document_title: Upper Canada Rebellion

question_text: where did the most serious canadian revolt against british rule take place

text: Upper Canada Rebellion

text: Reform movement and rebellion organization[edit]

text:
Part of a series on the

History of Ontario

Timeline

First Nations

Pays d'en Haut
1500s–1763

Province of Quebec
1763–1791

Upper Canada
1791–1841

Canada West
1841–1867

Ontario
1867–present

Upper Canada Topics

Legislative Assembly
The Family Compact
The Reform Movement
Upper Canada Rebellion
Agriculture
Work and labour organization
Corporations
Imprisonment for debt
Book & newspaper publishers
Orange Order

Province of Canada Topics

Legislative Assembly
Responsible Government
Underground Railroad
Burning of the Parliament Buildings
Confederation

Province of Ontario topics

 Ontario portal

v
t
e

text: The Upper Canada Rebellion is sometimes dismissed as a "farmers' revolt," an opportunistic action by misled backwoodsmen.[by whom?] The rebellion was, rather, the unintended consequence of a sophisticated political movement that copied the organizational forms of the British reform movement. The British Reform movement, organized as "Political Unions," had achieved the Great Reform Bill of 1832 which broadened the electoral franchise and helped eliminate political corruption.[4]

text: Political unions[edit]

text: The Upper Canada Central Political Union was organized in 1832-3 by Dr Thomas David Morrison (mayor of Toronto in 1836) while William Lyon Mackenzie was in England. This union collected 19,930 signatures on a petition protesting Mackenzie's unjust expulsion from the House of Assembly by the Family Compact.[5] The Reformers won a majority in the elections held in 1834 for the Legislative Assembly of the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada and Mackenzie was again elected as member for York, but the Family Compact held the majority in the Legislative Council, and the two Houses of government were at loggerheads.

text: This union was reorganized as the Canadian Alliance Society in 1835. It shared a large meeting space in the market buildings with the Mechanics Institute and the Children of Peace. The Canadian Alliance Society adopted much of the platform (such as secret ballot & universal suffrage) of the Owenite National Union of the Working Classes in London, England, that were to be integrated into the Chartist movement in England. In pursuit of this democratic goal, the Chartists eventually staged a similar armed rebellion, the Newport Rising, in Wales in 1839.[6]

text: The Canadian Alliance Society was reborn as the Constitutional Reform Society in 1836, when it was led by the more moderate reformer, Dr William W. Baldwin. The Reformers experienced a disaster at the 1836 elections for the 13th Parliament of Upper Canada, and the Society took its final form as the Toronto Political Union in 1837. It was this group of the disenfranchised that began organizing local "Vigilance Committees" to elect delegates to a so-called Constitutional Convention in July 1837. This became the organizational structure for the Rebellion; most of the rebel organizers were elected Constitutional Convention delegates.[7]

text: Convention delegates and committees of vigilance[edit]

text: The first of those meetings to select delegates to the constitutional convention were held at Doel's Brewery in Toronto on July 28 and 31. The second meeting was called to order by Samuel Hughes, a member of the Children of Peace, three days later, on August 3 in Newmarket. The meeting appointed Hughes, Samuel Lount, Nelson Gorham, Silas Fletcher, Jeremiah Graham and John McIntosh, M.P.P. as delegates to the convention (and all, with the exception of Hughes and MacIntosh, leaders in the Rebellion). A further eight public meetings across the Home District were scheduled over the next three weeks; each of these public meetings named a local committee of vigilance to organize reform support, prepare a registry of valid electors, and name their delegates to the proposed convention.

text: Immediately preceding the Mackenzie rebellion John Doel's house and brewery were prominent gathering places for the Reformers. The large meetings were usually held in the brewery while smaller meetings of the leaders were held in the home. Mackenzie planned to take foundry-men and axe-makers and seize arms, ammunition, and the artillery from the garrison. They would then arouse the citizens of the town and country to proclaim a provincial government. Mr. Doel objected to the plan and there was a fight between Mackenzie, Doel, and Morrison. The meeting was broken up and Mackenzie left the house forever. From this point forward John Doel, his brewery, and his home were not longer part of the rebellion.[8]

text: The meetings in the Home District met with an increasing amount of Orange Order violence, so that the reformers began to protect themselves and resort to arms to do so. Mackenzie was accompanied by 50 young farmers from the Lloydtown meeting, for example, after they heard that an Orange riot was planned for Albion. As the violence continued, peaceable reform meetings tapered off in October, to be replaced by instances of men drilling for battle.

text: Issues[edit]

text: There is no single cause for the Rebellion, only a context.[9] The issues, from the perspective of the reformers, were to an extent summarised in The seventh report from the Select Committee of the House of Assembly of Upper Canada on grievances...,[10] and can be related as follows:

text: Political issues[edit]

text: The alien question[edit]

text: Both before and after the War of 1812, the government of Upper Canada continued to fear what it suspected might be a growing interest in American-inspired republicanism in the province. Reasons for this can be found in the pattern of settlement across the province over the previous half-century. Although the British had originally hoped that an orderly settlement in Upper Canada would inspire the former American colonies to abandon their republican[11] form of government, demographic realities intervened. After an initial group of about 70,000 United Empire Loyalists were thinly settled across the province in the mid-1780s, a far larger number of American settlers came after Lieutenant-Governor John Graves Simcoe offered cheap land grants to promote settlement. Although these settlers, known as "late-Loyalists," were required to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown in order to obtain land, their fundamental political allegiances were always considered dubious. By 1812, this had become acutely problematic since the American settlers outnumbered the original Loyalists by more than ten to one. It was this reality that led American legislators to speculate that bringing Upper Canada into the American fold would be a "mere matter of marching." Following the war, the colonial government took active steps to prevent Americans from swearing allegiance, thereby making them ineligible to obtain land grants. Relations between the appointed Legislative Council and the elected Legislative Assembly became increasingly strained in the years after the war, over issues of immigration, taxation, banking and land speculation.[12]

text: Family Compact and political corruption[edit]

text: The Family Compact was a small, tightly knit group of men who dominated the government of Upper Canada and the financial and religious institutions associated with it. They were the leading members of the administration: executive councillors, legislative councillors, senior officials and some members of the judiciary.[13] Their administrative roles, however, were intimately tied to their business activities: "they were not a political elite taking political decisions in a vacuum, but an overlapping elite whose political and economic activities cannot be entirely separated from each other. They might even be called 'entrepreneurs', most of whose political views may have been highly conservative but whose economic outlook was clearly 'developmental'." For example, William Allan, one of the most powerful, "was an executive councillor, a legislative councilor, President of the Toronto and Lake Huron Railroad, Governor of the British American Fire and Life Assurance Company and President of the Board of Trade."[14]

