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

Share:

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

358 Responses to “UPDATE: Senator Sotto lifted from 5 bloggers and 1 briefing paper”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 108
    Rowena A. Burden, M.D. says:

    the “lying thief” has done it again… this time, he levelled up… the closing portion of his speech is the tagalog translation of a speech delivered by Robert F. Kennedy… it’s no longer copy-paste, it’s now copy-paste then google translate :-(

  2. 107
    Gene Simmowns says:

    Looks like we haven’t seen the last of the “good” senator.

    Here’s from rappler:

    “On Wednesday, August 29, Sotto delivered a privilege speech to defend himself from backlash after he failed to attribute passages in speeches against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill to American blogger Sarah Pope and other articles online.

    “Ako na yata ang kauna-unahang senador ng Pilipinas na naging biktima ng cyber-bullying,” lamented Sotto. (I am probably the first Philippine senator to be a victim of cyber-bullying.)

    Sotto added, “Ang iba pa’y may sinusulat na gusto daw ako kasuhan. Nais kong ipaalam sa kanila: walang krimen na plagiarism sa Pilipinas.” (Others write that they want to sue me. I want to inform them: there is no such crime as plagiarism in the Philippines.) ”

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/11405-sotto-blasts-critics,-backs-blogging-bill

  3. 106
    Brian says:

    We elect this clown to the Senate and then we wonder why he walks and talks the way he does? Honestly, we can continue to lambast, curse and mock Sotto (God knows he deserves it and more) but really, we have no one to blame but ourselves (the electorate)

  4. 105
    cocogas says:

    Sotto’s speech is full of deceit.

    Sotto’s speech contains:

    -text from 5 bloggers

    -misuse of Barbara Seaman’s Book see
    http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/08/24/how-senator-tito-sotto-misused-barbara-seamans-book/

    -Diane of Bayer Schering Pharma – mentioned by Sotto in his anti-RH
    bill speech last August 15 was introduced in 1978., but his wife Helen
    was taking it in 1975

    -Sottos speech contained this 1976 study:

    “In a cohort of 50,282 pregnancies, 19 children with cardiovascular
    defects were born to 1042 women who received female hormones during
    early pregnancy (18.2 per 1000). Among 49,240 children not exposed in
    utero to these agents there were 385 with cardiovascular malformations
    (7.8 per 1000). Six children with cardiovascular defects were born to
    a subgroup of 278 women who used oral contraceptives during early
    pregnancy (21.5 per 1000). After the data were controlled for a wide
    variety of potentially confounding factors by multivariate methods,
    the association between utero exposure to female hormones and
    cardiovascular birth defects was statistically significant”.
    (Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female
    Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D.,
    Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro,
    M.B., F.R.C.P.)

    But the above source was debunked by Wiseman and Dodds-Smith in 1984.

    The conclusions of Heinomen and associates10,11 were questioned.
    Wiseman and Dodds-Smith12 reevaluated original data from the US
    Collaborative Perinatal Project and found several shortcomings. First,
    a priori risk of anomalies were dissimilar between subjects and
    controls. In four of the 17 hormone-exposed cases, a previous
    pregnancy was characterized by a major malformation (ventral septal
    defect, Down syndrome with a cardiac defect, neonatal death with
    serious malformations, and a stillborn); only one case in a control
    group of 100 (selected from the 1023 who had a noncardiac malformation
    and were exposed to progestogens) had a previous history of a major
    anomaly. Thus, subject and control groups were not comparable. In
    addition, two infants with cardiac anomalies in the exposed group had
    Down syndrome; the cardiac anomaly was surely related not to drug
    exposure but rather to underlying trisomy. Timing of exposure was also
    implausible in many cases. Among the 19 progestogen-exposed infants
    with cardiac defects, four were exposed during the first lunar month,
    a period when anomalies are not ordinarily produced (all-or-none
    period); three other infants were exposed only in the fourth month,
    long after heart development is completed (42 embryonic or 56
    gestational days). Wiseman and Dodd-Smith12 concluded that no
    significant association between hormone use and cardiac anomalies
    existed in the US Collaborative Perinatal Project data.

    http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v6/v6c037.html?SESSID=qv78t1mrbh4bjt60gdjpk18fh3

  5. 104
    Johnny Lin says:

    In a few months a contraceptive for men might come out of the market.

    It works before fertilization because it affects the physical properties of sperm, thus it should not interfere with catholic church stand on reproductive health

    How would the catholic church address this pill? Will they approve it for the benefit of their prodigal clergies? Will it be incorporated in the amended RH bill?

