Inside Philippine politics & beyond

UPDATE: Senator Sotto lifted from 5 bloggers and 1 briefing paper

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

Exclusive

By Raïssa Robles

Yesterday, I wrote that Senator Vicente Sotto had copied from FIVE bloggers.

Last night, I was sent information that he copied as well from a briefing paper. The information came once more from Vincent D. Bautista.  Thank you, Vincent.

UPDATE as of 8:23 AM, August 17, 2012: 

In 2002, Senator Vicente Sotto vowed to push for tougher measures against film and music piracy.  He even delivered a privilege speech condemning the matter.  Is what he just did a form of piracy too?

Senator Sotto and his staff’s predilection for lifting verbatim without attribution has elicited much comment and reaction on the Web.

One commenter named Kiko wrote the following reaction:

Yikes, what an embarrassment for the Philippine Senate as an institution. How can you stand up in front of your peers and read off a paper whose sources you haven’t reviewed personally?

Kiko also sent what he called Sotto the plagiarist meme:

On the social networking site Facebook, someone passed on this poster to me –

This was before I learned that Sotto’s copy-and-paste approach to scholarship extended to briefing papers. Hindi lang pala bloggers.

This morning, someone posted this as well on Facebook:

Sotto copied from 5 bloggers plus a briefing paper

Sotto’s speech delivered August 16 Wednesday contained the following passage. Again, I have highlighted in red what was copied:

2.United Nations agencies are using UN resources to advocate their agenda on a local level in order to bypass cultural and religious resistance. Gamal Serour, president of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), reported that UNFPA has a program in 25 countries to lobby religious leaders into dropping objections to the agenda. These programs are aimed at “re-educating” religious leaders and convincing them to accept their population control programs.

He had lifted this verbatim from a briefing paper entitled ” Six More Problems with Women Deliver: Why Attempts to Redefine Maternal Health as Reproductive Health Threaten the World’s Women”: 

Problem #4: UN staff and NGOs target religious leaders and youth to undermine traditional culture and values.

UN agencies are using UN resources to advocate their agenda on a local level in order to bypass cultural and religious resistance. Gamal Serour, president of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO), reported that UNFPA has a program in 25 countries to lobby religious leaders into dropping objections to the agenda. These programs are aimed at “re-educating” religious leaders and convincing them that family planning does not go against their religious values, especially when taken from a medical point of view.

The paper can be downloaded here.

So far, one blogger named Sarah has reacted to Senator Sotto’s copying from her blog, thehealthyhomeeconomist.com in a post entitled On Plagiarism, the Pill and Presumptuousness.   This time, Sarah has taken the trouble to protect her post. You can no longer simply copy and paste it. You have to screencap it like this:

Sarah called Sotto “esteemed”, but the picture that accompanied the post said what she really meant –

Picture directed at the esteemed Senator Vicente Sotto from Sarah’s blog, theheatlhyhomeeconomist.com

Senator’s chief-of-staff Hector Villacorta took the trouble to contact Sarah. Jojo Malig of ABS-CBNNews quoted Villacorta as telling Sarah –

“We are both indebted to the book’s author but if you wish that you also be credited with the contents of the book, let this be your affirmation. I can do it and by this message, I am doing it. Hope it satisfies you. But if it does not, what would you want us to do?”

All I can say is – WOW.  Villacorta’s grudging tone says it all. It’s as if he’s saying it’s Sarah who should be grateful for the honor of having been quoted by a senator because she is a mere blogger.

To hear what Sen. Sotto himself said on the issue, click on this link –

Some commenters have asked me why I’m making such a big deal over this. Perhaps because as a writer I have tried to take the trouble to attribute sources and craft my words. When someone merely copies and pastes other people’s thoughts and passes them off as his,  he is taking all the credit for doing all that hard work.

That’s all.
______________________________________________

Related Stories

Did Sen. Sotto just lie on national TV?

Did Sen. Sotto copy from 5 bloggers?  

Part 2 of Sen. Sotto’s anti-RH speech

Sen. Vicente Sotto’s speech against RH

Comments

  1. LET’S INSULT SOTTO AND VILLACORTA THEN CLAIM IT CAME FROM THE PUBLIC DOMAIN

    I am thinking of doing this:

    Come out with a statement condemining Sotto and Villacorta’s excuses for plagiarism and then put all the cusswords, eptithets and insults known to man into it.

    Then if they cry foul and threaten me with libel, I will ask them to prove if those were indeed my words. I will tell them it came from the “public domain”. Dont we hear insults and curses from the street? So no one has a copyright on insults and curses.

    What do you think? :)

  2. There is no truth to the rumor that Senator Tito Sotto–who rose to fame in the late 1970s via his and his two other colleagues’ (Vic Sotto’s and Joey de Leon’s) ingenuity of plagiarizing popular songs and recording them as their own, famously known as “TVJ’s Tough Hits” albums which generated platinum sales–is reprising his talent in the art of plagiarism, in his present work in the Philippine Senate. That is why he vehemently denies any truth to the charge that just because he was an expert in plagiarizing popular songs way back in the 1970s, he is plagiarizing other people’s work to effectively discharge his work as a Senator of the Republic. To the accusation by the US blogger that he is a “lying thief”, Senator Sotto says that had the accusation been made in the 1970s, well he might just admit it since the melodies between the popular songs and the songs that he (and Vic and Joey) recorded were the same, but in the present case, the work of the US blogger and his now infamous speech in the Senate are totally different–simply because the US blogger’s work and his speech (despite similarities in language) are not songs and have no melodies or tunes…;-)

    • Don’t forget Mars Ravelo. Remember, when Lastikman came out he was not even acknowledged, unlike the new version of Captain Barbell. (From the title itself, it says “Mars Ravelo’s Captain Barbell.) Siblings do share similar hobbies. :)

  3. Here’s the latest from Sotto’s Chief of Staff, Hector Villacorta:

    Plagiarism common practice, OK in Senate, says Sotto’s aide
    By Cathy C. Yamsuan
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    1:13 am | Thursday, August 23rd, 2012
    Share on facebook_likeShare Tweet 90
    Plagiarism is rampant in the Senate, but some staff members of senators consider it an acceptable practice.