text: Mackenzie frequently complained about the manner in which members of the Family Compact utilized their official positions for monetary gain, especially through corporations such as the Bank of Upper Canada, and the two land companies (the Clergy Corporation and the Canada Company) that between them controlled two sevenths of all the land in the province.[15] The Bank of Upper Canada, for example, had been founded by William Allan and the Rev. John Strachan, key members of the Family Compact, both of whom were Executive and Legislative Councillors. Although they lacked the minimum capital needed to found the bank, they persuaded the government to subscribe for a quarter of its shares. During the 1830s, a third of the bank's board were Legislative or Executive Councillors, and the remaining all magistrates.[16] Despite repeated attempts, the elected Legislature - which had chartered the bank - could obtain no details about the bank's workings. Mackenzie saw the bank as a prop of the Government and demanded farmers withdraw their support from it, by withdrawing their specie. The small confidence in the security which most banks gave for their redemption of their issues and the managers refusal to answer reasonable questions put forth by the House resulted in public confidence plummeting. Mackenzie was attempting to drain the banks of their money as a political weapon against the Government in hopes to avoid an armed revolution. However, the bank rebounded from this attack, making this attempt at peaceful revolution a failure.[17]

text: Sir Francis Bond Head and the elections of 1836[edit]

text: Sir Francis Bond Head, the newly appointed Lt. Governor, was initially warmly greeted by the Reform movement. His first move was to broaden the representation on the Executive Council by including the advocate of "responsible government", Robert Baldwin. Disappointment soon followed when Bond Head made it clear he had no intention of consulting the Executive Council in the daily operations of the administration. The whole Executive Council unanimously resigned, provoking widespread discontent and an election.[18]

text: Unlike previous Lt. Governors, Bond Head threw himself into the electoral fray in support of the Tory candidates, and utilized Orange Order violence in order to ensure their election.[19] In the face of what was believed to be widespread fraud, William Lyon Mackenzie and Samuel Lount lost their seats in the Legislature. The reformers prepared a petition to the Crown protesting the abuses, carried to London by Charles Duncombe, but the Colonial Office refused to hear him. These three men became core organizers of the Rebellion.

text: The now Tory dominated Legislature passed a series of laws that exacerbated tensions:

text:
They passed a law extending the session of the Legislature, even if the King died. William IV was ill, and traditionally, an election had to be called within six months of the death.
They passed a law promoting "irresponsible government", prohibiting members of the Legislature from serving as Executive Councillors (a cabinet minister). They argued the Executive Councillors needed to be accountable to the Lt. Governor, not the Legislature.
They passed a law making it easier to sue indebted farmers.
They passed laws protecting the Bank of Upper Canada from bankruptcy.
Legislative Councillors all attempted to get charters for their own banks.[20]

text: Republicanism[edit]

text:
“
The contest to be waged in this province is between Monarchy and a Republic. There are of course men professing all shades of opinion, but the time draws nearer every day, when they must either declare their attachment to the British Constitution, or venture on the bold and dangerous step of signing a Declaration of Independence. A party already exists, in a state of organization, ready to hazard this extreme length, at the first favourable opportunity; Toronto, their local habitation, and the Political Union their name. – At the head of this faction stands the name of Dr. Baldwin; and tho’ he, and a very few others of his associates, may possible deem that they are to Canada what the whigs are to England – the bulk of the members composing this Union are undisguised are ripe for rebellion. Proofs are superfluous, when facts are admitted.
”

— The Royal Standard 9 November 1836

text: After the 1836 elections, political rhetoric in the province was divisive, and did not allow for dissent. The Royal Standard, a short lived Tory daily, clearly called out for repressive measures.

text: William Lyon Mackenzie launched a new newspaper, the Constitution, on July 4, 1836. Lest the symbolism of the name and date be missed, he began serializing the American Revolutionary, Thomas Paine's tract, Common Sense. A year later, in July 1837, the newly formed Toronto Political Union called for a constitutional convention. The "Declaration of the Reformers of the City of Toronto" contained provocative references to the American Revolution and included a direct attack on the recently deceased monarch who they held personally responsible for the colony's unrepresentative government.

text: In November 1837, in the lead-up to the Political Union's Constitutional Convention, Mackenzie published a satire in the Constitution, a round table discussion by such luminaries as John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Oliver Goldsmith and William Pitt and others, said to be a "convention sitting in this township for the purpose of circulating political information, weighing opinions as to the best means of improving the civil institutions of the country, and endeavoring to determine whether the British Constitution, Sir F. Head's government or Independence would be the most likely to prove advantageous to the people." As part of this satire, he published a draft republican constitution for Upper Canada. This constitution closely resembled the objectives spelled out in the constitution of the Canadian Alliance Society in 1834; it called for an elected governor, legislative council (senate), House of Assembly and magistracy, all by secret ballot. It was egalitarian, prohibiting both slavery and the granting of "hereditary emoluments, privileges, or honors." It also called for a separation of church and state, and barred the clergy from seeking election, or serving in any civil or military office. It guaranteed the rights to personal property, to freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. But tied to these rights to personal property and egalitarian democracy were severe restrictions on chartering corporations; starting from the premise that "Labour is the only means of creating wealth" it placed a constitutional prohibition on chartering either banks or trading companies.[21]

text: Reform of the jury system[edit]

text: The reformer party in the Legislative Assembly desired that the Jury system be reformed, to the extent that they passed a Jury Law Amendment Bill no less than four times over eight years.[10] This was a contentious issue, and the Legislative Council replied again for the last time in favour of the status quo on February 25, 1836.[22] The defeat of the reformers in June 20, 1836 elections for the 13th Parliament of Upper Canada silenced this legislative outlet of steam, and thus was the stage set for rebellion.

text: Economic issues[edit]

text: Collapse of the international financial system[edit]

text: On July 10, 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed the bill for the refinancing of the Second Bank of the United States, arguing that it was utilized by a "moneyed aristocracy" to oppress the common man. The dismantling of the bank plunged the Anglo-American world into an enormous depression (1836–38) that was worsened by bad wheat harvests in Upper Canada in 1836. Farmers were unable to pay their debts. Most banks - including the Bank of Upper Canada - suspended payments (i.e. declared bankruptcy) by July 1837 and requested government support. While the banks received government support, ordinary farmers and the poor did not.

text: Among the more than 150 lawsuits they launched that year, the Bank of Upper Canada, which served the same purpose as the Bank of the United States, launched a suit against Sheldon, Dutcher & Co., a foundry and Toronto's largest employer with over 80 employees in late 1836, bankrupting the company.[23] Not surprisingly, Mackenzie's first plan for rebellion involved calling on Sheldon & Dutcher's men to storm the city hall, where the militia's guns were stored.

