![]() | Philippine nationality law has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 6, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Philippine nationality law appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 March 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
May I remove the section Treaty of Paris? That section has this quotation:"The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be subject in matters civil as well as criminal to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country wherein they reside, pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same; and they shall have the right to appear before such courts, and to pursue the same course as citizens of the country to which the courts belong." I think it only says that Spaniards who reside in the territories reliquished by Spain (that includes the Philippine Islands) will only be covered by any of all the courts in their residence, not necessarily that those Spaniards will be Filipino citizens. - Pika ten10 ( talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the 2003 law allowed any child of even only one Filipino parent, no matter when born, to be considered a "natural born Filipino" as per http://www.gov.ph/faqs/dualcitizenship.asp item 2 and 3(4)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines. (3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five. (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Sorry if this was not the proper forum, I thought it was important as the article in its present form doesn't seem to allow that a person born to only one Filipino parent in the 1990s or 2000 would be a natural born Filipino and therefore a citizen. (Please see the second bullet after the heading that discusses citizenship by birth). Thanks RWIR ( talk) 06:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, I just reverted the insertion of a large block of text in the Citizenship by naturalization section. I had already reverted the addition of this text once today as it is unsupported and seems to be original research. I'm deleting it a second time today because I've masked the reinsertion with a later edit to another section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just reverted this edit. The problem with the insertion is that it is being done in the Loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship section, and the material discusses neither loss of nor reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The info in the material is already covered in the Citizenship by naturalization section of the article. This is the latest of several reversion of edits by the reverted anon to insert this material. I have placed several warnings on his talk page, and the latest warning is level-4. In that latest warning, I asked the anon to discuss the insertion of this material here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"Visa requirements for Filipino citizens"
Should be "Philippine". 23.81.209.173 ( talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The fifth required qualification in CA 473 says, "He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and". I had previously taken this to require English or (alternatively) Spanish and (in addition to one or both of those) any one of the principal Philippine languages. However, a friend has suggested that this ought to be read as requiring English (alone) or Spanish and (additionally) any one of the principal Philippine languages. My friend says that a he got this understanding from a Philippine lawyer. Contrary to my initial understanding, I see a point here about and binding more tightly than or, but I'm no grammarian and am certainly not qualified to re interpret dodgy-looking grammatical constructions in legislation. Does anyone have a source with further info on this? Perhaps a scholarly article or a Supreme Court decision? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This gets a bit messy here. Sorry.
Having not looked at this article in some time, I just noticed that the language in the article did not mirror the language in CA 473. CA 473 reads "English or Spanish and ...", the article read, "English or Spanish or ..." (emphasis mine). This was explained in a footnote which read, "the language used here is based on a Philippine Bureau of Immigration web page on Philippine citizenship. This language differs from the language in CA473, which reads, 'He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages'." That footnote was supported by a cite of this link-rotted BOI URL. I have WP:BOLDly revised the language in the article which discusses CA 473 to agree with the language in CA 473, and have removed that footnote and its link-rotted supporting cite. This also involved a less substantive change relating to outdated naming offices.
