Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Former featured article candidate Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 6, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
February 6, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Economics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Tambayan Philippines (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


In the "Honors and Awards" section, the title of the Forbes magazine issue is misspelled. It should be "Forbes magazine's 100 Most Powerful Women in the World". (Woman -> Women) (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Missing Report about a meeting with former President F.Ramos and the OWFs[edit]

I remember there was a report about a meeting with former President F.Ramos with interesting informations on the desolate situation of OWFs. I did not find anymore here or in the archive. Who knows where I can find again? Truth222 (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC) I don't understand what the following contribution meansTruth222 (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I remember that when she was 10 years old she was 7 foot tall with a booger on her right cheek and when she turned 19 she maked out yao ming :) and then when she was 30 years old she had sex with Mike Arroyo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jokojoshua (talkcontribs) 00:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Truth222's edits[edit]

- Can this actually be confirmed? Do we have mind-readers that can confirm that this really was the reason that Estrada left office? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

First thank you very much for seriously answering. Edsa II/III: I remember that Estrada gave no order to shoot on the people, but Arroyo. Further he himself wrote to the senate that he temporarily would leave the palace to solve the case peaceful (I confess I dont remember the exact reason and dates of this writing).Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
A statement from Estrada claiming that was the reason isn't really enough especially when you consider that he had already lost support of the AFP and the PNP. It would be like a boxer who lost a match saying that he lost because he let the other guy win. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
There are statements of his lawyers too.
Do you really want to say that the army would disobey the elected president? At this time his name was Estrada! Then it was a mutiny or even a putch with the support of the army.Truth222 (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Massive crowds in the hundreds of thousands were gathering daily for a week to protest after the impeachment trial turned into a farce. In the face of such popular unrest the military "stepped aside". Let's put things in some context. If hundreds of thousands of people were gathering DAILY for a WEEK to protest and an impeachment trial had turned into a sham and the country was destabilizing due to the power vacuum and everyday life and commerce was disrupted, wouldn't a resignation for the good of the country not be a perfectly understandable action in the face of the loss of confidence in his administration? Should any one man's position be worth more than the stability of the entire country? If the Philippines had a parliamentary system a resignation would have been the easy and obvious solution and that's why cha-cha advocates have a good case in proposing reform. However, the Philippines has a presidential system and Estrada refused to resign and chose to cling to the presidency. He was evicted. Now one can say he had legitimate reasons to do as he did but to suggest that he left office out of benevolence or some altruistic end would be inaccurate. Ridacto (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

- This is an opinion many Filipinos share, and certainly the Garci tapes and such lend credence to this, but "pretty doubtful" isn't the sort of thing you read in an encyclopaedia. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

- Don't really see how this is relevant considering he was reportedly a "friend" of Estrada as well.[1][2][3] --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think his relation to Arroyo is essential. The famaly ties are close. F.E. Arroyo is Godmother for his children. That could explain his obviously wrong allegations. In the Senate hearings 2006 he could not even put the money into the boxes.
Later the Sandibayan Court used his wrong allegations only against Estrada but not against the other accused. They prevented Estradas laywers to ask him questions as it should be.Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Which allegations specifically? If the other defendants were not party to those specific allegations, why would the SB acuse them of such? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Singson was a friend of Estrada's too, privy to the gambling sessions Estrada participated in with dubious characters thought to be related to the underworld. That's what made him an important witness. Also remember that what made Singson's testimony even more compelling and dramatic was that he was turning on Estrada because of what he perceived to be an attempt on and threat to his life. He wanted to sing like a bird while he was still alive. Suspected politically motivated deaths linked to those who crossed or were in the position to cross Estrada include the cases of Bubby Dacer, Edgar Bentain, and John Campos. Ridacto (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
If you followed the hearings you know that Chavit Singson was proven as lying: He could not put the money into the box which in his statement he had handed out to Estrada as a bribery!Truth222 (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