text: Economic distress[edit]

text: The brunt of this economic distress was felt by the common farmers. One fifth of British immigrants arrived in Upper Canada impoverished. Most immigrant farmers lacked the capital to pay for purchased land. The large debts they owed were compounded by the bad harvest, and debt collection laws that allowed for them to be jailed indefinitely until they paid their loans off to merchants. The situation was made worse in March 1837 when the Tories passed a law making it cheaper to sue farmers: city merchants could sue in the middle of harvest, and if the farmer refused to come to court in Toronto, they would automatically forfeit the case and be subjected to a sheriff's sale.[24]

text: Provincial debt of Upper Canada[edit]

text: The Reformers were incensed at the debt that the family compact had managed to incur as the results of general improvements to the province, such as the Welland Canal.[25] These debts stemmed mostly from investments in canals.[26] A man and his team of oxen hired at two dollars per day. The population of the province was estimated at 400,000, while the debt of the province amounted to around 1,000,000 pounds. The annual revenues amounted to 60,000, a sum almost insufficient to pay the interest on the debt. The dissolution of the 12th Parliament of Upper Canada in spring of 1836 resulted from the denial of money bills by the Reformist Legislative Assembly.

text: Confrontation[edit]

text: Toronto Rebellion[edit]

text: When the Lower Canada Rebellion broke out on October 9, 1837, Bond Head sent all the British troops stationed in Toronto to help suppress it. At the beginning of November, a meeting of 15 reformers at John Doel's house rejected Mackenzie's call for an immediate attack on City Hall. They instead decided to send Mackenzie north to investigate public sentiment. At a secret meeting in East Gwillimbury, Samuel Lount, Silas Fletcher, Peter Matthews of Pickering, Nelson Gorham of Newmarket, Jesse Lloyd of King township and James Bolton of Albion township heard Lloyd report on the revolt in Lower Canada. All were delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They decided to set the date for a supportive Upper Canadian revolt on December 7.

text: On November 15, Mackenzie published his draft constitution. On November 27, Mackenzie printed a handbill declaring "Independence!" On November 29, Mackenzie set the date for the Constitutional Convention for December 21, exactly 6 months after the date of King William's death - the Tory dominated elected assembly, which refused to prorogue, would at that time become illegitimate.

text: The delegates to the Convention, like Samuel Lount, downplayed the armed aspect of the Rebellion to the farmers he tried to enlist. Lount called a meeting in Hope (now Sharon), the village of the Children of Peace, where he told them "there was war in Lower Canada and there was reason to believe that Martial Law would be proclaimed… he thought the city would be taken without firing a gun."[27]

text: Dr. Rolph, however, had heard that the Lt. Governor had been informed of the plan, and sent a note to Lount moving the march from the north forward to December 4, 1837. When hearing about this change of plans, Mackenzie quickly tried to send a messenger to Lount to tell him not to arrive until December 7. This message was not received in time, with Lount replying that the rebels had already been ordered to march to Toronto and were on their way.[28] Barely armed with pikes and guns for hunting fowl, the farmers from York County marched from Newmarket down Yonge Street towards Toronto and Montgomery's Tavern.

text: Before the direct confrontation between Mackenzie’s rebels and Bond Head’s militia forces on December 7, there were various encounters between both sides which resulted in small skirmishes. On December 4, Mackenzie and some fellow rebels encountered Alderman John Powell (Canadian politician) and Archibald McDonald when riding down Yonge Street to scout the city. Upon meeting them, Mackenzie took both men prisoner and sent them to Montgomery’s Tavern. Although there were concerns over whether Powell and McDonald possessed arms, Mackenzie accepted their denials and said, “well, gentlemen, as you are my townsmen, and men of honor, I would be ashamed to show that I question your words by ordering you to be searched.”[29] Despite such assurances, Powell had hidden a pistol and shot rebel Captain Anthony Anderson before escaping back to Toronto, thereby dealing a large blow to the rebel’s military expertise.[30]

text: As Mackenzie and his forces marched towards Toronto, Bond Head sent a flag to the rebels and asked for their demands, to which Mackenzie demanded “Independence and a convention to arrange details.” By the time Mackenzie and his followers had reached College Street, Bond Head sent another party to tell Mackenzie that his demands had been rejected.[31] That same day, Colonel Moodie attempted to ride through a roadblock to warn Bond Head, but the rebels shot him.

text: With the truce faltering, Mackenzie and his forces continued into Toronto, eventually confronting a small loyalist force estimated to be between 15 and 30 members strong. In spite of being vastly outnumbered, Mackenzie’s forces dispersed after the first round of firing in panic because they thought the rebel’s front row had been killed when they were simply dropping to the ground to allow those behind them to fire.[32]

text: The last real engagement prior to the Battle of Montgomery’s Tavern occurred on December 6 via a raid on a mail coach which was suspected to have government intelligence regarding future actions towards the rebels. It was from this raid that the rebels learned of government plans to soon attack Montgomery’s Tavern.[33]

text: When the revolt began, Mackenzie hesitated in attacking the city until December 7, when his military leader, Anthony Van Egmond, arrived. Van Egmond, a veteran on both sides of the Napoleonic Wars, advised immediate retreat, but Mackenzie remained hesitant. Mackenzie waited for Bond Head's force of about 1000 men and one cannon, led by Colonel James FitzGibbon, which outnumbered Mackenzie's approximately 400 rebels. When the battle started, Mackenzie split his troops into two groups and put one group on each side of Yonge Street, with the western flank taking the brunt of Bond Head’s assault. There are varying accounts on the length of the battle. Some say it was very short while others say the fighting lasted an hour. However, all accounts agree that the rebels were outmatched, both in weaponry and skill.[34] This can be attributed mostly to the unfortunate perception among the rebels that, when their counterparts in the front ranks fell down to reload, they perceived them to have been hit by enemy fire. In less than half an hour the confrontation was over, and the rebel forces dispersed.[35]

text: London Rebellion[edit]

text: News of the intended rebellion had reached London and the surrounding townships by December 7. It was initially thought that the Toronto rebellion was successful, contributing to Charles Duncombe wanting to rise up as well.[36] Upon hearing more details about the rebellion in Toronto, Duncombe convened a series of public meetings to spread news of the supposed atrocities committed by Bond Head against all suspected reformers to help increase anti-government support. It is estimated that there were between 400-500 rebels who assembled under Duncombe [37] Colonel Allan MacNab, who had just finished leading Upper Canadian militiamen during the Battle of Montgomery's Tavern, was sent to engage Duncombe's uprising. He left Hamilton, Ontario on December 12 and arrived in Brantford on December 13. Although many rebels, including Duncombe, had fled prior to the upcoming battle due to hearing about the failure of Mackenzie in Toronto and general disorganization, there were still some present in Scotland, Ontario and MacNab commenced his attack on Scotland on December 14, causing the remaining rebels to flee after only a few shots were fired.[38] The victorious Tory supporters burned homes and farms of known rebels and suspected supporters. In the 1860s, some of the former rebels were compensated by the Canadian government for their lost property in the rebellion aftermath.