    Passages from various authors are included in the speeches of senators and entire legislative bills are being copied and passed off as their own.

    The chief of staff of Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto on Wednesday said it was a common practice among Senate staff members to scout for bills that a previous Congress had failed to enact into law and repackage them as their bosses’ pet measures.

    For instance, the reproductive health (RH) bill that Sen. Miriam Santiago filed in 1997 has undergone so many incarnations before its current packaging as the committee report that she and Pia Cayetano, chairperson of the committee on women and family relations, now endorse.

    Why reinvent the wheel?

    “Copying is a common practice. Why do you need to think of a brand-new measure when a good one that was not enacted already exists?” said Hector Villacorta, Sotto’s chief of staff.

    At a breakfast forum, Villacorta said former senators would sometimes approach incumbent ones and ask them to refile the measures that failed to reach approval during the former senators’ term.

    “They request new senators to refile [the bills] because (these are) already in the archives. Why reinvent the wheel? Re-filing is an accepted practice. It is called copying,” he said.

    Word for word

    There are also instances when a senator’s staff goes through bills not enacted by a previous Congress and copy these word for word.

    “It’s really copying …. Why exert effort when these bills are just lying around?” Villacorta said.

    He explained that this was an acceptable practice because “a bill not acted upon dies with an old Congress. So when the new Congress takes over, the staff of the new senators will find out that can still be revived.”

    Two senators are being assailed on social networking sites for their alleged failure to attribute information from sources on the Internet contained in their speeches.

    Sotto was chastised for not acknowledging a US blogger whose work his researcher cited in a speech against the RH bill last week.

    Cayetano was similarly ridiculed for allegedly not mentioning two institutions in separate speeches on maternal health and the environment.

    Rationalization

    Even Villacorta himself was whipped on the Web for saying that Philippine laws do not have provisions that penalize anyone who freely lifts information from the Internet.

    Still, Villacorta said it was easier to rationalize the filing of unoriginal bills than delivering unoriginal speeches because even the Constitution was “plagiarized” from the US charter.

    “We plagiarized the US Constitution. All the amendments became our Bill of Rights. But do they call us a plagiaristic country? No, because the law is based on precedent,” Sotto’s chief of staff said.

    “Even our Insurance Code is a plagiarized document. The proposed freedom of information bill is plagiarized. What’s more, the Senate and House (of Representatives) versions of the RH bill are very similar. So who is plagiarizing who?” he added.

    Villacorta reminded everyone that “the Bible reached us today because the monks copied from the Greeks. Everything really started from a little copying.”

    All plagiarists

    “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists,” he said.

    Former Sen. Ernesto Maceda was in the Senate Wednesday and acknowledged that the copying of bills from a previous Congress was indeed considered acceptable among his peers during his term.

    In the case of speeches, “when we lifted a passage or quotation, we gave the corresponding attribution to the source,” he said.

    However, Maceda would not hold Sotto and Cayetano personally accountable for passages in their speeches that might have failed to attribute the right sources.

    “I can believe the two senators if they say their speeches were prepared by their staff. It was an omission…. I think to me it’s not a big thing. It’s forgivable if it does not really affect the overall content of the speech…. Almost all senators depend on staff work,” he explained.

    Magnanimous

    Santiago was also magnanimous when asked about the issue.

    “Maybe the speech writer just overlooked it…. This is politics so I guess we should give more leeway to the senators as long as later on they admit that they took it from some other source and they acknowledge that source,” she said.

    “This is not academe where it is grave, in effect a mortal sin not to attribute something to its source or author,” Santiago added.

    Still, Maceda said it would be good if the senators would “express an apology to authors asking it.”

    Not on Villacorta’s watch in the case of Sotto. “Senator Sotto was not personally responsible for preparing the speech. He only read it on the floor. Besides, I already apologized to (US blogger) Sarah Pope,” he said.

    Too awkward

    Villacorta said Sotto’s researchers initially tried searching for the website of US author Natasha Campbell-McBride but could not open it.

    The researchers resorted instead to Sarah Pope’s blog, believing her quotes of Campbell-McBride’s work was verbatim.

    “We cannot draw up a speech that says ‘according to this blogger who quoted this author.’ It’s simply too awkward. Besides, what would the Senate President say,” Villacorta said.

    “A whole gamut of ‘according to’ would also not make the speech credible. This is the Senate we are talking about,” he added.

    • If Sen Sotto staff did not read the context of McBride research but relied on Sarah Pope blog, how did they know she was interpreting the research intelligently. Interpretation could be based on summary, intent or sometimes certain defining words.

      That is basic common sense known to college graduates especially lawyers. How do these lawyers know that the evidence was gathered properly without investigating the circumstances in gathering evidence but relied solely on the words of a private investigator whose credibility is questionable. Amazing revelation from the chief of staff of Sotto.

      Villacorta just admitted again how stupid is he and his staff, but dumber is Sotto for not knowing how his staff operates.

      Dumbs and Dumber running a senate office.

      Only in the Philippines!