- I fail to see how that sentence referencing an article in The Tribune fits in with the preceding paragraph. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

It concernes the main crime.Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I read through the article and basically all I saw was Estrada trying to pass the blame to Singson. The sentence isn't appropriate in a paragraph detailing Arroyo's succession to the presidency. Also, please be a little more careful with the sources you use. The Tribune is known to be biased towards Estrada, if you don't believe that, then please provide a single article where they have criticized the former president. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

- We've discussed this a number of times. I attempted to at least leave mention of the opposition's view on this a while back. As to the increase in number of OFWs and claiming that people are leaving because of lack of jobs, you've failed to provide statistics that prove that this is the case. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Diokno was Secretary of Budget and Management in the Estrada administration. He can hardly be called impartial. When he defends the Estrada administration he is pretty much defending his own record. Ridacto (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Economy: There was already a version that showed both sides as you mention above. Why it was removed?
Newer quote: "She earned for the Philippines a world wide title as the 2nd most corrupt country in the world. The World Bank (WB), the US Department of State, and just last week, the Asian Development Bank (ABD) have supported this finding, calling attention to the “worsening” corruption in the country."
Or: Tribune Thursday, 13 March 2008: Former gov’t finance officials: Economy ‘not gaining momentum’ Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why it was removed, but it's possible that whoever removed it found the section too lengthy or inappropriate for the article. As to corruption, we should note that Pulse Asia's survey for one, was defined by public opinion and refers to corruption in the Philippines as a whole, in contrast to Estrada and Marcos being listed in the world's top 10 most corrupt world leaders in 2004.[4][5][6][7] I'm hoping some of the other contributors will chime in so we can decide whether to reintroduce the section containing some of Diokno's comments. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's probaly for the best if they were added to give a sence of copleatness

--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Video with confession Arroyos that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada[edit]

Showing Mrs. Arroyo, "caught on video, in a forum of a civil society group, proudly confessing that she had, a year before the ouster, plotted to oust Estrada. It seems its no falsification. Of course that would change the whole view on the events of 2001." Daily Tribune 02/20/2008: ‘We went from frying pan to fire’ Edsa II a mistake, says CBCP head "The church issued yesterday what amounted to a public apology for its pivotal role in installing then Vice President Gloria Arroyo to the presidency in a 2001 military-backed revolt that ousted popularly elected President Joseph Estrada."Truth222 (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

A link to this video could be an interesting addition to the article. Do we have one? --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am from the Philippines and call me ignorant but is this video really existing? Because I haven't heard of it, sorry. (talk) 05:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither have I, but if it does exist, it would be interesting to see it. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsismis yan. Daily Tribune is an opposition mouthpiece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Her Excellency"[edit]

Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)The term "Her Excellency" is used when addressing a high ranking official from a foreign country directly, either orally or in writing. In an encyclopedic article, it sounds only deferential and sycophantic, if not outright ridiculous. It should be deleted.Ashoroman (talk) 08:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Amen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph about Lagdameo's disappointment in Arroyo in "Succession" section[edit]

I removed the paragraph because it isn't appropriate to the section. The section deals with Arroyo taking over the presidency and it being declared legal by the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court later declares that the take-over was illegal, then fine, we can ammend that section with that information. A religous leader giving their opinion and expressing disappointment over the aftermath of EDSA II, however, just isn't relevant to issues of succession. Even former presidents such as Aquino and Ramos expressing disappointment wouldn't be relevant to the section since they do not affect whether or not the decision was ruled legal. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are consequent you must delete almost the whole paragraph. The "people power" also is irrelevant for the court and was not possible without the deceived support of the church leaders. Further: Read the decision of the court, it sounds partly like yellow press and would never be adequat to international standards.Truth222 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the term "people power" isn't used in the paragraph, second, the first paragraph has everything to do with how she came to power. I won't be reverting for now, since we've already both violated the 3-revert-rule. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 10:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph doesn't belong in that section, or anywhere in the article. It makes the section biased, and it's obvious that adding it is only an attempt to sway people's opinions. It is best to present facts of the events, not people's opinions and spin-- otherwise every article about a political leader will be filled with quotations of people's opinions of them. TheCoffee (talk) 01:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The section is biased in the present form. I think its necessary for understanding to know the partly changed role of the church. Edsa II was to a far degree based on very personal "moral" issues of the church especially Cardinal Sin. (Compare the quotes of Puno's official answer to the laywer of Estrada.):

