Talk:Commission on Human Rights (Philippines)

Human rights Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines Mid‑importance

	Philippines portal 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.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

New Chair

I added this: Chairperson Dr. Purificacion Valera Quisumbing finished her 7-year term on May 5, and was replaced by election lawyer Leila de Lima on May 15, 2008. De Lima stated that her mandate is to monitor the compliance by the Philippine government of its entire obligation under international treaties and instruments on human rights, and specifically, to solve cases of Philippine Extrajudicial Killings and Desaparecidos.manilastandardtoday.com, De Lima assumes post as chief of human rights panel --Florentino floro (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Questions

There are assertions under this section that does not seem to pass muster. Only the first sentence seems to be a fact (That Yen Makabenta wrote something...) but the rest which are presented as facts parrot the op-ed cited. There also seem to be statements here that are intended to sway public opinion regarding current events. I'm calling these out in the talk section because I'm new here and I don't yet know much about the etiquette of editing Wikipedia articles. --Augur13 (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Augur13: I agree that the section is poorly worded and that perhaps the long direct quote of the 1987 Constitution is inappropriate, but are Mr. Makabenta's claims actually incorrect? If Executive Order 163 really is the only enabling law behind the CHR, then it logically follows that President Duterte really could nullify this EO -- such action happens all the time in other countries, where one president nullifies the EO's of his predecessor. If Mr. Makabenta is correct and the CHR has no enabling law and only an Executive Order behind it legally, then I think that the "Legal questions" section should remain in some form. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that EOs may be reverted, an extraordinary circumstance here is that the 1987 Constitution itself created the CHR, so reverting the EO might not necessarily have the effect of abolishing the CHR (I'm not sure).Augur13 (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I question the intention of fellow editor named "Sixfourone" for removing the whole section and replacing it with "Controversies" without even joining in the discussion here or explaining the reason for removing the entire section. Saying that there is an issue on neutrality without any explanation is not enough. I am keen in keeping the "Legal questions" section for now until such time that we resolve the issue questioning its neutrality. --Vladskivel (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to replace the contents with a more neutral content but I still insist on using "Controversies" instead of "Legal Questions" as the latter limits the discussion compared to the former. Contents of the "Legal Questions" can go under the "Controversies" tab after resolving the issues of neutrality. --sixfourone (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, here are some issues with the contents of "Legal Questions". First, it should be written in a neutral manner. The way it was written is like it's leading people to believe on a specific stance instead of raising "legal questions". Titles such as "CHR engaged in self-deception" are certainly not neutral if you take a look at it. Overall, I suggest constructing the contents of the the said topic in a more neutral manner if you wish to include it. --sixfourone (talk) 19:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it seems like the contents of "Legal Questions" mainly relies on the perspective of Yen Makabenta; referencing his article on The Manila Times a number of times. This fact alone is already sufficient to question its neutrality; mainly relying on a single article that is classified as 'Opinion' by The Manila Times. --sixfourone (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Legal questions" is a specific topic that deserves a section by itself and not be mistaken as mere "controversies". Not all "controversies" has legal implications and not all "Legal questions" falls under controversy. So, if you feel the need to include controversies involving CHR among the sub-topic under CHR, you can do so by creating a separate section that discusses "controversies" alone. Legal questions section needs to be separated from 'controversies' discussion for reasons I already mentioned. --Vladskivel (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WHY I UNDO YOUR EDIT ON "LEGAL QUESTIONS" TWICE? Your entries in the section "Controversies", falls under legal questions that was already addressed by the Supreme Court in the past and does not fall under "Controversies". You could have added it in original "Legal questions" section instead of removing the entire entries. Example of controversies >> Chito Gascon was a Liberal Party member in the past as Director General of the Liberal Party from 2008-2011 and became Undersecretary of Pnoy from 2011-2014 before assuming the Chairmanship of the CHR. Because of this, many believed including Rep. Harry Roque of Kabayan questioned Gascon during the budget hearing for making CHR political. This is an example of controversy that has no legal implications. --Vladskivel (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vladskivel, if we're