Template talk:Philippine legislatures

message: I read in the book of Cesar Pobre and through my personal knowing that the Batasang Bayan was a transitional legislature though appointive. My father Jose "Joe" Cuenco and my brother Jameson were members of the said legislature. I advise it should place in the template.Rizalninoynapoleon 03:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same book on page 231, and here I quote "As a quasi-legislative body, it functioned as a consultative assembly, assisting the president in the discharge of certain legislative powers following the dissolution of the Congress of the Philippines...". It's clear it was a "consultative body" it was never a formal legislature with the power to enact laws -- all legislative power and authority still emanated from the president/dictator. Marcos' decrees were in one way formulated by them, but the authority still rested on the him. Batasang Bayan deserve to have it's own article by all means (but I didnt obtain anymore from the Congressional Library its members), but to include them among the legislatures which had the authority to discharge legislative authority, it is still debatable. There mere fact it was a quasi-legislature IMHO simply doesn't put it at par with the rest. — scorpion prinz 09:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have obtain information on the Batasang Bayan after yesterday's visit at the Batasang Pambansa Complex while surfing the internet to update my pages concerning the Philippine Congress, the head of the Library asked why the said legislature is not there also LEDAC. I told her what you told me. She was disappointed and asked me to tell you that you have to put it on the template the said legislature and the LEDAC under the Legislative Advisory Councils of the Philippines. Rizalninoynapoleon 13:30, 04 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then create an advisory council template. Not here. Both bodies have no powers sanctioned by the constitution. The template is legislatures, not legislative advisory councils. It spins off the topic. If you want lets have everyone make an input about this. Scorpion Prinz | talk  10:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My stand is that Batasang Bayan and LEDAC doesn't belong here. Another contention here, is all those bodies were created by Constitutions, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones law were the de facto constitutions of the Philippines during the American era. Batasang Bayan and LEDAC are just created by laws, are are not legislative bodies per se.  12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, only legislative bodies created via a constitution would be posted here. Although I' still want this trimmed down since it's too big. --Howard the Duck 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I got no problem with that, and the rest shall be renamed Legislative Periods -- Scorpion prinz (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a good idea to remove the years? --Howard the Duck 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i'm thinking of a layout. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Batasang Bayan

message: Along these lines:
*Malolos Congress
*Philippine Commission and Philippine Assembly
*National Assembly
*The Congresses
*Batasang Pambansa
The advisory councils are too few (only 2), creating a template them would be meaningless (a "see also" section would be advised here).
Then this template may display only the following:
--Howard the Duck 11:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My stand is that Batasang Bayan and LEDAC doesn't belong here. Another contention here, is all those bodies were created by Constitutions, the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones law were the de facto constitutions of the Philippines during the American era. Batasang Bayan and LEDAC are just created by laws, are are not legislative bodies per se.  12:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, only legislative bodies created via a constitution would be posted here. Although I' still want this trimmed down since it's too big. --Howard the Duck 13:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I got no problem with that, and the rest shall be renamed Legislative Periods -- Scorpion prinz (talk) 14:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it a good idea to remove the years? --Howard the Duck 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, i'm thinking of a layout. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 15:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split the template

message: With the inclusion of the current Congress, this template is no longer "historical" but rather inclusive of all national legislatures.  I therefore changed removed "historical".  It's inaccurate and confusing.  I added "national" in its place because each municipality and province, as well as the ARMM, have legislative branches.  The qualifier "national" is therefore needed unless we want to expande the template. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical versus national 

message: The Philippine Commission after 1907 was no longer a legislature on its own.  Rather it was a legislative body within the Philippine Legislature, as I understand it. So I changed the end date of it being a "national legislature" to 1907.  --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed date of Philippine Commission