CBCP president Archbishop Angel Lagdameo said last January the church-backed Edsa II was a mistake as the installation of then Vice President Gloria Arroyo as president was merely going from the frying pan into the fire. “It did not respect the rule of law. It did not give the duly instituted political institution a chance to assert itself and prove its strength to handle such a political turmoil”

Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) president and Iloilo Archbishop Angel Lagdameo expressed disappointment in Mrs. Arroyo, saying which has become known as Edsa II, which happened between Jan. 17 and 21 in 2001 installed a president who is now being adjudged in surveys as the country’s “most corrupt” leader.

The former President Corazon Aquino apologized, she is “also guilty of being part of the Edsa Dos” that ousted then President Estrada. She said “Lahat naman tayo ay nagkakamali. Patawarin mo na lang ako” (We all make mistakes. Please forgive me). At this point, President Erap stood up, bowed to her and clasped his hands in an Asian gesture of thank you. (The Daily Tribune 12/24/2008) (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear The Coffee: I hereby add the quote of the court, which I mean: "Calls for the resignation of the petitioner filled the air. On October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the presidency as he had lost the moral authority to govern.[3] Two days later or on October 13, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines joined the cry for the resignation of the petitioner.[4] Four days later, or on October 17, former President Corazon C. Aquino also demanded that the petitioner take the “supreme self-sacrifice” of resignation.[5]" Why should Corazon Aquino make only a joke for her apologizing?Truth222 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Health section[edit]

We need a health section here: why? Health section is a must in heads of state. It is not news but real deal, since if a President dies or is incapacitated, the very first news on the hospitalization. I added news on this but they were deleted. So, I hope that we have a health section on this:[8]. I ask all of you: had you known of any President who had been more hospitalized than Gloria? Oh, I am sure not. ---Florentino floro (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

A possible adition[edit]

The growing human rights crisis The New People's Army (NPA) groups known as "Sparrow Units" were active in the mid-1980s, killing government officials, police personnel, military members, and anyone else they targeted for elimination. They were also supposedly part of an NPA operation called "Agaw Armas" (Filipino for "Stealing Weapons "), where they raided government armories as well as stealing weapons from slain military and police personnel. A low level civil war with south Moslems, Al-Qaeda sympathizers and communist insurgents has led to a general break down of law and order. The Philippines government has promised to curb the killings, but is itself implicated in many of the killings.[1]

Extrajudicial Killings Summit

The 22nd PUNO Supreme Court is set to hold a National Consultative Summit on extrajudicial killings on July 16 and 17, 2007 at the Manila Hotel. Invited representatives from the three branches of the government will participate (including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the PNP, CHR, media, academe, civil society and other stakeholders).

Puno will give the keynote speech and closing remarks. Puno searches for major solutions to solve forced disappearances.

During the first day of the summit, the speakers will present their respective papers comprising significant inputs from their respective sectors, while on the second day, the participants will break out into 12 groups (chaired by a Justice) and take part in a workshop. Local and international observers (the diplomatic corps and representatives from various international organizations) will be accredited.

Puno announced that "the summit highlight will be a plenary session where each of the 12 groups shall report to the body their recommended resolutions. The reports and proposals will be synthesized and then transmitted to the concerned government agencies for appropriate action".