text: Rebellion by other means[edit]

text: Mackenzie, Duncombe, John Rolph and 200 supporters fled to Navy Island in the Niagara River, where they declared themselves the Republic of Canada on December 13. They obtained supplies from supporters in the United States, resulting in British reprisals (see Caroline affair). On January 13, 1838, under attack by British armaments, the rebels fled. Mackenzie went to the United States where he was arrested and charged under the Neutrality Act.[39] The other major leaders, Van Egmond, Samuel Lount, and Peter Matthews were arrested by the British; Van Egmond died in prison, and Lount and Matthews were executed at 8 AM on April 12, 1838, in Toronto. Their last words were: "Mr. Jarvis, do your duty; we are prepared to meet death and our Judge."

text: The rebels continued their raids into Canada, however, using the U.S. as a base of operations and cooperating with the U.S. Hunters' Lodges, dedicated to the overthrow of British rule in Canada. The raids did not end until the rebels and Hunters were decisively defeated at the Battle of the Windmill, nearly a year after the initial battle at Montgomery's Tavern.

text: Consequences: execution or transportation[edit]

text: Compared to the Lower Canada Rebellion, the initial portion of the Upper Canada Rebellion was short and disorganized. However, the British government in London was very concerned about the rebellion, especially in light of the strong popular support for the rebels in the United States and the more serious crisis in Lower Canada. Bond Head was recalled in late 1837 and replaced with Sir George Arthur who arrived in Toronto in March 1838. Parliament also sent Lord Durham to become Governor-in-Chief of the British North American colonies,[40] so that Arthur reported to Durham. Durham was assigned to report on the grievances among the British North American colonists and find a way to appease them. His report eventually led to greater autonomy in the Canadian colonies, and the union of Upper and Lower Canada into the Province of Canada in 1840. The populations of Upper and Lower Canada are listed on the Province of Canada wiki, and that of Canada West was not to exceed that of Canada East until 1850.

text: A number of the rebels were hanged including Samuel Lount and Peter Matthews, others were shot.[41] Their deaths were a strong motivation for the continuing Patriot War. Many more prisoners were transported, but most were pardoned, e.g. Enoch Moore (Loyalist turned rebel). A general pardon (for everyone but Mackenzie) was issued in 1845, and Mackenzie himself was pardoned in 1849 and allowed to return to Canada, where he resumed his political career. Mackenzie was strongly disillusioned after his time in the United States, writing to his son that "after what I have seen here, I frankly confess to you that, had I passed nine years in the United States before, instead of after, the outbreak, I am sure I would have been the last man in America to be engaged in it."[42] In later life however, Mackenzie advocated annexation of Canada by the United States.[43]

text: In total 93 Americans and 58 Canadiens prisoners from Lower Canada were transported to Australia after being convicted in Montreal in late 1838 or early 1839. Almost all were taken on HMS Buffalo, leaving Quebec in September 1839 and arriving off Hobart, Van Diemen's Land in February 1840. The Americans were disembarked at Hobart but the French-Canadians were taken to Sydney, New South Wales. They were interned near the present-day suburb of Concord, giving rise to the names Canada Bay, France Bay and Exile Bay. The French-Canadians were treated better than the Americans, liberated sooner and assisted in getting home. Of the 93 Americans, 14 died as a direct result of transportation and penal servitude. By the end of 1844, half of those in Van Diemen's Land had been granted pardons, nearly all were pardoned by 1848, but five remained in penal servitude until at least 1850. None chose to stay in Van Diemen's Land after being pardoned.[44][45]

text: From Upper Canada 150 were sent to the penal colony of Van Diemen's Land and Sydney, Australia.[41] In December 1838, more than a dozen convicts, amongst whom Grant, Miller, Reynolds, Parker, Malcolm, Walker, Bedford, Wixon, Watson, Brown, Anderson and Alves, were transferred through Liverpool, where those named interested in their case a local Member of Parliament, Joseph Hume, who brought an affidavit and petition of Habeas Corpus on their behalf. Grant had been sentenced in Niagara to death but pardoned if he would be transported. Miller and Reynolds were convicted in Niagara of felony to the same effect. The nine others were convicted in Toronto to the same effect. They depended, amongst other artifices, on the difference in status between convicted as they had been and pardoned by the time they were in Liverpool. But, in the end, the judges confirmed their transportation.[46]

text: Historical significance[edit]

text: The Rebellion – a "fact that every school child knows" – has overshadowed all else in the Canadian narratives on the struggle for democracy and responsible government. Allan Greer has argued that "though the 'Progress of Liberty' was a favorite theme of history for earlier generations, it is difficult today to get anyone interested in the history of democracy… Canadians in particular, taught in school to see their national past as a story dominated by transcontinental railways and Fathers of Confederation, have trouble imagining the struggle for democracy as an important historical theme. The history of democracy, we tend to believe, happened somewhere else."[47]

text: Paul Romney explains this failure of historical imagination as the outcome of an explicit strategy adopted by reformers in the face of charges of disloyalty to Britain in the wake of the Rebellions of 1837. In recounting the “myths of responsible government”, Romney emphasized that after the ascendancy of Loyalism as the dominant political ideology of Upper Canada any demand for democracy or for responsible government became a challenge to colonial sovereignty. The linkage of the "fight for responsible government" with disloyalty was solidified by the Rebellion of 1837, as reformers took up arms to finally break the "baneful domination" of the mother country. Struggling to avoid the charge of sedition, reformers later purposefully obscured their true aims of independence from Britain and focused on their grievances against the Family Compact. Thus, responsible government became a "pragmatic" policy of alleviating local abuses, rather than a revolutionary anti-colonial moment.[48]


document_title: English conditional sentences

question_text: when speaking in the second conditional what tense(s) can be used in the dependent clause

question_tokens: when speaking in the second conditional what tense ( s ) can be used in the dependent clause

root

text: English conditional sentences

text: Overview[edit]

text: In English conditional sentences, the condition clause (protasis) is a dependent clause, most commonly introduced by the conjunction if. Other conjunctions or equivalent expressions may also be used, such as unless (meaning "if...not"), provided (that), providing (that) and as long as. Certain condition clauses can also be formulated using inversion without any conjunction; see § Inversion in condition clauses below.