    • “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists,” he said.
      pati ang Diyos isinama sa katwiran. e kung sa unggoy kaya naiwangis ng Diyos ang mukha niya, plagiarism din un di ba? very smart of atty. hector villatorta.
      “We cannot draw up a speech that says ‘according to this blogger who quoted this author.’ It’s simply too awkward. Besides, what would the Senate President say,” Villacorta said.
      naisip din pala ni atty na katawatawa kung manggagaya, LOL…
      i will just simply say, do what you are being paid for. o siguro hindi kayo pinapasweldo ni SOTTO?

    • Just watched Villacorta on TV being admonished by Winnie Monsod…. he exemplifies the bad image of a lawyer trying to weasel out of a cornered position. Buking na …. Malakas pa rin ang apog na magpalusot .

      He even went so far as to accuse his and Sotto’s detractors of “colonial mentality” … of believing more the American blogger instead of a Filipino senator.

  4. Give Sotto the benefit of the doubt on plagiarism.

    How about his bigger sin. Lying by using the death of his son as an excuse on contraceptive use by his wife.

    1. He claimed his wife took Diane birth control pills which was non existent in 1975 when his son was born.
    2. He did not have proof that his son’s congenital heart disease was caused by contraceptive. He refused to present the death certificate of his son as proof of his claim.

    Let him prove these two questions, that he did not lie.

  5. ON PLAGIARIZED SPEECH

    It’s just a blog and has no copyright, says Sotto

    By: Fat Reyes
    INQUIRER.net
    6:18 pm | Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012

    MANILA, Philippines—It’s a blog and has no copyright.

    This was how Senator Vicente Sotto III tried to dismiss claims by US-based Sarah Pope that the lawmaker plagiarized her blog.

    “Ang tanong doon may copyright ba iyong blog niya? Kung may copyright iyong blog niya, either dapat mag sorry ako or mag-apologize ako. Or idemanda niya ako (The question is, is her blog covered by a copyright? If the blog has copyright, either I say sorry or I apologize. Or she can sue me),” said Sotto.

    In an interview over Radyo Inquirer 990AM, Sotto insisted that Pope simply copied her blog too from another source, Russian-born Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride, who claims that contraceptives cause an imbalance between good and bad bacteria in the intestines that breaks down defense against infection.

    “The problem is she just copied it. Second, it’s a blog and has no copyright,” he said.

    Sotto initially denied using part of Pope’s blog when he argued against the bill to distribute contraceptives in government-run health clinics. But the senator’s chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, later acknowledged that they had used her blog without attribution.

    Soon after Sotto’s speech, Pope, who lives in Florida, started receiving messages from the Philippines about it and soon her blog was swamped with reactions and comments. She
    Other Stories:
    Web ‘blackout’ in Malaysia to protest law Twitter: Gov’t requests for user data, to block content up in 2012 Twitter passwords bared online made a blog posting last Thursday criticizing the senator as “a lying thief.”

    Sotto said Wednesday that the speech he delivered before the Senate was different from the written document or draft obtained by Pope.

    “Because what she (Pope) received, fed to her by whoever, was the draft copy of the speech. But that is not my speech. My speech is what I delivered verbally,” he said.

    “’In the speech I delivered there’s acknowledgement that that content is not mine,” he said.

    Sotto, in a message addressed to Filipinos, said that unlike his detractors, Filipinos knew him well.

    “Kilala ninyo kung saan ako nanggaling kung ano ang pinanggalingan ko, kung anong klaseng pagkatao ko. Itong mga naninira sa akin hindi ninyo kilala…eh bakit kayo maniniwala sa kanila,” Sotto said.

    Pope, in a separate interview over Radyo Inquirer last Saturday, said Sotto “must be very spineless, to not be able to be man enough to just say ‘I’m sorry’.”

    The contraceptives bill is still being debated in the Senate and facing amendments in the House of Representatives. It is unclear when a final version will be put to a vote.

    Conservatives and the Catholic Church oppose the bill, saying contraception is the same as abortion, which is illegal in the Philippines. With Associated Press

    See Related Comment: #90

    • Sotto, staff didn’t read McBride book

      Report by Jing Castaneda, ABS-CBN News
      Posted at 08/22/2012 7:17 PM
      Updated as of 08/22/2012 7:17 PM

      Miriam defends Sotto: Plagiarism not a mortal sin in Senate

      MANILA, Philippines – Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III and his staff did not read a book by Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride MD, whose arguments were allegedly used by the senator in his speech against the Reproductive Health Bill.

      Lawyer Hector Villacorta, Sotto’s chief of staff, said researchers in Sotto’s office tried to download a copy of McBride’s book but failed. Instead, the researchers lifted text allegedly from McBride’s book that was in the blog of American blogger Sarah Pope.

      “Hindi naman alam ni Senator na staff ko ang nagkamali. Researchers tried clicking the book but ayaw mag download. Kaya ang pinakamaganda, refer to blog dahil baka accurate naman,” Villacorta said.

      He added that the senator need not apologize for a mistake done by his researchers.

      Sotto has come under fire for allegedly plagiarizing portions of his anti-RH Bill speech from Pope’s blog. In his speech, Sotto repeated word-for-word a passage in Pope’s blog, which read: “Not well known is the fact that use of the Pill depletes zinc in the body. Zinc is called the ‘intelligence mineral’ as it is intimately involved in mental development.”

      The senator has denied committing plagiarism, saying he was getting his arguments directly from McBride as quoted in the US blog.