The earlier slated Malacañang-sponsored "Mindanao Peace and Security Summit (July 8-10, 2007 at Cagayan de Oro City), focussed on how to make the anti-terror law, or the Human Security Act (HSA) of 2007, more acceptable to the public.[2][3]

On July 16, 2007, Justices, activists, militant leaders, police officials, politicians and prelates attended the Supreme Court's two-day summit at the Manila Hotel in Manila City to map out ways to put an end to the string of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines. Bayan was set to launch their "silent protest", but expressed support for the high court's initiative. Director Geary Barias, chief of the police's anti-killings Task Force Usig, Sen. Panfilo Lacson, Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim, Caloocan Bishop Deogracias Yñiguez, re-elected party-list Representatives Satur Ocampo (Bayan Muna) and Crispin Beltran (Anakpawis) attended. Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno said that the "National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Forced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions," would help stop the murders. Delegates were given 12 to 15 minutes each to share their insights and knowledge about the matter. Yniguez accused the government of failing to actively pursue investigations on the hundreds of killings and the Catholic Church was alarmed that victims have been denied their "fundamental right" to live.

Based on Yniguez-church's count, the number of victims of extrajudicial killings has reached 778, while survivors of "political assassinations," was pegged at 370. He also noted 203 "massacre" victims, 186 people who involuntarily disappeared, 502 tortured, and others who were illegally arrested. Yniguez similarly criticized the government's alleged insistence on implementing its Oplan Bantay Laya I and II (the military's counter-insurgency operation plans which militants have said consider legal people's organizations as targets).

Meanwhile, Bayan urged the Supreme Court to "check serious threats to civil liberties and basic freedoms" including the anti-terror law or the Human Security Act of 2007, which took effect on July 15 despite protests from leftist groups.

Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr. will join Bayan and other leftist groups as petitioners in their formal pleading before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the law. Human rights lawyer Atty. Edre Olalia of the International Association of People’s Lawyers (IAPL) will serve as lead counsel. Bayan chair Carol Araullo said the respondents will include members of the Anti-Terrorism Council headed by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Raul Gonzalez. Earlier, [CBCP president Angel Lagdameo] pointed out at least 5 provisions of the law that may threaten civil liberties: Sec. 19 allows detentions of mere suspects for more than three days in the event of an actual or terrorist attack, while Section 26 allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, and prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others; Sec. 39 allows seizure of assets while Sec. 7 allows surveillance and wiretapping of suspects; Sec. 26 allows the investigation of bank deposits and other assets.[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs Flora Fiona Kriesha Mckay (talkcontribs) 11:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Well?--Peiet B.V. Janssen (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

EDSA III uprising[edit]

I will again delete the- propably – wrong info with the policemen. No quote says something like this:

NYT: "...resulting in three deaths and more than a hundred injuries.” Published: May 2, 2001 "...Four people died and more than 100 were wounded in the clashes between security forces and rioters.” Published: May 7, 2001 CNN: "...Four people died and more than 100 people were wounded" May 7, 2001 Web posted at: 12:55 AM EDT (0455 GMT) The question must be: Why did neither the military nor the police shoot during EDSA II?

1. Estrada gave no order to shoot, or an order not to shoot. (Compare the statements of his lawyers 2. As user Edward Sandstig assumes, the police and the army would not obey the elected president during EDSA II. Then it would be a mutiny or even a putch with the support of the army.

"A statement from Estrada claiming that was the reason isn't really enough especially when you consider that he had already lost support of the AFP and the PNP. It would be like a boxer who lost a match saying that he lost because he let the other guy win. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)"

The NYT article specifically states that "Two police officers and one protester were killed during the clashes". It's on page 2, and here's a direct link. It's in the second paragraph if you're still having trouble finding it. As to whether or not Estrada gave the order to shoot, that isn't what was being debated. You had originally claimed that "Estrada wanted to avoid victims and left office", which is something which can't be proven and smacks of POV. Whether you could consider EDSA II a putsch (or coup d'etat) really depends on the level of participation by the military. If their principal contribution was not acting, then I don't think it qualifies. If evidence does come out however, such as the video you were previously talking about, then perhaps it would qualify. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Obama statement[edit]

