Talk:Hello Garci scandal

Prayer joke

What is a "prayer joke"? Ejrrjs | What? 00:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A "prayer joke" is a joke that involves prayers gone awry or misguided prayers (usually parodying a well-known prayer) to God.RashBold 12:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

People Power phenomenon

I hope that eventually the GMA administration will succeed in eliminating the "People Power" phenomenon that, whilst still considered "good" a few years ago, is now a dirty tactic of those who want to usurp power from a duly elected government.

Assuming of course if she really won, fair and square, without committing fraud. A trial was intentionally prevented, so one must be open to questions of illegitimacy. :) Let's have NPOV. --Noypi380 23:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

3rd revolution

This is a copy of a post in the Tambayan

Hey people. I have a feeling that something big is going to happen politically in the country today, Sept 7, or tommorrow, Sept 8. Perhaps a new president? New government? Lots of people are mobilizing and I mean mobilizing and that reminds me of you know what during 1986 and 2001. That is why I am asking if anyone would object, or possibly vote for, starting an article by the temporary name of 2005 Philippine revolution? My connections also are using a color or a flower for the name of the event eh. --Noypi380 07:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever happens, GMA is damaged goods. No matter how adept she is in political maneuvering, the fact remains that many people don't recognize her anymore as the leader of the country. Many of those who voted yes in the plenary session yesterday have their own political interests in mind. Once GMA failed to serve their interests, all bets are off.RashBold 12:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You're right, and I know that there are lots of people who agree with you. I might agree as well. The more I read and write about the cold hard facts, the more I realize that preventing electoral fraud is indeed a top priority, even over matters like the economy, social services, and constitutional/institutional reforms. What's the point in doing these things, if the ones in power robbed there way to power in the first place? No matter what the outcome will be, I just hope this crisis ends soon, so that I can start focusing on contributing to other articles. :) But of course, everyone is against electoral fraud and those who are guilty if it. --Noypi380 07:28, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment failure

This article explains why the impeachment proceedings failed - [1]. A few main points:

• The Philippine constitution only allows for one impeachment attempt per year (leading to speculations of sabotage by Loranzo).
• The House is much more amenable to GMA than the Senate (the case stalled in the House).

Not sure how this should be integrated into the article, but I think it clarifies the legal background a bit--Confuzion 07:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll see what I can do to add it in, but feel free to add it yourself, if you wish. --Noypi380 07:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Finally, I was able to find out how to put in the article. thanks for the link!. --Noypi380 16:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Impeachment proceedings

From the new article mentioned earlier, some lawyers were saying that "Impeachment proceedings" did not actually commence, since there was no successful complaint that made it to the senate, because none of the complaints had 79 signatures. Hence, a brand spanking new complaint can be made again, even right now? Apparently, the one year ban only applies when a complaint has already made it to the senate, since "proceedings" applies to the trial and not any discussions earlier. A complaint can only be complaint if it is transmitted, just like a bill can only be a law after it is signed. If it was not signed by 79, there is no complaint, and someone can propose a complaint all over again. This cycle can only stop if one proposed complaint is transmitted or if the congressman get tired of it. Any law experts out there who can correct that? Just wanted to check. --Noypi380 07:52, 9, September 2005 (UTC)

• The Philippine constitution says "No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year."

  This Washington Post article (through AP) says "Only one impeachment charge can be filed against an official in a year."; similiar content is mirrored by many papers that use AP/AFP/Reuters.

  This editorial says "The main argument of the majority was based on the House rules which implements Sec. 3, No. 5 of the Constitution regarding only one complaint per year. The minority argued – and their position is supported by some legal authorities, including ex Con Com delegate Fr. Bernas – that the Constitution speaks of proceedings and not complaints."; this editorial says that the interpretation may be debatable.

  [2] similar as above.

  Although AP/AFP/Reuters sources contain similiar statements that mirror the majority interpretation, the constitution appears vague enough to allow for various interpretations --Confuzion 03:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks alot. --Noypi380 05:30, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Crisis over?

Can someone help out in updating this article? The crisis has certainly abated, which is not reflected in the current state of the article. Now the chief issues of the day are the ongoing economic + political reforms, which is not part of the electoral crisis anyhow. Mostly the new issues today are about the new taxes that will chop down the gov's deficit and the preparations for the budgets for 2006 and 2007. With that in mind, perhaps its time to finalize the article. Comments anyone? I would like to trim certain sections (evidence and trials sections) since the crisis has winded dowm. But I am not sure where to start. Suggestions anyone? --Noypi380 10:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In the meantime, I fixed it already, pending any complaints. --Noypi380 11:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the "people's court" proceedings of the Citizens' Congress for Truth and Accountability would actually count as a part of the crisis. --Akira123323 10:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I wondered also at first. Then I found out that this Congress won't tackle the electoral fraud issues alone but others as well, like the jueteng, and the fertilizer funds. So, technically, the congress is bigger in scope regarding allegations. It is just that the article is limited to an "electoral crisis", ending with the failure of both trial and people power means to resolve a major legitimacy issue. I also think that CCTA will probably live longer, being probably a yearly forum where ordinary citizens can present evidence. Well, that is what I think so far. :) --Noypi380 12:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Citizen's Congress for Truth and Accountability already made a report of their findings (sent a copy to the UN). Should the findings be placed in this article? --Noypi380 11:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Finalized

The article, I believe, is almost finalized. If you are an expert on English, pls feel free to fix grammer, spelling, etc. Any comments, problems, etc are welcome now too. Thanks. --Noypi380 15:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

The article is now placed under peer review. Constructive criticism would be much appreciated. :) --Noypi380 11:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Commentary

To all editors/commentators/etc.: if you plan to leave commentary on the issue, please do on the talk page and not on the main article. Thanks! --Akira123323 12:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Back to current event status?