      Pope, in turn, has accused Sotto of being a “lying thief” for denying that he plagiarized 8 sentences from her blog. She said: “My blog was quoted, not Dr. Natasha Campbell-McBride. I put her work in my own words and you copied my words.” http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/08/16/12/sottos-office-admits-copyi…

      Sotto has also been accused of lifting from various sources in his second speech, without attribution.

      Blanket disclosure

      On Wednesday, Sotto said he already gave a “blanket disclosure” that his “turno en contra” speech is not 100% his.

      He said he already disclosed that his speech is derived from various research material from the Internet. He said he never claimed ownership of material lifted from Pope’s blog, which also came from another source.

      “I have never claimed ownership for any of those … and that’s an important ingredient of plagiarism… claiming it as your own. Ang binasa ko ay compiled reports, which probably included her material,” he said.

      Sotto said critics are magnifying the plagiarism issue to discredit him instead of directly answering his arguments against the RH bill.

      ‘Kopyahan po talaga’

      For his part, Villacorta said he sees nothing wrong with lawmakers copying the text of bills that were not passed in previous Congresses.

      “Kopyahan po to talaga, eh. Pag natapos ang isang Congress, lahat ng bill na hindi naipasa, kopyahan. Bakit mo iisipin ulit eh nandyan na? A bill not acted upon dies with a Congress. The new Congress senators will find out what can still be revived. Kopyahan po, pero hindi masamang kopyahan,” he said.

      “The Bible reached us today because the monks copied from the Greeks. Lahat ho talaga nag uumpisa ng konting kopyahan. Edison copyrighted the cinematographic machine so all proceeds sa kanya pero if not copied, we would not have movies today…. Let all those who copied bills before, walang matitira sa Senate. Trabaho naming mga chief of staff to scout for bills na namatay tapos alam din naman by those who filed in previous Congress who request us to file it anew.”

      Villacorta earlier said blogs are considered public domain and that the government is exempted from the copyright rule.

      He also said Sotto cannot be sued because he enjoys parliamentary immunity as a legislator.

      Meanwhile, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago also came to Sotto’s defense over the plagiarism issue.

      “Speechwriter must have overlooked/forgot to include the word ‘allegedly’. But this is not the academe where plagiarism is a mortal sin. We should give leeway in politics, as long as later on the source is acknowledged,” she said.

      Read some related comments;

      – #24, #8 Did Sen. Sotto just lie on national TV?

      • Sottoism is worse than plagiarism. Google, copy, and paste without thinking like Sotto.

        —–

        Not a mortal sin?

        So, at the Senate it is still a sin to copy, albeit to a lesser degree.

        Why is it so difficult for Sotto to confess and ask penance from Pope?

        • If I can flashback to his late Saturday afternoon show days in the 70’s with Bobby Ledesma together with the other two stoogies, I remember Sotto substituted lyrics ripped from American songs to make them goofy – En Turno In Training, a premonition of what’s to come.

      • @Mel

        Iskul Bukol nga talaga!!!!

        “Kopyahan po to talaga, eh. Pag natapos ang isang Congress, lahat ng bill na hindi naipasa, kopyahan,” Villacorta.

        Umeksena na rin si Miss Tapia ng Wanbol (MDS) para idepensa ang kanyang estudyante,

        “But this is not the academe where plagiarism is a mortal sin. We should give leeway in politics, as long as later on the source is acknowledged,” she said.

        Exempted ba ang mga politiko sa ethics ng pagsulat (pagkopya)?

        Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence…… (from Wikipedia)

        • @duquemarino and fellow CPMers :smile:

          Inamin lang ng insider (abogado Villacorta) ang kultura sa House of Legislature.

          Si Miss Tapia (Abogado Waah MDS), sumaklolo pa sa kapritcho nila.

          By their admissions, it is alright for House Legislators to pinch original ideas and to unacknowledge intellectual work product (of independent reports, third-party publications) from the ‘public domain’ or copyright[ed] publications, because they enjoy parliamentary immunity from prosecution.

          As for Sarah Pope’s blog paraphrase of an original idea written by another writer? Enough of a convoluted idea for Senator T Sotto’s “turno en contra” major speeches, for amendments to what could be made into a national law.

          It must be a personified alumni from ‘Wanbol University’, now legislators for 90 + million people. This is what happens when Religious clerics deny their students ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘Academic Freedom’. They become copy-cats to traditional teachings and practices. Creative alright, in the art of cheating or lying.

      • Way to go Honorable Semators! What a great lesson to teach the young!

        Whatever it is they teach you in school about intellectual honesty nd integrity, you can forget about that when you get to the real world, or at least when you become a senator. If everyone else around you is copying the work of others and passing it off as their own, that makes it alright to do the same.. If everyone else is stealing, then stealing is not wrong.

        If everyone else is saying what stupid morons these senators are, then they’re probably right.

  6. Anyone wants to read latest research result of Guttmacher Institute of New York about
    “Reasons Why Women Get Abortions”

    Go to Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive

    Unplanned pregnancy is the least reason.

    Or maybe Mel could attach the link here.

  7. Archbishop Cruz speaks again. His latest column in Daily Tribune titled
    “Even Animals Observe Natural Family Planning”

    (As usual, Our friend baycas or Mel might attach the link again)

    Archbishop Cruz is getting senike. CBCP should ban him speaking for the church. He wants people to behave like animals in procreation and caring of offsprings.

    Animals don’t have permanent mates. They sexually assault any opposite sex attracted to them and move on. Spectacles of dog sex were common in provincial roads years ago. Cruz wanted that scene to come back, come on!

    Is this what Cruz advocating Filipinos to follow?
    Men raping any women they meet on the road or in the fields?

    Insensible corrolation!
    Waste of intelligence, if any, left on this Archbishop!