tag: p

text: The apodosis, expressing the consequence of the stated condition, is generally the main clause of the sentence. Depending on the sentence type, it may be a statement, question, or order. It may appear before or after the condition clause:

text: As with other dependent clauses in English, it is common for a comma to be used to separate the clauses if the dependent clause comes first (as is done in the above examples). See Comma § Separation of clauses.

text: It is possible for the consequence clause to appear alone in a sentence, without a condition clause, if the condition has been previously stated or is understood from the context. It may also be shortened by verb phrase ellipsis; a minimal conditional sentence could therefore be something like "Would you?" or "I would."

text: English language teaching[edit]

text: In English language teaching, conditional sentences are often classified under the headings zero conditional, first conditional (or conditional I), second conditional (or conditional II), third conditional (or conditional III) and mixed conditional, according to the grammatical pattern followed, particularly in terms of the verb tenses and auxiliaries used.

text: Zero conditional[edit]

text: "Zero conditional" refers to conditional sentences that express a factual implication, rather than describing a hypothetical situation or potential future circumstance (see Types of conditional sentence). The term is used particularly when both clauses are in the present tense; however such sentences can be formulated with a variety of tenses/moods, as appropriate to the situation:

text: The first of these sentences is a basic zero conditional with both clauses in the present tense. The fourth is an example of the use of will in a condition clause[1] (for more such cases, see below). The use of verb tenses, moods and aspects in the parts of such sentences follows general principles, as described in Uses of English verb forms.

text: Occasionally, mainly in a formal and somewhat archaic style, a subjunctive is used in the condition clause (as in "If the prisoner be held for more than five days, ...). For more details see English subjunctive. (See also § Inversion in condition clauses below.)

text: First conditional[edit]

text: "First conditional" or "conditional I" refers to a pattern used in predictive conditional sentences, i.e. those that concern consequences of a probable future event (see Types of conditional sentence). In the basic first conditional pattern, the condition is expressed using the present tense (having future meaning in this context. in some common fixed expressions or in old-fashioned or excessively formal The present subjunctive is occasionally found. for example:If need be, we'll rent a car. see use of the present subjunctive), and the consequence using the future construction with will (or shall):

text: The use of present tense in dependent clauses with future time reference is not confined to condition clauses; it also occurs in various temporal and relative clauses (as soon as he arrives; take the first train that comes; etc.), as described under Uses of English verb forms § Dependent clauses.

text: The present tense used in the condition clause may take the form of the simple present as in the above examples, or the present progressive, present perfect or present perfect progressive as appropriate (according to general principles for uses of English verb forms):

text: The condition can also be expressed using the modal verb should. This form can be used to make an inverted condition clause without a conjunction:

text: Otherwise, the condition clause in a first conditional pattern is not normally formed with a modal verb, other than can. However, there are certain situations (often involving polite expressions) where will, would and could may be used in such clauses; see § Use of will and would in condition clauses below. For the occasional use of the subjunctive in the condition clause, see under zero conditional above. In colloquial English, an imperative may be used with the meaning of a condition clause, as in "go eastwards a mile and you'll see it" (meaning "if you go eastwards a mile, you will see it").

text: Although the consequence in first conditional sentences is usually expressed using the will (or shall) future (usually the simple future, though future progressive, future perfect and future perfect progressive are used as appropriate), other variations are also possible – it may take the form of an imperative, it may use another modal verb that can have future meaning, or it may be expressed as a deduction about present or past time (consequent on a possible future event):

text: A particular case involves a condition clause that expresses a goal (this is often done using the be + to construction, the going-to future or the verb want), and the main clause expresses something that is necessary for the achievement of that goal, usually using a modal verb of necessity or obligation. In this case it is effectively the main clause, rather than the dependent condition clause, that expresses a "condition".

text: As noted in the following section, it may be possible to express a statement about a hypothetical future situation using either the first or second conditional pattern, with little specific difference in meaning.

text: Second conditional[edit]

text: "Second conditional" or "conditional II" refers to a pattern used to describe hypothetical, typically counterfactual situations with a present or future time frame (for past time frames the third conditional is used). In the normal form of the second conditional, the condition clause is in the past tense (although it does not have past meaning. see Use of the past subjunctive), and the consequence is expressed using the conditional construction with the auxiliary would:

text: The past tense (simple past or past progressive) of the condition clause is historically the past subjunctive. In modern English this is identical to the past indicative, except in the first and third persons singular of the verb be, where the indicative is was and the subjunctive were; was is sometimes used as a colloquialism (were otherwise preferred), although the phrase if I were you is common in colloquial language. For more details see English subjunctive § Use of the past subjunctive.

text: When were is the verb of the condition clause, it can be used to make an inverted condition clause without a conjunction. If the condition clause uses the past tense of another verb, it may be replaced by the auxiliary construction were to + infinitive (particularly if it has hypothetical future reference); if this is done, then inversion can be applied here too:

text: Another possible pattern is if it weren't for... (inverted form: were it not for ...), which means something like "in the absence of ...". For clauses with if only, see Uses of English verb forms § Expressions of wish.

text: For the possible use of would or could in the condition clause as well, see § Use of will and would in condition clauses below.

text: The conditional construction of the main clause is usually the simple conditional; sometimes the conditional progressive (e.g. would be waiting) is used. Occasionally, with a first person subject, the auxiliary would is replaced by should (similarly to the way will is replaced by shall). Also, would may be replaced by another appropriate modal: could, should, might.

text: When referring to hypothetical future circumstance, there may be little difference in meaning between the first and second conditional (factual vs. counterfactual, realis vs. irrealis). The following two sentences have similar meaning, although the second (with the second conditional) implies less likelihood that the condition will be fulfilled:

text: Notice that in indirect speech reported in the past tense, the first conditional naturally changes to the second:

text: Third conditional[edit]

text: "Third conditional" or "conditional III" is a pattern used to refer to hypothetical situations in a past time frame, generally counterfactual (or at least presented as counterfactual). Here the condition clause is in the past perfect, and the consequence is expressed using the conditional perfect.

text: It is possible for the usual auxiliary construction to be replaced with were to have + past participle. That used, the above examples can be written as such:

text: The condition clause can undergo inversion, with omission of the conjunction:

text: Another possible pattern (similar to that mentioned under the second conditional) is if it hadn't been for... (inverted form: had it not been for ...), which means something like "in the absence of ...", with past reference. For clauses with if only, see Uses of English verb forms § Expressions of wish.