Why this link has to be in the external link section? --Efe (talk) 06:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
And why post this even be here in the talk page? TheCoffee already told you to stop doing this. And oh, I'd expect a really loooong reply... --Howard the Duck 06:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


Alright, today, I posted a query on the[9] and pending resolution or reply to my query, from TODAY, I will not longer copy paste my edits in the articles'talk page. Instead, I will bear the burden of putting in my yahoo email back up all my daily edits, so that later on, I will be able to have them ready if needed against vandalism and wrong edits/ reverts. This for sure, answers why I copy pasted the Obama statement link which is so Notable, in the article. If you think it is a wrong edit, then amend or revert it.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mindanao conflict[edit]

Why is there nothing mentioned in this article about the Memorandum of Agreement the government has agreed upon with MILF and the violence that erupted after the Surpreme Court ruled it to be unconstitutional? Magalhães (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it is bothering me as well. However, due to the fact that nobody has yet to come up with a sound writing of it (as far as I know), it might be due to the complexity of the issue. --Animeronin (talk) 06:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Php bill 200 back.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Php bill 200 back.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


I added this sub-section[10], after a careful study of the Impeachment and trial in the Senate of Bill Clinton[11] Please do not delete this, for this is heavily supported by Wikipedia reliable sources foreign and local.--Florentino floro (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


"But if you consider the opinion of the opposition it seems to be quite different: - - - According to Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics the comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown above is wrong. "The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs." (Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics, Parish Pastoral Council for Responsible Voting (PPCRV), Manila Times, Monday, December 11, 2006 ("Hunger records reach new high").

A new report of the United Nations shows that "poverty reduction in the country has lagged far behind that of Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam and China—countries that started with higher levels of poverty incidence than the Philippines but have successfully managed to lessen, if not virtually eliminate, extreme poverty.

According to the country team report, there were 27.6 million poor Filipinos in 2006, a 3.8-million increase from the 2003 data. (Manila Times, April 03, 2008, "Philippines Trails In Poverty Reduction, Says Un Report" Dear admin: I still believe its important to share the view of the opposition. Wikipedia should not be a board of a government.Truth222 (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reverting your changes to the article because the quotations and data about the economy are outdated, the apology of Cory was retracted as a joke, and overall makes the article imbalanced. We can't just fill the article with individual points of view. TheCoffee (talk) 02:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Im shure its possible to find a better form, better expressions. But I think its essential that both main opinions are represented. UN studies and similar US studies should not be ignored.Truth222 (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To TheCoffe: You always undo my edits. But you should read whats now in the article: "This is higher than previous recent presidents when compared to the 3.8% average of Aquino, the 3.7% average of Ramos, and the 2.8% average of Joseph Estrada." If there is a - probably biased - comparison with other presidents like Estrada, its necessary that this gets a balanced view by adding the view of the opposition.

Similar "Succesion": Quote: "[G.R. No. 146738. March 2, 2001] ... PUNO, J.: ... On October 11, Archbishop Jaime Cardinal Sin issued a pastoral statement in behalf of the Presbyteral Council of the Archdiocese of Manila, asking petitioner to step down from the presidency ..."

Its obvious that the church played a vital role. Why a change in the considering should be omitted? pls accept that there a different views.Truth222 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Pulse Asia survey on "Most Corrupt President in Philippine History"[edit]

I restored the deleted part because it is not true/accurate to say that the survey is opposition sponsored. According to Pulse Asia:

The survey’s sampling design and questionnaire are the full responsibility of Pulse Asia’s pool of academic experts and no religious, political, economic or any other form of partisanship has been allowed to influence the survey design, the findings generated by the actual surveys or the subsequent analyses of survey findings.

