Talk:List of Philippine laws

message: 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is embodied in Executive Order 209 which apparently, and apparently during a brief period of vast executive authority, superseded Title III of Republic Act No. 386 (the Civil code of the Philippines).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)
thread_title: Naming/scope of this page, inclusion criteria, xreffing, etc.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linking to chanrobles 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Commission Acts 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130426153938/http://www.nhcp.gov.ph/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=760 to http://www.nhcp.gov.ph/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=760
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article overhaul 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NEED INFO (???) 

message: Philippine laws and issuances 49.147.200.165 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barangay compliance to National laws and issuancesnces