text: For the possible use of would in the condition clause, see § Use of will and would in condition clauses. Occasionally, with a first person subject, would is replaced with should. In the main clause, the auxiliary would can be replaced by could or might, as described for the second conditional.

text: If only one of the two clauses has past reference, a mixed conditional pattern (see below) is used.

text: Mixed conditional[edit]

text: "Mixed conditional" usually refers to a mixture of the second and third conditionals (the counterfactual patterns). Here either the condition or the consequence, but not both, has a past time reference.

text: When the condition refers to the past, but the consequence to the present, the condition clause is in the past perfect (as with the third conditional), while the main clause is in the conditional mood as in the second conditional (i.e. simple conditional or conditional progressive, but not conditional perfect).

text: When the consequence refers to the past, but the condition is not expressed as being limited to the past, the condition clause is expressed as in the second conditional (past, but not past perfect), while the main clause is in the conditional perfect as in the third conditional:

text: Other variations on the respective clause patterns are possible, as used accordingly in the second and third conditionals.

text: Contradiction between the zero and first conditional.[edit]

text: There is a problem when the condition refers to the present, but the consequence to the future, as in these examples:

text:
If you are young, you will like that book.    (I do not know how old you are.)
If you are already so good at it, you will be a master in one year.
If he is already here, you will find him.

tag: ul

text: Formally, every sentence above looks like the first conditional, with the condition having future meaning,[2] which was not our intention. Generally, context and auxiliary words like "already", "at present", etc. sometimes are enough to inform us that the condition has present meaning, but sometimes are not, which leads to ambiguity, for example:

text: If you do it now, you will not have to do it later.

text: The word "now" can be interpreted as "at present" or "in the immediate future". Hence the condition can refer both to the present and future.

text: Use of will and would in condition clauses[edit]

text: As noted above regarding the first conditional, will (or shall) is not normally used to mark future time reference in a condition clause; instead an ordinary present tense is used:

text: However, there are certain situations where will can appear in a condition clause. One type of situation is referred to above under zero conditional, where will expresses futurity, but the sentence as a whole expresses factual implication rather than a potential future circumstance: "If aspirins will cure it, I'll take a couple tonight" (the taking is not a consequence of the curing, but a consequence of the expectation that they will cure).

text: More commonly, will appears in condition clauses where it has a modal meaning, rather than marking the future. (See uses of will.) Relevant meanings include willingness, persistence, or strong disapproval [1][3][4]

text: In the second and third sentences will is stressed, and cannot be contracted to "'ll."

text: Similarly, would is not generally used in the condition clauses of the counterfactual patterns (second and third conditional) in standard English:

text: However, some varieties of English regularly use would (contracted to  'd) and would have ('d have) in counterfactual condition clauses, although this is often considered non-standard:

text: Such use of would is widespread especially in spoken American English in all sectors of society. It is not usually found in more formal writing; however some sources describe it as acceptable US English, no longer labeling it colloquial.[5][6]

text: There are also cases where would can appear in the condition clause in British English too, but these can be considered to be modal uses of would, indicating willingness:

text: Also, in cases where the event of the if-clause follows that of the main clause, use of would in the if-clause is standard usage (this is similar to the aspirin example given above for will):

text: Would like and could are sometimes used in condition clauses for politeness:

text: For the use of should in future condition clauses, see under first conditional.

text: Inversion in condition clauses[edit]

text: Certain condition clauses (if-clauses) can be cast without any conjunction such as if or unless, instead using subject–auxiliary inversion to indicate their meaning.

text: The principal constructions are as follows:

text: In the first conditional (where the condition clause expresses a possible future condition), inversion can be applied to the form of the condition clause constructed using should:

text: In the second conditional (where the condition clause expresses an unlikely or counterfactual present/future condition; this may also occur in the mixed conditional), inversion is possible in the case where the verb is were – the past subjunctive:

text: As a special case of the above, when a condition clause based on a different verb (normally with hypothetical future reference) is formulated using the were to construction, inversion is again possible (provided were and not was is used):

text: In the third conditional (where the condition clause expresses a counterfactual past condition; this may also occur in the mixed conditional), the condition clause formed with the auxiliary had can be inverted:

text: The above can be written with the were to have construction, inversion once again possible.

text: Inversion is also possible when the present subjunctive be is used (e.g. "Be he called on by God..." for "If he be called on by God..."), but this is archaic usage for condition clauses; it is still occasionally found in dependent clauses expressing "no matter whether ...", e.g. "Be they friend or foe ..." (equivalent to "Whether they be friend or foe ..."). For similar examples see English subjunctive.


document_title: Philippine presidential inauguration

question_text: one of the pledges of the philippines is to defend its

text: Philippine presidential inauguration

text: Inauguration rites[edit]

text: The ceremony since 1992 traditionally begins with the President-Elect fetching the incumbent in Malacañan Palace on the morning of June 30. At the Palace's State Entrance, the President-Elect will wait for the incumbent to descend the Grand Staircase. Upon meeting at the foot of the staircase, the President-Elect would greet the incumbent.

text: Both travel to the Quirino Grandstand aboard any of the Presidential cars. Following protocol, the outgoing President takes the back right-hand seat of the vehicle, while the President-Elect is seated behind the chauffeur. At the Grandstand's parade grounds, the outgoing President will be welcomed with arrival honours, and then shake hands with the President-Elect. The outgoing President conducts a final troop review and is presented to the public before departing the Grandstand aboard their own private vehicle. Only Corazón Aquino broke with the custom of leaving the Grandstand immediately, choosing instead to stay until the end of Fidel Ramos's inaugural speech. Ramos also attended the oath taking of Joseph Estrada and the inaugural ceremonies.

text: The inauguration proper then begins with the singing of the National Anthem. An ecumenical Invocation follows, led by leaders of the different major religions of the Philippines, followed by a patriotic musical piece by a musical ensemble. Afterwards, President of the Senate of the Philippines reads the Joint Resolution of the Joint Congressional Board of Canvassers proclaiming the newly-elected President and Vice President. Since the Third Republic, the Vice-President-Elect is sworn in before the President-Elect to immediately secure the line of succession. During his inauguration, President Manuel L. Quezon took the Oath of Office first to mark a "new start".[1]

text: As mandated by the Constitution, the President-Elect then takes the Oath of Office at exactly 12:00 PST (GMT+8); in 2010, President-Elect Aquino did not await noon, instead taking his Oath moments after Vice-President-Elect Binay finished doing so. The Oath is customarily administered by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, but that is not required.[2] Due to political differences, Benigno Aquino III instead had then-Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales administer the Oath instead of then-Chief Justice Renato Corona. A 21-gun salute is then immediately fired, followed by four ruffles and flourishes and the Presidential Anthem, We Say Mabuhay, is played in honour of the new President.