Pulse Asia undertakes Ulat ng Bayan surveys on its own without any party singularly commissioning the research effort. (See Table 1) (See Table 2) (See Table 3)[1]


Loloige (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Name Abbreviation?[edit]

Just a curious anon passing by...isn't Arroyo more likely identified as GMA? Since that's the case, shouldn't that be put in the article as well? (talk) 01:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No. GMA was the TV Station as GMA-7. The correct abbreviation would be PGMA (President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo). So that there would be no confusions about the TV station and the Philippine President abbreviations.

happygoth09 (Talk)14:21, 17 Sept 2009 (UTC)

Physical height[edit]

I have read she is only 5 foot 2 inches tall, and thus the shortest filipino president ever!-- (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Improve the article about her.[edit]

She will rule like Stalina Demonyita forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Therequiembellishere's Reverts[edit]

Therequiembellishere, I'd like to inquire: Why you are removing the list of Philippine presidents link denoting Macapagal-Arroyo as the 14th president? Lambanog (talk) 19:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


There is lack in her biography, she is a member of "Academia Filipina", this institution, based in Manila, is the co-regulator of the spanish language in brothership with some others in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Term ends in?[edit]

When will her term ends? After she has voted? After election day? or what? Harel (Not what you think?) 03:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Royal Blood"[edit]

The term "Royal Blood" is archaic, and should be avoided for clarity. It also potentially violates WP:NPOV because it infers that the monarch/royal house lives on (though it's been powerless for centuries)... and gives such an individual's political ambitions more "legitimacy". But the Philippines is a democracy, and such claims are irrelevant as to technical eligibility, so it only serves as promotion. Why not use a more contemporary and descriptive term like "a direct descendant of [such and such] monarch"? And... because this individual (Gloria) would not be notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry on being a descendant of a powerless monarchical line, there is probably no merit to including a reference to it in the introductory paragraph of the article. If I see no reasoning put forward to the contrary I will probably end up changing it. Let me know if/why I am wrong here. Thanks!Retran (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since my proposal was not contested here on discussion I changed it. I changed it a week ago on the Diosdado Macapagal article (which has less attention) to test if it would be disputed on a live, but less-important article. Since this change had to do with neutrality I would appreciate a note here on talk as to the argument why a reference to "royal blood" is appropriate, neutral, and most importantly, notable. I feel it's important to also to question the notability of even including a mention of direct relation to a dead royal line in introduction, but I won't approach that issue now. Retran (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

template vice president[edit]

help 12th to vice president template.thx (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Flag of the President of the Philippines.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Government and Political Titles[edit]

I'm not sure on this, but department heads and below are addressed as "Honorable"? –HTD 10:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


Have any of her male relatives tested the Y-DNA haplogroup? СЛУЖБА (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 September 2012[edit]

At External links, kindly change the url of the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo Official website to Mla2pque (talk) 03:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Question: Why? What's the problem with Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.
Based on this, it is more likely the current one is the active "Official" website. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 22:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015[edit]

Pls change the Presidential Spokesperson Elena Bautista-Horn to Rigoberto Tiglao, Silvestre Afable, Ignacio Bunye, Cerge Remonde because Elena Bautista-Horn became spokesperson only when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became congresswoman. Mla2pque (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Amortias (T)(C) 21:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015[edit]

Please remove that section "possible release". This is just a mere speculation of a certain senator that is not based on fact. No reference was even included. Please create this section only when there are already talk among the proper authorities such as the Court and Sandigangbayan about the possible release of PGMA either through bail or acquittal.

Possible release from detention

Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV believes that Vice-President Jejomar Binay will become president in 2016, and that Arroyo along with 3 senators allegedly involved in the Pork barrel scam, Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada and Juan Ponce Enrile will be immediately release from prison.

gretenov 18 August 2015

Agreed, without proper sources this does not belong in the article. I've removed it. Thanks! ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)