looking at the lexical definition of controversy, we can easily argue that the contents of your section can easily fall under the controversies section. But moving that aside, I'll be reverting your edit on grounds that it still mainly relies on an opinion article posted on The Manila Times. Even the "What the Constitution says" subsection of your edit was directly taken from the said article. Please, make it more neutral and diversify your references. Feel free to edit it with a more neutral stance. --sixfourone (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, feel free to add a new section if you strongly feel that "legal questions" should have its own section. --sixfourone (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vladskivel, I added a few information on the article based on the content of your proposed section. I made it simple as possible for other people to digest it easier. Please see "CHR as a Constitutional Commission" under the Controversies section. --sixfourone (talk) 23:14, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sixfourone, I really don't get it. You changed the title from "Legal questions" to "Controversy" yet all the entries are "legal questions". If the issue is Makabenta's article, then remove or amend it. But do not delete the entire section. As I said, legal questions will always have legal implications that might need court's intervention to resolve whereas controversies don't necessarily have to have legal implications. --Vladskivel (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep your entries, revert the title to "Legal questions" and create another section for "controversies" if you want to keep that title. This should be the right thing to do. And please do discuss here first before you remove again the entire entries. You don't come to a page and just remove the entire section if the concern is neutrality only. You can question the neutrality just like what Psiĥedelisto did and mark the entries. But don't hijack it and do whatever pleases you. Thanks. --Vladskivel (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I support User:Sixfourone's version. Once again, you are failing to WP:AGF, claiming that User:Sixfourone is 'hijacking' the article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a blog, nor is it, and this is especially important here, an indiscriminate collection of information. I believe that User:Sixfourone's version stated the legal questions in a neutral way. Dedicating a large portion of this article to an opinion piece is improper. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladskivel: Let me add something to my reply to try to reach WP:CONSENSUS here. I would support an addition to the "Controversies" section stating, in a neutral manner, Mr. Makabenta's claims and citing him as the source. This section would be much briefer than the section User:Vladskivel keeps adding back to the page, and it would not contain the long direct quotes which grant WP:UNDUE attention to the section. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Psiĥedelisto, I would have cared less if you've removed Makabenta's sotry if in your judgment his opinion amounts to being biased. But the intention of the "Legal questions' section is to devout its entirety to legal matters relating to CHR. There are tons of hundreds of controversies involving CHR in the past and present and we would not want that to muddle the "legal questions" entries. In my version, I have presented both sides of the legal perspectives and I don't think, Sixfourone has shown that in his entry. Which brings me to my second point, Why remove/delete the entire entries if the issue is Makabenta's opinion only? You can remove/delete the "makabenta" part and keep the rest of the entries. Did you ever read the latest entries before reverting it to Sixfourone's version? You and Sixfourone, were pointing to Makabenta's opinion as biased, if that's what you think, you could have deleted or amend that entry but why chose to delete the entire section and replaced it with a one sided story of CHR? I am trying to be neutral by presenting both sides of the legal perspectives not one side of the story. --Vladskivel (talk) 12:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vladskivel, you seem to be ignoring the points that I have raised previously and end up pasting your edit without any significant revision. In regards to your concern on why we keep reverting your edits, your version has a lot of issues. Aside from the issue of neutrality and format, there is also an issue of credibility. Your points mainly relies on the contents of an opinion article. In my version, I've already summarized most of your points there that CHR is not a Constitutional Commission. If you wish to add these Supreme Court rulings, feel free to add it but make it concise. This is a live article. I'll be reverting your edit until you address the said problems in your content. --sixfourone (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brgy 183 Villamor Pasay

Nagpatupad ng ordinansa ng Pres na "no vaccine, no entry sa Brgy" at utos daw po ng Presidente. Please help us in this situation. We were born in that brgy & residing for 53 yrs already. Now we cannot go out & even back home because of said illegal implementation. We choose not to be vaccinated at this moment and just waiting for the right time if clinical testing is already completed & approved and not as EUA. 112.209.5.162 (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]