text: The new President then delivers an Inaugural Address. Previous inaugurations also saw a full military and civil parade in the same manner as the Independence Day celebrations on 12 June (similar to the US Inaugural Parades) right after the address. From the late 1940s to the late 1960s, similar parades were also held on Rizal Day on 30 December as well and to ring in the New Year's celebrations that would start the day after.

text: The new President then returns to Malacañan Palace to formally take possession of the residence.[3] This formal entry is symbolised by the President ascending the Grand Staircase and proceeding to the Ceremonial Hall. Juan Luna's painting, The Blood Compact, is currently displayed at the top of the Staircase. The President then inducts the new Cabinet on the same day, and holds its first meeting immediately after.

text: In the evening, an Inaugural Reception is held for other officials and foreign dignitaries who wish to call on the new President. The customary banquets of either a vin d'honneur or an Inaugural Ball were abolished, in an effort to revert to the pre-Martial Law practise of simpler official receptions. The last Inaugural Ball was held in 1981 for Ferdinand Marcos' third inauguration, which was also the last time the Rigodon de Honor (a Hispanic dance analogous to a court dance) was performed; it was again danced on Independence Day of 2009. The President concludes the ceremonies with a toast, as a gesture of amity towards states that maintain diplomatic ties with the Philippines.[4]

text: Date[edit]

text: The new President is to be inaugurated at noon of June 30 as currently mandated by the 1987 Constitution, but past ceremonies were held on different dates.[5] The first President, Emilio Aguinaldo, was inaugurated on January 23, 1899, while Presidents under the 1935 Constitution were inaugurated at noon of Rizal Day (December 30). Only two Presidents under the 1935 Constitution were not inaugurated on December 30, namely, Sergio Osmeña and Manuel Roxas. Ferdinand Marcos changed the inauguration date to the present June 30, while his successors Corazon Aquino and Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo were inaugurated on February 25, 1986 and January 20, 2001, respectively, Aquino after the EDSA Revolution and Arroyo after the EDSA II.

text: Location[edit]

text: Seven inaugurations have been held at the Quirino Grandstand in the Luneta, namely, Quirino (1949), Magsaysay (1953), Garcia (1957), Macapagal (1961), Marcos (1965, 1969, 1981), Ramos (1992) and Aquino III (2010).[6] Presidents Estrada and Arroyo only delivered their inaugural addresses there. To date, Estrada and Arroyo were the only presidents to take the oath of office and inaugural addresses in two different locations.

text: Other presidents, namely Aguinaldo and Estrada, were inaugurated at the Barasoain Church in Malolos, Bulacan; Quezon, Laurel and Roxas were inaugurated in front of the Legislative Building; and Aquino in Club Filipino, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila.[7] Marcos was inaugurated in Maharlika Hall, Malacañan Palace in 1986; and Duterte inaugurated in the Rizal Hall, Malacañan Palace in 2016. Arroyo took her first oath as president at the EDSA Shrine in Quezon City. Osmeña, who assumed the presidency upon the death of his predecessor Manuel L. Quezon, took his oath of office in Washington D.C. Quirino and Garcia took the oath of office in the Malacañan Palace.

text: Attendees[edit]

text: In addition to the general public the following are the attendants of the Inauguration:

text:
The President and Vice-President-elects and their families
Members of Congress
Members of the President's Cabinet
Justices of the Supreme Court
Local officials
Representatives of different countries and organisations
usually the outgoing President and Vice-President
Choir, orchestra, and other musical performers
Representatives of the various religions of the country
Security, headed by the Presidential Security Group
Military band and honor guard from the Armed Forces of the Philippines

text: If a civil-military parade follows the speech the format is the same as in the Independence Day parades, with the AFP first, with the units of the Philippine National Police, Bureau of Fire Protection and the Philippine Coast Guard following them and later by civilian marchers representing the government, private sector, youth uniformed organizations and the representatives of the nation's various ethnic nationalities.

text: Ceremonial[edit]

text: Oath of office[edit]

text: Under Article VII, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution, before the President-Elect and Vice-President-Elect enters into the execution of their offices, the President shall take the following oath or affirmation:

text:
“

I,_______________, do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.
[In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted.]

”

tag: table

text: The oath from the Filipino version of the Constitution was used for the inaugurations of Presidents Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Estrada and Benigno Aquino III:

text:
“

Ako, si_______________, ay taimtim kong pinanunumpaan [o pinatotohanan] na tutuparin ko nang buong katapatan at sigasig ang aking mga tungkulin bilang Pangulo [o Pangalawang Pangulo o Nanunungkulang Pangulo] ng Pilipinas, pangangalagaan at ipagtatanggol ang kanyang Konstitusyon, ipatutupad ang mga batas nito, magiging makatarungan sa bawat tao, at itatalaga ang aking sarili sa paglilingkod sa Bansa. Kasihan nawa ako ng Diyos.
[Kapag pagpapatotoo, ang huling pangungusap ay kakaltasin.][8]

”

text: Inaugural address[edit]

text:
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Portal:Inaugural Speeches by Philippine Presidents

text: Every president since Emilio Aguinaldo delivered an inaugural address. Presidents, who became president upon the death of their predecessor, also delivered an address. It is usually delivered after the new president took the oath of office. However, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo delivered the inaugural address first at the Quirino Grandstand and then took the oath of office in Cebu.[9]

text: Gallery[edit]

text:
Inauguration of President Manuel Quezon, 1935.

Inauguration of President Jose P. Laurel, 1943.

Inauguration of President Sergio Osmeña, 1944.

Second Inauguration of President Manuel Roxas, 1946.

First Inauguration of President Elpidio Quirino, 1948.

Second Inauguration of President Elpidio Quirino, 1949.

Inauguration of President Ramon Magsaysay, 1953.

First Inauguration of President Carlos P. García, 1957.

Second Inauguration of President Carlos P. García, 1957.

Inauguration of President Diosdado Macapagal, 1961.

First Inauguration of President Ferdinand Marcos, 1965.

Second Inauguration of President Ferdinand Marcos, 1969.

Fourth Inauguration of President Ferdinand Marcos, 1986.

Inauguration of President Corazon Aquino, 1986.

Second Inauguration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, 2004.

Inauguration of President Benigno Aquino III, 2010.