    What are the chances men would take them if given free by the government?

  6. 103
    Mel says:

    ‘Helen Gamboa’s doctor would’ve backed RH bill’

    ABS-CBNnews.com
    Posted at 08/23/2012 5:09 PM
    Updated as of 08/23/2012 10:51 PM

    MANILA, Philippines – It seems that advocates of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill have scored another point.

    This time, it’s reportedly from the family of the late Dr. Carmen Enverga-Santos, who was the obstetrician of Helen Gamboa back when she and Senator Tito Sotto lost their five-month old son allegedly due to contraceptives.

    According to a report from local online magazine Spot.ph, Lea Enverga-Santos posted a formal statement on Facebook after the name of her late mother was dragged by Sotto into the RH bill debate.

    Spot.ph said it received permission from Santos’ daughter to publish the statement, which read: “As one of Dra. Carmen Enverga Santos’ children, [I must say] we were all surprised to hear her name brought up by Sen. Sotto during the deliberations on the RH bill.

    “Anyone who knew her, including her family, colleagues in the medical field, her medical students, friends, confessor as well as her patients, know that she would have supported the RH bill and would have openly expressed her support for the bill because of her concern for our country’s problems with overpopulation and its subsequent impact on poverty, quality of life issues, and the health of all mothers.”

    READ THE REST of the News article and letter image at: ‘Helen Gamboa’s doctor would’ve backed RH bill’

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/08/23/12/%E2%80%98helen-gamboa%E2%80%99s-doctor-would%E2%80%99ve-backed-rh-bill%E2%80%99

  7. 102
    andrew lim says:

    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? :)

  8. 101
    Jun Brioso says:

    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…;-)

    • 101.1
      anonymous says:

      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. :)

  9. 100
    anton says:

    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.

    • 100.1
      Johnny Lin says:

      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!

    • 100.2
      vander anievas says:

      “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?

    • 100.3
      Bayonic says:

      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.

  10. 99
    Johnny Lin says:

    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.

  11. 98
    Mel says:

    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

    • 98.1
      Mel says:

      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?

      • 98.1.1
        baycas says:

        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?

        • 98.1.1.1
          Fibonacci Failon says:

          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.

      • 98.1.2
        duquemarino says:

        @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)

        • 98.1.2.1
          Mel says:

          @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.

      • 98.1.3
        Cha says:

        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.

  12. Gene Simmowns says:

    Looks like we haven’t seen the last of the “good” senator.

    Here’s from rappler:

    “On Wednesday, August 29, Sotto delivered a privilege speech to defend himself from backlash after he failed to attribute passages in speeches against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill to American blogger Sarah Pope and other articles online.

    “Ako na yata ang kauna-unahang senador ng Pilipinas na naging biktima ng cyber-bullying,” lamented Sotto. (I am probably the first Philippine senator to be a victim of cyber-bullying.)

    Sotto added, “Ang iba pa’y may sinusulat na gusto daw ako kasuhan. Nais kong ipaalam sa kanila: walang krimen na plagiarism sa Pilipinas.” (Others write that they want to sue me. I want to inform them: there is no such crime as plagiarism in the Philippines.) ”

    http://www.rappler.com/nation/11405-sotto-blasts-critics,-backs-blogging-bill

  13. Brian says:

    We elect this clown to the Senate and then we wonder why he walks and talks the way he does? Honestly, we can continue to lambast, curse and mock Sotto (God knows he deserves it and more) but really, we have no one to blame but ourselves (the electorate)

  14. cocogas says:

    Sotto’s speech is full of deceit.

    Sotto’s speech contains:

    -text from 5 bloggers

    -misuse of Barbara Seaman’s Book see
    http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2012/08/24/how-senator-tito-sotto-misused-barbara-seamans-book/

    -Diane of Bayer Schering Pharma – mentioned by Sotto in his anti-RH
    bill speech last August 15 was introduced in 1978., but his wife Helen
    was taking it in 1975

    -Sottos speech contained this 1976 study:

    “In a cohort of 50,282 pregnancies, 19 children with cardiovascular
    defects were born to 1042 women who received female hormones during
    early pregnancy (18.2 per 1000). Among 49,240 children not exposed in
    utero to these agents there were 385 with cardiovascular malformations
    (7.8 per 1000). Six children with cardiovascular defects were born to
    a subgroup of 278 women who used oral contraceptives during early
    pregnancy (21.5 per 1000). After the data were controlled for a wide
    variety of potentially confounding factors by multivariate methods,
    the association between utero exposure to female hormones and
    cardiovascular birth defects was statistically significant”.
    (Source: Cardiovascular Birth Defects and Antenatal Exposure to Female
    Sex Hormones by Olli P. Heinonen, M.D., M.SC., Dennis Slone, M.D.,
    Richard R. Monson, M.D., Ernest B. Hook, M.D., and Samuel Shapiro,
    M.B., F.R.C.P.)