  8. On another RH bill related Latest News

    Philippine Inquirer headline:
    “Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy”

    The return of Inquisition or McCarthyism.

    Time to see in the Philippines the confrontation between catholic professors against their employers, Church.

    WHO WILL THE STUDENTS AND PARENTS SUPPORT?

    If they support the Church, teachers will lose their jobs and they will lose their capable teachers. If they support the professors, teachers will lose their jobs if the students threaten to withdraw from school and the Church closes the school.

    No brainer move by the Church. They could not afford to close Ateneo or any other MONEY MAKING Catholic school.

    • Bring It On?

      Catholic Church goes after Ateneo professors for heresy

      By Kristine L. Alave
      Philippine Daily Inquirer
      12:25 am | Tuesday, August 21st, 2012

      Recently, Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, the current CBCP president, warned Catholic schools and teachers to toe the line or end up in hot water. FILE PHOTO
      It’s not exactly an inquisition but 159 members of the Ateneo de Manila University faculty may face investigation for heresy, and sacked—not excommunicated—if found guilty.

      Bishop Leandro Medroso, in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas Monday, called for an investigation of the Ateneo faculty members who signed a statement declaring support for the controversial reproductive health (RH) bill being pushed by the Aquino administration in Congress.

      Medroso, the permanent council member of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) and chairman of the Episcopal Commission on Canon Law, said the university should make sure that the teachers who endorsed House Bill No. 4244 were not teaching concepts against Church laws.

      “That has to be investigated. The first principle of Canon law about this matter is that we don’t allow teaching that which is against the official teachings of the Church. Now, if there is somebody who is giving instructions against the teachings of the Church, then they have to investigate immediately,” Medroso said.

      Those found guilty of teaching students concepts contrary to Church teachings could be fired, he said. Church officials have previously raised the possibility of excommunication for Catholics espousing population control.

      Ateneo officials were not available for comment Monday, a holiday.

      Recently, Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, the current CBCP president, warned Catholic schools and teachers to toe the line or end up in hot water.

      “They should be consistent and true to the nature of their calling, which is to enlighten and teach the Catholic doctrine. They should realize how important their vocation and their mission is, which is of course to impart the Catholic teaching,” Palma said.

      The CBCP acknowledges that there are some differences in the beliefs of teachers and Church teachings on topics like reproductive health. The group said that while it respected academic freedom in colleges and universities, Catholic institutions should adhere to Church laws.

      In issuing the statement of support, Ateneo’s faculty members said the RH bill would provide much-needed maternal and infant health care to all Filipinos regardless of religious beliefs.

      “The reality is, despite the Philippines being predominantly Catholic, the majority of Filipinos want the full range of family planning services, including ‘artificial’ contraception,” they said.

      “Our reflected and collective appraisal of the Responsible Parenthood, Reproductive Health and Population and Development Bill is that it is a vital piece of legislation that needs to be passed urgently,” the paper said.

      The Guidon, Ateneo’s student newspaper, said it was not the first time that its professors had released a statement endorsing the bill, which has been pending for more than a decade. The first statement was issued in 2008, with 66 signatories.

      • Santiago defends Ateneo professors on RH bill stand
        Academic freedom recognized by Vatican, says pro-RH senator

        By Cathy Yamsuan, Leila B. Salaverria
        Philippine Daily Inquirer
        1:34 am | Thursday, August 23rd, 2012

        The threat to charge 159 faculty members of the Ateneo de Manila University with heresy for expressing support for the reproductive health bill (RH) is an infringement of their constitutional right to academic freedom, which is also recognized by Vatican II, according to Sen. Miriam Santiago.

        “Academic freedom is enshrined in our Constitution. You cannot dictate to a professor what to teach. I think this is a backward-looking message,” Santiago reminded the Ateneo management and the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), which had warned the faculty members they face possible charges of heresy.

        Santiago said the Vatican II ecumenical council already defined the changing role of the Catholic Church and society.

        “You can no longer punish Catholics for their freedom of conscience… That’s why it was called an ecumenical council because it abandoned all its previous strict conservative ways and is now more open to what can be called questioning concern,” said Santiago, a constitutional expert who has a master’s degree in theology.

        RH backer

        The senator is one of the most vocal supporters of the RH bill in the Senate. Santiago, in fact, filed the first RH bill in the Senate in 1997.

        The CBCP earlier called on Ateneo authorities to investigate the 159 faculty members who signed a declaration of support for the RH bill for allegedly going against Catholic dogma.

        The Catholic hierarchy, the most vocal opponents of the RH bill, resists the idea of the government distributing artificial methods of contraception to poor Filipinos. Condoms and birth control pills are particularly anathema as they supposedly encourage promiscuity, especially among the young.

        Ateneo president Fr. Jose Ramon Villarin, who supports the CBCP position, wrote a letter to the Ateneo community that was posted on the university’s website, telling those “engaged in the Christian formation of our students to ensure that the Catholic position on this matter continues to be taught in our classes, as we have always done.”

        Wrong theology

        Santiago said the Ateneo and the CBCP are not allowed “to downtrod the academic freedom of all intellectuals of the country… To threaten these (faculty members that they) would be kicked out of the Catholic Church is in effect to impose sanctions on academic freedom.”

        “This is wrong theology because there is no dogma involved here, there is no specific dogmatic principle that has emanated from the Pope,” she reiterated.

        Only Pope Benedict XVI “can dictate” Catholic dogma “and that is only when he categorically claims that he is speaking ex cathedra in his role as Supreme Pontiff.”

  9. I guess my comment #86 regarding dictatorship by the CBCP is founded. I cant believe they are threatening teachers for expressing their opinion and belief.