Actually, on second thought, I've replaced most of the tweaked language in the article paraphrasing CA 473 with snippets quoted directly from CA 473. See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately the main entry does not refer to the important impact that case law, especially the Villahermosa case of 1948, have had on the law. In that case the Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed from jus soli (presumably inherited from America) to jus sanguinis (the then-civil-law-country predominant system). There may have been a racial component to that decision. See http://www.uniset.ca/phil/ (last updated 2005). Maybe that's too much to expect from an editor who is a non-lawyer? Andygx ( talk) 11:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 ( talk · contribs) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Excellent article. Can see no reason not to promote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk)
18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Horserice ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philippine nationality law; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |
![]() | Philippine nationality law has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: March 6, 2023. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Philippine nationality law appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 March 2023 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
May I remove the section Treaty of Paris? That section has this quotation:"The Spaniards residing in the territories over which Spain by this treaty cedes or relinquishes her sovereignty shall be subject in matters civil as well as criminal to the jurisdiction of the courts of the country wherein they reside, pursuant to the ordinary laws governing the same; and they shall have the right to appear before such courts, and to pursue the same course as citizens of the country to which the courts belong." I think it only says that Spaniards who reside in the territories reliquished by Spain (that includes the Philippine Islands) will only be covered by any of all the courts in their residence, not necessarily that those Spaniards will be Filipino citizens. - Pika ten10 ( talk) 04:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the 2003 law allowed any child of even only one Filipino parent, no matter when born, to be considered a "natural born Filipino" as per http://www.gov.ph/faqs/dualcitizenship.asp item 2 and 3(4)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RWIR ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines. (3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five. (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of this Constitution. (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands. (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Sorry if this was not the proper forum, I thought it was important as the article in its present form doesn't seem to allow that a person born to only one Filipino parent in the 1990s or 2000 would be a natural born Filipino and therefore a citizen. (Please see the second bullet after the heading that discusses citizenship by birth). Thanks RWIR ( talk) 06:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
In this edit, I just reverted the insertion of a large block of text in the Citizenship by naturalization section. I had already reverted the addition of this text once today as it is unsupported and seems to be original research. I'm deleting it a second time today because I've masked the reinsertion with a later edit to another section of the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I've just reverted this edit. The problem with the insertion is that it is being done in the Loss and reacquisition of Philippine citizenship section, and the material discusses neither loss of nor reacquisition of Philippine citizenship. The info in the material is already covered in the Citizenship by naturalization section of the article. This is the latest of several reversion of edits by the reverted anon to insert this material. I have placed several warnings on his talk page, and the latest warning is level-4. In that latest warning, I asked the anon to discuss the insertion of this material here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
"Visa requirements for Filipino citizens"
Should be "Philippine". 23.81.209.173 ( talk) 16:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The fifth required qualification in CA 473 says, "He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages; and". I had previously taken this to require English or (alternatively) Spanish and (in addition to one or both of those) any one of the principal Philippine languages. However, a friend has suggested that this ought to be read as requiring English (alone) or Spanish and (additionally) any one of the principal Philippine languages. My friend says that a he got this understanding from a Philippine lawyer. Contrary to my initial understanding, I see a point here about and binding more tightly than or, but I'm no grammarian and am certainly not qualified to re interpret dodgy-looking grammatical constructions in legislation. Does anyone have a source with further info on this? Perhaps a scholarly article or a Supreme Court decision? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
This gets a bit messy here. Sorry.
Having not looked at this article in some time, I just noticed that the language in the article did not mirror the language in CA 473. CA 473 reads "English or Spanish and ...", the article read, "English or Spanish or ..." (emphasis mine). This was explained in a footnote which read, "the language used here is based on a Philippine Bureau of Immigration web page on Philippine citizenship. This language differs from the language in CA473, which reads, 'He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any one of the principal Philippine languages'." That footnote was supported by a cite of this link-rotted BOI URL. I have WP:BOLDly revised the language in the article which discusses CA 473 to agree with the language in CA 473, and have removed that footnote and its link-rotted supporting cite. This also involved a less substantive change relating to outdated naming offices.
Actually, on second thought, I've replaced most of the tweaked language in the article paraphrasing CA 473 with snippets quoted directly from CA 473. See this edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately the main entry does not refer to the important impact that case law, especially the Villahermosa case of 1948, have had on the law. In that case the Supreme Court legislated from the bench and changed from jus soli (presumably inherited from America) to jus sanguinis (the then-civil-law-country predominant system). There may have been a racial component to that decision. See http://www.uniset.ca/phil/ (last updated 2005). Maybe that's too much to expect from an editor who is a non-lawyer? Andygx ( talk) 11:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 ( talk · contribs) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll take this review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
I will get to this review in the next week. If you have time, please consider reviewing an article at WP:GAN. I will be using this review in the WikiCup. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Excellent article. Can see no reason not to promote. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by
Cielquiparle (
talk)
18:30, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Improved to Good Article status by Horserice ( talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke ( talk) at 21:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Philippine nationality law; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
Policy compliance:
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: Done. |