TO: Senator Vicente Tito Sotto III FROM: DATE: December 4, 2012 SUBJECT: Plagiarism - Liability of Senator Sotto

III

FACTS Sarah Pope, a U.S. blogger called Sarah the Healthy Home Economist confirmed on August 16, 2012 that Senator Vincente Tito Sotto III plagiarized her work in his Turno en Contra speech against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill, noting that Sotto never asked her permission. In an interview on Headstart on ANC, the ABS-CBN News Channel, Sotto denied plagiarizing the Healthy Economist. Sotto said that his staff did not examine blogs getting research to debunk arguments of the RH advocates. Instead, he said they relied on books, columns and editorials. But a comparison of their speeches shows word for word similarities. A second U.S.-based blogger, Formichella, also claimed that Sotto copied and twisted parts of her 2010 post in the same speech which allegedly contained parts lifted from blogger Sarah Pope. Not only did Sotto use the same quote from Gandhi in her post but the senator lifted entire segmentsalbeit put into an anti-choice context. The blogger sought an apology from Sotto, not only to her but also Sarah Pope, from whose post the senators staff admits have copied. In his fourth and last Turno en Contra speech, Sotto faced yet another plagiarism accusation when he alleged to have copied the Day of Affirmation Speech delivered by Robert F. Kennedy on June 6, 1996 to members of the National Union of South African Students at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. Sought for comment, the senator said: It was texted to me by a friend. I found the idea good. I translated it to Tagalog. It was an alleged direct translation from a speech of the late U.S. Senator Kennedy in 1966.

ISSUE

Is there a valid legal ground, based on the given facts, to warrant Senator Vicente Tito Sotto III criminally, civilly and administratively liable for plagiarism?

BRIEF ANSWER There is no valid legal ground to hold Senator Vicente Tito Sotto III criminally, civilly and administratively liable. Plagiarism should not be considered as a criminal offense. Because we do not have a law which specifically punishes an act of plagiarism, Senator Sotto cannot be held liable. The act is viewed as light only therefore; a public apology may be enough to atone for committing such act.

DISCUSSION The Philippines does not have a law regarding plagiarism. It is a moral principle of criminal law that no person shall be criminally punished if there is no law punishing such act. There is no crime without a law punishing it ("nullum crimen sine lege") and there is also no punishment if there is no law punishing such act (" nullum poena sine lege"). Because of this, we cannot say that plagiarism is considered as an offense or crime in the Philippines. Although others may allege that this is a punishable act considering that he is a public officer and he copied and translated works of others thus, constituting plagiarism, but because we do not have such a law, Senator Tito Sotto cannot be held liable for plagiarism. Others, however, contend that his actions are punishable under Republic Act 8293 or the Intellectual Property Law. According to Section 172 and 173 of the IPC:
Section 172. Literary and Artistic Works. - 172.1. Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as "works", are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular: (a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings; (b) Periodicals and newspapers; (c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material form; (d) Letters; (e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows; (f) Musical compositions, with or without words; (g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works of art; (h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and other works of applied art; (i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or science; (j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;

(k) Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides; (l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process for making audio-visual recordings; (m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements; (n) Computer programs; and (o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works. 172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose.

Section 173. Derivative Works. - 173.1. The following derivative works shall also be protected by copyright: (a) Dramatizations, translations, adaptations, abridgments, arrangements, and other alterations of literary or artistic works; and (b) Collections of literary, scholarly or artistic works, and compilations of data and other materials which are original by reason of the selection or coordination or arrangement of their contents. (Sec. 2, [P] and [Q], P.D. No. 49)

Sections 172 and 173 of the IPC enumerate what works are protected by copyrights and cannot be used by another without proper permission from the author. On the other hand, Section 184 (b) and (c) which states the limitations on copyrights provides that:
(b) The making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided, That the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned; (Sec. 11, third par., P.D. No. 49) (c) The reproduction or communication to the public by mass media of articles on current political, social, economic, scientific or religious topic, lectures, addresses and other works of the same nature, which are delivered in public if such use is for information purposes and has not been expressly reserved: Provided, That the source is clearly indicated; (Sec. 11, P.D. No. 49)

According to the Sections 184 (b) and (c), such quotations, reproduction, etc is allowed provided that the source or name of the author if appearing on the work, should be mentioned. However, based on the facts, the first speech made by Senator Tito Sotto came from a blog as well as the second, and the third was from a text of his friend and that he had no knowledge that it was from the speech of late U.S. Senator Kennedy. None of the authors of these sources was cited by him. But are a blog and a speech covered and protected by the IPC? Nowhere in the IPC or in other laws is it stated that blogs and speeches cannot be used by others without permission from the author. A blog is not considered as a scholarly, scientific, literary or even an artistic work. A blog is an online journal based on someones experience and where one transmits his/her own thoughts and feelings. Thus, it cannot be considered as included in those

protected by the IPC. The same is with speeches. It is not among those enumerated in the IPC as protected works. Blogs and speeches are not considered as published works hence, using them without any permission from the author is not a wrongful act for they are not among those covered and protected by our laws, specifically the Intellectual Property Law.

CONCLUSION Senator Vicente Tito Sotto III cannot be criminally, civilly, and administratively liable for any valid legal ground for there is no law punishing his actions. If Senator Sotto is to be held guilty of plagiarism, there ought to be a law punishing it. Without such, then he is not liable for any offense. Other politicians as well have been guilty of committing acts of plagiarism such as Manny Pangilinan, Mikey Arroyo, etc. Even a Supreme Court Justice, Justice Mariano Del Castillo, plagiarized his ruling against elderly comfort women. But none of them were punished since we have no specific law against plagiarism. If we are to punish people who will commit plagiarism then we must enact such laws and corresponding penalties. But as of now, what we can only ask of those who commit plagiarism is a public apology. If indeed one has committed plagiarism then he may be asked to admit his wrongful act and do a public apology for the integrity and respect due to the original author of the work.