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/254188/catholic-church-wants-pro-rh-bill-ateneo-professors-sacked

    At bakit canon law? Mas mataas na ba ngayon ang canon law kesa sa PHL constitution? Where in basic rights is enshrined including freedom of speech and expression.

    Lalo ako nagtataka na pag naglabas ka ng opinyon mo sa isang catholic school ay makakakuha ka ng mga threats na ganyan from CBCP, pero pag yung bishop na nahuli na humingi ng SUV because its his birthday eh oks lang, bagkus wala ng investigation kasi hindi na ito sinulong ng mga senador at pinatawad na agad (remember what enrile, sotto and jinggoy said after the inquiry regarding the Mitsubishop scandal?)

    Mas malaking kasalanan pa pala sa mga taga CBCP ang pag express ng opinyon kesa sa mga pari na nagrape ng minorde edad.

    http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/230784/news/regions/parish-priest-accused-of-rape-by-his-18-year-old-helper

    P.S.
    im a catholic, studied in Paco Catholic School (Elem-HS) and finished my degree in ust but i dont agree with CBCP in their methods and threats 100%.

  10. An honest to goodness EXCERPTS at amending RH Bill 4244.

    Sounding Board

    A new chief justice; an amended HB 4244

    By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    2:05 am | Monday, August 20th, 2012

    …
    Amending House Bill 4244. Those seriously studying the RH bill should take a look at the amendments already offered by the authors of the bill themselves. They are contained in Rep. Edcel Lagman’s letter to Rep. Rogelio J. Espina, chair of the Committee on Population and Family Relations. However, to understand the proposed amendments, one must read and study HB 4244 and not just rely on criticisms by some who may never have read it, much less studied it.

    Yes, there are a good number of misconceptions about the bill, and there can be dishonest critics who set up straw men they can merrily attack. One may ask, for instance, how many among the Church authorities have read and studied HB 4244? This is an important question because I see the amendments as efforts to adjust to the transition from an established Catholic Church whose word was law to today’s demands of freedom of religion.

    I propose the pulling together of the various amendments already accepted by the authors of the bill.

    Sec. 13. Role of barangay health workers. Instead of saying that they should “give priority to family planning work,” simply say they should “help implement this Act.” This should obviate the complaints that family planning is being given undue emphasis.

    Sec. 15. Funding Mobile Health Services. Charge the funding to the national government, not to the lawmakers’ Priority Development Fund (PDAF) while at the same time allowing individual lawmakers to use their PDAF.

    Sec. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Sex Education. Give parents the option not to allow their children to attend mandatory sex education; at the same time give assistance to parents who want help in this matter. This is in conformity with the primary right of parents.

    Sec. 20. Ideal Family Size. Delete the entire provision. This will preclude further misinformation about the meaning of this provision.

    Sec. 21. Employers’ Responsibility. Delete this because it is simply a restatement of Article 134 of the Labor Code. Deleting it will preclude further debate.

    Sec. 28(e) Prohibited Acts. Delete the provision which penalizes “any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act.” There already are penal limits to the freedom of expression.

    In addition to the amendments proposed by the authors of the consolidated bill, there are others which are worth considering. Let me mention a few:

    On Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

    1. Private schools can opt to provide an alternative sexuality education curriculum based on the school’s religious beliefs or values. The government will monitor if there is a curriculum being implemented, whether the standard one or the alternative one.

    2. If a public school cannot provide enough adequately trained teachers or there are public school teachers who cannot teach the government’s curriculum because of religion-based objections, the proper government agency would send trained instructors to teach the sexuality education classes.

    3. An additional topic for the curriculum is the role of religious freedom and conscience in choosing the means of planning families.

    On Prohibited Acts

    Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall require a person to undergo sterilization as a condition for providing indigent patients with basic health care, emergency care or health care shall be penalized.

    I realize that there are other urgent matters which Congress must consider. But the effort of some to block the period of amendments merely as a tactic for preventing the bill’s approval does a disservice to the nation.

    TAKEN from: Home > Opinion > Inquirer Opinion > Columns > A new chief justice; an amended HB 4244 (opinion inquirer net/35106/a-new-chief-justice-an-amended-hb-4244)

  11. Question lang dyan para sa mga abugado at may mas alam sa akin..

    – Pwedi ba mag file ng lawsuit si Mrs. S. Pope against Sen. Sotto ?

    I said that because of this lines:

    The Web is not ‘public domain’

    US tech and legal experts have clarified that the Web is not “public domain.”

    Intellectual property rights are protected by Republic Act No. 8293 in the Philippines. In the United States, plagiarism is a criminal offense on both the state and federal levels.

    From a site :
    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/17/12/sotto-acting-above-law-us-blogger-says-0

  12. WORSE

    What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT vetting the source.

    An older study cited by Sotto was questioned years later because the baseline data will not effectively result to a cause-and-effect conclusion as regards hormonal contraceptives and congenital cardiovascular defects. (Contraceptives causing congenital cardiac defects)

    What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT digging deeper into the how-and-whys of cited source.

    An idea cited by Sotto discredits the use of hormonal contraceptives when in the first place a hormonal contraceptive is just one of the many factors that can cause illness. The other factors that may cause such illness are commonplace compared to the use of hormonal contraceptives, for example, stress, infections, use of antibiotics, and poor diet which the author herself had given. (Contraceptives and gut dysbiosis)

    What’s worse than plagiarism is NOT weighing the pros and cons; in appropriate terms, NOT obtaining the balance between the benefit and the risk of hormonal contraceptives AND just enumerate their ill effects.

