idea what this is all about, but it strikes me that these do not belong in an encyclopedia article. I see that this apparently started with this April 2019 edit. Here, I've added info from this source to one instance of this which was sorely in need of info, but most of the other instances of this baffle me. Could some regular editor of this article please take a look at this? Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay compliance to National laws and issuancesnces

Philippine laws and issuances 49.147.200.165 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Philippine_laws&oldid=1198341835"