Judging that while the impeachment case has been quashed but of course the crisis seems to have been revived in my opinion (especially the return of Virgilio Garcillano to Manila), can it be said that this issue is once again a current event? I really don't know. --Akira123323 15:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure myself, for the future outcome of the house/senate proceedings is vague, unless a people power movement arises from it again, which is a longshot (at the moment). I better consult some people about it. But if you do put the label, I doubt anyone will stop you. --Noypi380 03:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It may be better to view this as a political crisis, and not an electoral crisis per se, as so many controversies are ongoing at the same time: the question of the 2004 elections; the alleged wiretapping; the question of the alleged cover-up with regards to the wiretapping; Garcillano's flight and reappearance; Congressional investigations because of the wiretapping and Garci; resignations; charter change as the solution to the crisis, etc. The crisis is ongoing and has never really stopped -and now there is the question of fears of military intervention. Gareon 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, although I doubt the military intervention, which some believe is blown over proportion. I am hesitant to make this article a "political crisis" because of the so many "facts", and sideline events that are being spread and spun by people, in order to deviate from the core problem. At least for this article, limited to the "electoral crisis", focuses only on the chief crime, the crime against the electorate, which some sectors believe is a crime against democracy. All other issues, (Garci, wiretapping, etc) are secondary to this. Once this electoral issue is solved, definitely all those who are proven to be electoral criminals can rot in jail, and all pending minor issues will be solved. Hmmm, but i am still open to a article rename. :)--Noypi380 08:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Rekindling this old discussion, is it possible now that this is a current event since Oliver Lozano refiled the amended impeachment complaint, which has just been reflected on the article page? --Akira123323 14:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Definitely it is current event, all over again. I'm getting tired of this. --Noypi380 12:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Move or keep?

It is proposed that 2005 Philippine electoral crisis be moved to Hello Garci scandal, since most of the media uses "Hello Garci", and not the current title. Pls. vote. :)--Noypi380 04:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Move, "Hello Garci" is the name used more often. --Noypi380 04:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move it already. :0 --Noypi380 06:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Caption of the leading picture

Whoever uploaded/placed this picture, please revise the caption. The grammar is a bit cumbersome and I'm not quite sure what the caption is trying to say, or who the pictured person is or what he is saying. --AladdinSE 22:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I did some rewording myself. Please review. --AladdinSE 22:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much, :) --Noypi380 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Randy Davis, Crispin Beltran, et all, arrested...

I don't think it's fair for this article to cite references that formed articles of Randy David. Just this week, David was arrested, without a warrant of arrest, by the police authority acting on behalf of President Arroyo's directives of "suppressing" a "threat" to the government. This is in line with the Presidential Proclamation 1017 placing the entire country to a "state of national emergency" due to the perceived "clear and present danger" of rebellion rumors. It may be noticed that Randy David, a UP professor and a columnist in the progressive Philippine Daily Inquirer, is an open critic of the administration. If WIKI cite sources coming from his materials, wouldn't it be bias, and an obvious anti-GMA article? ( Condorhero )

No. Pls read the entire article again, and our NPOV rules. :) --Noypi380 12:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Garci controversy

IMHO "scandal" is better. --Howard the Duck | talk, 13:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely it is a political scandal. Why was this moved? It wrecks peer review archived discussion too. --Noypi380 10:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. :) --Noypi380 13:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the current event tag (again). Though the scandal is not dead, tagging "information may change rapidly as the event progresses" did not seem appropriate today since the event did not change rapidly recently (watching events closely). So the tag was removed. :) --Noypi380 14:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I also removed certain sections that are no longer applicable today. :) --Noypi380 15:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a new article for GMA's 2006 impeachment try a la Movement to impeach George W. Bush? --Howard the Duck | talk, 01:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, what is certain is the "oust" movement. Whatever the article name, whether impeach or oust movement, it should also include the details on last year's impeach movement. That was a very important moment for the current regime, when the true battle lines of the congressmen were drawn. Is there another impeach movement? :) --Noypi380 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

We can removed the aftermath and impeachment sections here and paste them there. So hwat would be a nice and NPOV title name? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Response transferred to Howard the Duck's talk page, :) --Noypi380 08:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Lets start a new article

Now that the impeachment has been filed, we cano create 2006 impeachment case of Gloria Arroyo, or the Impeachment case of Gloria Arroyo if we would merge the 2005 and 2006 cases. --Howard the Duck 02:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I doubt if Hello Garci article could grow any further in terms of content for now (the impeachment complaints do not dwell on this scandal alone). New events should be placed in another article, so started Impeachment in the Philippines. All impeach info (especially the recent events) in the history of the Philippines can be placed there. :) --Noypi380 11:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I'll also start an article about the Estrada impeachment trial, and the ongoing impeachment attempts against Arroyo. --Howard the Duck 13:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of statements in the article that need citation.--Pinay06 22:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

This article was nominated for good article reassessment to determine whether or not it met the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted. Please see the archived discussion for further information. Majoreditor (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Garci01.jpg

The image File:Garci01.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. --18:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 17:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Hello Garci scandal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060723204929/http://www.manilastandardonline.com:8080/mnlastd/iserver?page=news03_june25_2005 to http://www.manilastandardonline.com:8080/mnlastd/iserver?page=news03_june25_2005
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130524083704/http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=30933 to http://opinion.inq7.net/inquireropinion/columns/view_article.php?article_id=30933

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)