    The impression that is made publicly known by Sotto is that hormonal contraceptives is dangerous to women’s health when all the while current (and not outdated!) medical evidence points to their safety if used by women.

    The risk-to-benefit ratio is so low that presently they are not banned in the market just like antibiotics. The benefit of contraception (Read: prevent unintended pregnancies) which is the primary goal of these drugs far outweigh the risk it may pose to women.

    Sotto must first prove to the public that the risk-to-benefit ratio is high to even “criminalize” the use of hormonal contraceptives.

    What’s worse than plagiarism is mimicking to be an authority on the issue of hormonal contraceptives.

    Sotto’s haphazard research on the subject matter does NOT make him an authority. The consideration of just the negative effects of hormonal contraceptives in order to advance his motive does NOT make him an authority.

    This situation is a logical fallacy called “Argumentum Ad Verecundiam” (argument from authority)—the misleading notion of appealing to the testimony of an authority outside his expertise, for example, a lawyer doing medical research. In Sotto’s case, a senator talking like a medical expert. It’s no worse than a celebrity advertising how good a pharmacy is.

    At any given time, I would rather believe former DOH Secretary Cabral than relying on Sotto for medical information.

    What’s worse than plagiarism is the one-of-a-kind SOTTOISM.

    Sotto declares he is not against contraceptives when he said:

    Gusto kong bigyang diin na hindi ko tinututulan ang paggamit ng contraceptives dito sa Pilipinas at lalong hindi ko pinagbabawal ang paggamit nito.

    Yet he isolated the bad side of contraceptive use and made it into a speech for everyone to hear. Sotto is NOT against contraceptive use BUT went on to criticize his colleagues and a medical expert. Sotto is NOT against contraceptive use BUT went on to scare the public.

    Does the doublespeak reek of uncertainty on his part? Does the doublespeak signify that his agenda may prove to be untenable because he is hiding the good side of contraceptive use?

    Sotto cannot be relied upon because Sottoism is of the dangerous kind—even worse than what he claimed to be an existence of danger in the use of hormonal contraceptives.

    • @baycas,

      A follow up to the quotation you have above from Sen. T Sotto’s Part 2 speech, have a read at the following paragraph included in that speech.


      Inihain ko, nung Lunes, ang mga mahahalagang puntong dapat isaalangalang bago natin ipasa ang batas na into, partikular ang nakangangambang epekto nito sa kalusugan ng ating mga kababaihan, at maging sa kanilang mga anak tulad ng aking masaklap na karanasan.

      He said ‘…isaalangalang bago natin ipasa ang batas na into’. He didn’t say ‘iboto’, but ‘bago natin ipasa ang batas na into’.

      Was that a typo (e.g. into or ito or eto)? but I take exception that he means ‘eto’ instead of ‘into’.

      Does that mean, he is for the passage but with reservations to wit?

    • @baycas

      Finally, something getting the important point. Journalists and the mainstream media in the Philippines should be hammering this instead of plagiarism or copyright infringement.

      • Angel, it is not “finally“. I just maintained my position…

        baycas says:
        August 16, 2012 at 7:08 pm

        How dare Sotto boast of his millions of votes when he cannot be relied on to do own research. What’s worse is he didn’t even validate the past findings/observations/comments with current studies/thinking.

        Push him to be serious first!

        This was in reply to this comment…

        dboncan says:
        August 16, 2012 at 3:54 pm

        seriously this is a plagiarism issue? is that how desperate the ProRH people have become? does this change anything about what he narrates, that Contraceptives may have killed their son?

        Sotto thought his speech was cool and played his listeners (readers, as well) for a fool.

        He wanted sympathy. He wanted understanding. He wanted everyone to follow him.

        But that was the actor in him–playing Filipinos for fools.

        Little did Sotto know that he only succeeded in making himself the fool…

        “Any fool can do something cool and look cool, but it takes skill to make something uncool cool again.”

        – Criss Jami

        He’d better be careful in his succeeding speeches on the topic because a fool must not be taken seriously.

        • As I said in the previous blog post…

          “If you copy from one author, it’s plagiarism. If you copy from two, it’s research,” said Wilson Mizner.

          If you copy one blogger’s resourcefulness and research, it’s plagiarism. If you copy from five, it’s google-copy-and-paste-without-thinking-like-Sotto!

    • I am a medical doctor and your piece of work brilliantly echoed what is in my heart and mind…..thank you

    • @baycas

      “Iskul bukol” in the Senate”
      Editorial of the Philippine daily Inquirer, August 20, 2012
      http://opinion.inquirer.net/35110/iskul-bukol-in-the-senate

      “The circumstances surrounding the acts of plagiarism committed by Sen. Vicente Sotto III, in the first two installments of his controversial “turno en contra” speech at the Senate last week, are so comical, so ridiculous, they invite disbelief…..”

  13. Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III is scheduled to give his privilege speech on Wednesday, instead of Part 3 of his ‘turno en contra’.

    Please review his speech part 2 (turno en contra (rebuttal)), he is not against contraceptives (see comment #23). He has issues of complications to some outdated Arti-contraceptives, and ‘profiteering’ agenda of service organisations (e.g. USAid & private interests) that support or lobby for the passage of RH Bill 4244. Apart from that, just rhetoric or emotive rotunda of story-telling.

    Sotto sets privilege speech vs critics

    By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star)
    Updated August 19, 2012 12:00 AM

    MANILA, Philippines – Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III will again take the floor on Wednesday to deliver a privilege speech, which would take the place of the last part of his turno en contra (rebuttal) speech.