    But the above source was debunked by Wiseman and Dodds-Smith in 1984.

    The conclusions of Heinomen and associates10,11 were questioned.
    Wiseman and Dodds-Smith12 reevaluated original data from the US
    Collaborative Perinatal Project and found several shortcomings. First,
    a priori risk of anomalies were dissimilar between subjects and
    controls. In four of the 17 hormone-exposed cases, a previous
    pregnancy was characterized by a major malformation (ventral septal
    defect, Down syndrome with a cardiac defect, neonatal death with
    serious malformations, and a stillborn); only one case in a control
    group of 100 (selected from the 1023 who had a noncardiac malformation
    and were exposed to progestogens) had a previous history of a major
    anomaly. Thus, subject and control groups were not comparable. In
    addition, two infants with cardiac anomalies in the exposed group had
    Down syndrome; the cardiac anomaly was surely related not to drug
    exposure but rather to underlying trisomy. Timing of exposure was also
    implausible in many cases. Among the 19 progestogen-exposed infants
    with cardiac defects, four were exposed during the first lunar month,
    a period when anomalies are not ordinarily produced (all-or-none
    period); three other infants were exposed only in the fourth month,
    long after heart development is completed (42 embryonic or 56
    gestational days). Wiseman and Dodd-Smith12 concluded that no
    significant association between hormone use and cardiac anomalies
    existed in the US Collaborative Perinatal Project data.

    http://www.glowm.com/resources/glowm/cd/pages/v6/v6c037.html?SESSID=qv78t1mrbh4bjt60gdjpk18fh3

  15. Johnny Lin says:

    In a few months a contraceptive for men might come out of the market.

    It works before fertilization because it affects the physical properties of sperm, thus it should not interfere with catholic church stand on reproductive health

    How would the catholic church address this pill? Will they approve it for the benefit of their prodigal clergies? Will it be incorporated in the amended RH bill?

    What are the chances men would take them if given free by the government?

  16. Mel says:

    ‘Helen Gamboa’s doctor would’ve backed RH bill’

    ABS-CBNnews.com
    Posted at 08/23/2012 5:09 PM
    Updated as of 08/23/2012 10:51 PM

    MANILA, Philippines – It seems that advocates of the controversial Reproductive Health (RH) bill have scored another point.

    This time, it’s reportedly from the family of the late Dr. Carmen Enverga-Santos, who was the obstetrician of Helen Gamboa back when she and Senator Tito Sotto lost their five-month old son allegedly due to contraceptives.

    According to a report from local online magazine Spot.ph, Lea Enverga-Santos posted a formal statement on Facebook after the name of her late mother was dragged by Sotto into the RH bill debate.

    Spot.ph said it received permission from Santos’ daughter to publish the statement, which read: “As one of Dra. Carmen Enverga Santos’ children, [I must say] we were all surprised to hear her name brought up by Sen. Sotto during the deliberations on the RH bill.

    “Anyone who knew her, including her family, colleagues in the medical field, her medical students, friends, confessor as well as her patients, know that she would have supported the RH bill and would have openly expressed her support for the bill because of her concern for our country’s problems with overpopulation and its subsequent impact on poverty, quality of life issues, and the health of all mothers.”

    READ THE REST of the News article and letter image at: ‘Helen Gamboa’s doctor would’ve backed RH bill’

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/08/23/12/%E2%80%98helen-gamboa%E2%80%99s-doctor-would%E2%80%99ve-backed-rh-bill%E2%80%99

  17. andrew lim says:

    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? :)

  18. Jun Brioso says:

    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…;-)

    • anonymous says:

      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. :)

  19. anton says:

    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.

    • Johnny Lin says:

      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!

    • vander anievas says:

      “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?

    • Bayonic says:

      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.

  20. Johnny Lin says:

    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.

  21. Mel says:

    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

    • Mel says:

      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?

      • baycas says:

        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?

        • Fibonacci Failon says:

          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.

      • duquemarino says:

        @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)

        • Mel says:

          @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.

      • Cha says:

        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.

  22. -->

Do share your thoughts:

*