Inauguration of President Rodrigo Duterte, 2016.

text: List of inaugural ceremonies[edit]

text: Note: Vice President-elects usually take the oath of office with the President-elect, but Rodrigo Duterte broke tradition by requesting Vice President-elect Leni Robredo to hold inauguration rites separately.[10] The only other instances that the Vice President was inaugurated separately, when Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo succeeded to the presidency and nominated Teofisto Guingona as Vice President. Guingona was confirmed by Congress on February 9, 2001 and took the oath of office the same day.

text:
Date
President
Location
Oath Administered by[11]
Document sworn on
Inaugural Addresses
Notes
Article

March 22, 1897
Emilio Aguinaldo
Holy Cross Parish Church, Sta. Cruz de Malabon, Cavite
Fr. Cenon Villafranca[12]
none[6]
none

First inauguration of Emilio Aguinaldo

January 23, 1899
Emilio Aguinaldo
Barasoain Church, Malolos, Bulacan
Prime Minister Apolinario Mabini
none[6]
Emilio Aguinaldo's Inaugural Address

Second inauguration of Emilio Aguinaldo

November 15, 1935
Manuel L. Quezon
Legislative Building, Manila
Ramon Avanceña
none[6]
Manuel L. Quezon's First Inaugural Address

First inauguration of Manuel L. Quezon

December 30, 1941
(Manuel L. Quezon, no public celebration)
Malinta Tunnel, Corregidor Island, Cavite City
José Abad Santos
none[6]
Manuel L. Quezon's Second Inaugural Address

Second inauguration of Manuel L. Quezon

November 15, 1943
(Manuel L. Quezon, no public celebration)
Washington, D.C., United States
US Assoc. Justice Felix Frankfurter
none[6]
none

Third inauguration of Manuel L. Quezon

August 1, 1944
(Sergio Osmeña, no public celebration)
Washington, D.C., United States
US Assoc. Justice Robert H. Jackson
none[6]
Sergio Osmeña's Inaugural Remarks
First of three Vice Presidents to assume Presidency upon the death of the President
Inauguration of Sergio Osmeña

October 14, 1943
José P. Laurel
Legislative Building, Manila
José Yulo
none[6]
Jose P. Laurel's Inaugural Address

Inauguration of José P. Laurel

May 28, 1946[13]
Manuel Roxas
Legislative Building, Manila
Manuel Moran
none[6]
Manuel Roxas' Inaugural Address

First inauguration of Manuel Roxas

July 4, 1946[14]
Manuel Roxas
Independence Grandstand, Manila
Manuel Moran
none[6]
none

Second inauguration of Manuel Roxas

April 17, 1948[15]
(Elpidio Quirino, no public celebration)
Council of State Room, Executive Building, Malacañan Palace
Manuel Moran
none[6]
Elpidio Quirino's Inaugural Remarks
Second of three Vice Presidents to assume Presidency upon the death of the President
First inauguration of Elpidio Quirino

December 30, 1949[16]
Elpidio Quirino
Independence Grandstand, Manila
Manuel Moran
none[6]
Elpidio Quirino's Inaugural Address

Second inauguration of Elpidio Quirino

December 30, 1953
Ramon Magsaysay
Independence Grandstand, Manila
Ricardo Paras
two family bibles; one each from his mother and father's side[6]
Ramon Magsaysay's Inaugural Address

Inauguration of Ramon Magsaysay

March 18, 1957[17]
(Carlos P. Garcia, no public celebration)
Council of State Room, Executive Building, Malacañan Palace
Ricardo Paras
none
Carlos P. Garcia's Inaugural Remarks
Third of three Vice Presidents to assume Presidency upon the death of the President
First inauguration of Carlos P. Garcia

December 30, 1957[18]
Carlos P. Garcia
Independence Grandstand, Manila
Ricardo Paras
Closed family Bible
Carlos P. Garcia's Inaugural Address

Second inauguration of Carlos P. Garcia

December 30, 1961
Diosdado Macapagal
Quirino Grandstand, Manila
César Bengzon
Closed family Bible
Diosdado Macapagal's Inaugural Address

Inauguration of Diosdado Macapagal

December 30, 1965
Ferdinand E. Marcos
Quirino Grandstand, Manila
César Bengzon
Two closed family Bibles; one owned by his father Mariano and one owned by his wife Imelda.
Ferdinand Marcos' First Inaugural Address

First inauguration of Ferdinand Marcos

December 30, 1969
Ferdinand E. Marcos
Quirino Grandstand, Manila
Roberto Concepcion
unknown
Ferdinand Marcos' Second Inaugural Address

Second inauguration of Ferdinand Marcos

June 12, 1978[19]
Ferdinand E. Marcos
Batasang Pambansa Complex, Quezon City
Fred Ruiz Castro
unknown
none

Prime Ministerial confirmation of Ferdinand Marcos

June 30, 1981
Ferdinand E. Marcos
Quirino Grandstand, Manila
Enrique Fernando
unknown
Ferdinand Marcos' Third Inaugural Address

Third inauguration of Ferdinand Marcos

February 25, 1986[20]
Ferdinand E. Marcos
Maharlika Hall (formerly Executive Office Building, now Kalayaan Hall), Malacañan Palace
Ramon Aquino
unknown
none

Fourth inauguration of Ferdinand Marcos

February 25, 1986[21]
Corazon C. Aquino
Club Filipino, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila
Assoc. Justice Claudio Teehankee, Sr.
Closed family bible; owned by Aurora Aquino, mother of Ninoy Aquino[6]
Corazon Aquino's Inaugural Address

Inauguration of Corazon Aquino

June 30, 1992
Fidel V. Ramos
Quirino Grandstand, Manila
Andres Narvasa
Closed family Bible
Fidel V. Ramos' Inaugural Address

Inauguration of Fidel V. Ramos

June 30, 1998
Joseph Ejercito Estrada
Barasoain Church, Malolos, Bulacan
Andres Narvasa
Closed family Bible
Joseph Estrada's Inaugural Address

Inauguration of Joseph Estrada

January 20, 2001[22]
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
EDSA Shrine, Quezon City
Hilario Davide, Jr.
Closed family Bible
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's First Inaugural Address

First inauguration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

June 30, 2004[23]
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo
Cebu Provincial Capitol, Cebu City
Hilario Davide, Jr.
Closed family Bible; same one used by Diosdado Macapagal in 1961
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's Second Inaugural Address

Second inauguration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo

June 30, 2010
Benigno S. Aquino III
Quirino Grandstand, Manila
Assoc. Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales
Closed family bible; same one used by Corazon Aquino in 1986
Benigno Aquino III's Inaugural Address

Inauguration of Benigno Aquino III

June 30, 2016
Rodrigo Duterte
Rizal Hall, Malacañan Palace, Manila
Assoc. Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
Family bible; owned by Rodrigo's mother, Soledad[24]
Rodrigo Duterte's Inaugural Address
Vice President  Leni Robredo held a separate inauguration at Quezon City Reception House
Inauguration of Rodrigo Duterte