    “It’s their fault. I am ready to close my turno but now I will postpone this for my privilege speech,” Sotto said yesterday, referring to American blogger Sarah Pope, who had accused him of plagiarism over his speech against the Reproductive Health bill, and several pro-RH bill groups and individuals.

    He said he is fighting back and has threatened to take Pope and the proponents of the RH bill head-on in his scheduled privilege speech.

    After two days of hearing the exchanges between Pope, the people attacking him in social media and his Senate staff over an entry the American made in her blog about the pill, Sotto admitted that certain lines in his turno en contra speech against the RH bill were lifted from Pope’s blog.

    However, he has repeatedly denied that he committed plagiarism, as alleged by Pope, because he said he made it clear in his speeches that the contents, including the references to ideas, thoughts or medical and scientific findings were not his own.

    “She was not the author of the book. If I did not mention her name then she should know that I also did not mention several other people’s names (in my speech),” he said in an interview.

    Sotto’s chief of staff, lawyer Hector Villacorta, admitted that they lifted parts of Pope’s blog to present some information contained in a book written by Dr. Natasha McBride.

    Pope has since gone on a campaign to make Sotto accountable for what she felt was the stealing of her intellectual property and quickly drew the support of her fellow bloggers here and abroad.

    She even went as far as calling Sotto a “lying thief,” which drew the ire of the senator.

    He said he was convinced the pro-RH groups are behind the latest attacks against him and that they are the ones orchestrating the smear campaign using Pope as its centerpiece.

    “This is clearly a wrecking job. The pro-RH people are the same ones making a big issue out of this. If the blogger and I are on the same side in the RH debate, then I don’t need enemies” Sotto said.

    “Plagiarism, whether you give attribution or not, applies only if you contend that the contents (used) are yours.

      • If Sen T Sotto would deliver his privilege speech Wednesday tomorrow as scheduled, will he gutter stoop low, resort to finger pointing and tit-for-tat slagging as he threatened?

        Or will he rise up to the occasion to consider first the respect and handle with utmost care the Office he represents and the people who voted him into that office.

        • Sotto will say…

          “Why accuse me of plagiarism when Cayetano (Pia) likewise did plagiarize in previous speeches?”

          Oh, the “walang kamatayang peanut butter defense” often employed by “cornered” erring individuals.

        • Agree, ginang Raïssa.

          In today’s technology and online social media age of communication, the level of standards are higher now since digital information is within reach by anyone, at any one time and where ever one is in this world.

          Gov’t leaders ought to lift up their game, so to speak, to avoid being accused as a ‘lying-thief’ as an example from a blogger.

          It’s just a matter of time, some one in their ranks would have to introduce new protocols, better guidelines for staff to keep up with the times to follow a lawful and acceptable standard of public service, touching on ICT (Information, Communications & Technology).

        • Both plagiarized in one way or another. Who among them will admit or not is of no matter.

          The trouble with the “peanut butter defense” is that, inadvertently, one will own up to plagiarism.

          We must remember that Sotto already denied having ever committed plagiarism. If he deflects blame to Cayetano (Pia), he admits committing plagiarism.

          Will he use “Lilly’s” or “Ludy’s” tomorrow or will he choose a foreign brand, “Skippy” or “Peter Pan”?

          Abangan…

        • Cayetano’s speeches where she allegedly also plagiarised from other sources are published in her website. They are properly referenced.

        • I’m not a follower of Sen. Cayetano and today is the first time I had a look at her website to check out the speeches in question. I cannot say for sure that the referencing has not been done “belatedly” but there’s a consistency in the footnoting of all speeches published in the website, dated from 2010 onwards.

        • better late than never. :lol:

          of all senators, si T Sotto pa ang taya.

          dito pabor ang tahimik na si L Lapid.

          ‘wa ako say diyan aniya ni Lito :lol:

          bukas, ang sequel. maraming blogs, tenga at mata ang naka titig sa kaniya.

  14. @raissa,
    “Some commenters have asked me why I’m making such a big deal over this. Perhaps because as a writer I have tried to take the trouble to attribute sources and craft my words. When someone merely copies and pastes other people’s thoughts and passes them off as his, he is taking all the credit for doing all that hard work”.

    people who know not what ethics is will really react negatively. a knowledgeable one will quickly acknowledges his mistake and apologize… and does repair as needed.

    ETHICS is one thing lost not only in our political and many professional practices. some are spoiled by the showbiz and excessive commercialism. others by the immersion in powers/influences. others by greed, greed of material things.
    even a lot of our clergies are not exempt from this moral degeneration.

    sotto and his staff should have had the chance to snap this embarrassment and further humiliation if they immediately admitted error and humbly request for forgiveness. the tone of attorney villacorta did more harm than good. so sad…the arrogance of power is evident in them.

    PHL have a lot of liabilities in its stock, non-performers, mediocre copy cats…

  15. Off topic ito…PNoy should make it a strict policy henceforth that no Cabinet officials should be using private aircrafts when traveling around the country whether on official or non-officials travels. This is to avoid or do away losing high officials while traveling. And netiher using PAF planes! USE REGULAR COMMERCIAL PLANES!

    • Easier said, pero sa palagay ko kaya naisipan ni Sec. Robredo na mag charter plane kasi mas madali siyang makakauwi sa Naga. You see kung commercial plane daan pa siya ng Manila bago siya makauwi sa Naga. Eh, gabi na at wala namang night landing sa Naga airport kaya siguro naisipang niyang dumirecho ng Naga. Malamang, sa sobrang busy ng schedules niya eh, palagi na niyang ginagawa yun. Ngayon lang at nagkaroon ng problem. So sad, let us continue praying for him.