FOR the past few days, social media was replete with feedback on two issues from opposite ends of the spectrum: Sec. Robredo’s untimely death, and Sen. Tito Sotto alleged commission of plagiarism in his turno en contra for the RH Bill.
On Wednesday, Sen. Sotto delivered a privilege speech to explain his side on the issue. The senator said that the focus has since been diverted from the RH Bill to the issue of plagiarism.
In his defense, Sotto said that the negative comments/attacks made were all part of “a hatchet or demolition job” to discredit him (possibly from pro-RH Bill advocates, as part of their strategy) and to veer away from the issue at hand, and that he never “claimed to be an expert” on the subject matter, that is why he relied on the views and opinions of experts from the fields of science and law.
The senator also surmised that he might be the first senator to be victimized by cyber bullying, adding as a sidenote that he is working with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile in creating a bill that would define and regulate blogging in the Philippines.
Sotto said that there are those who wrote about suing him. However, he clarified that “there is no such crime as plagiarism in the Philippines,” and that the closest it could get to would be copyright infringement. He cited a statement he got from the Intellectual Property Rights Office (IPO) to support his claim, which states that ““the crime of plagiarism is not defined in our laws.”
After that, the senator proceeded to lambast those who have been attacking him in social media, saying that his life is an open book and that he is well-known, compared to his critics, who are hiding behind the cloak of anonymity in the internet.
He ends his speech by quoting lines from a poem written by comedian-actor Joey de Leon (who is his long-time friend and co-host from Eat Bulaga!) on plagiarism. He also requested that the paragraph he lifted from Sarah Pope (the blogger whom he allegedly plagiarized from) be removed from the Senate record.
Sotto skips the subject of Sarah Pope and the allegations that he also plagiarized from several other sources on the internet.
In Miguel Syjuco’s Thought Leaders column for Rappler.com: “Why Tito Sotto’s plagiarism matters,” the award-winning writer and novelist boldly expresses his thoughts on the issue. Some excerpts:
“Art, after all, is either plagiarism or revolution. (I quickly cite Gaugin, lest I also be accused.) Yet for Sotto’s artfully prepared speeches, his spokesperson denies the former. What we have left, then, is the latter. And in a sense, Sotto’s plagiarism was exposed by an ongoing revolution, of the social-media variety.”
“I, for one, was furious the senator had not only stolen words, but robbed them of their meaning, twisting the intent of the plagiarized authors to fit his purposes. I felt the untimely death of intellectual integrity was worth weeping over, ostentatiously, in public, because it’s the heart of public discourse.”
“In my own writing, I like to insert riffs on well-known literary works, pop-culture, and cheesy music, as easter-eggs for attentive readers. Philippine tourism campaigns swipe from other countries. And don’t we love the myriad parodies and plays-on-words of business names, such as the fishball cart with the Facebook logo as ‘Facebool,’ or the bakery ‘Bread Pit,’ or the Batangas balut wholesaler ‘Starducks.’ Such copyright violations aren’t just acceptable, they’re what makes being Pinoy punny.”
“This lenient environment is exactly what makes Sotto’s case unacceptable, because he didn’t appeal for leniency,” Syjuco wrote.
“Sotto could’ve bowed his head, declared mea culpa, disciplined his speech-writing hacks, and away it would’ve gone. But that’s not our way in our government, where there’s something of an omerta—made-men might whack a friend of yours, or a friend of mine, but never a friend of theirs.”
“And there’s the rub. Plagiarism may be Sotto’s peccadillo, but his second and greatest sin is arrogant impunity—the sort we see when public officials believe themselves above the law. To those he plagiarized, Sotto said: ‘Come on! Sue me.’”
“Make no mistake, Sotto’s plagiarism should concern every one of us. For those who support the bill, Sotto has affronted with denials, delays, lies, and obfuscations. For those who oppose the bill, Sotto has shortchanged a chance to present valid, properly researched, up-to-date arguments. For Filipinos of either stripe, Sotto has thumbed his nose at intellectual property rights, political accountability, and even good manners. He’s insulted our intelligence. He’s insulted us — we, the Filipino people,” Syjuco further wrote.
Meanwhile, Manuel Buencamino of InterAksyon.com reacts to Sotto’s privilege speech through his article, “Senator Sotto and me.”
“An apology would have laid the matter to rest; striking it off the Journal of the Senate as if it never happened will not. Sotto could have explained that he could not access the book of Natasha Campbell-McBride so he looked for references to McBride’s work and found it in a blog called ‘Sarah the healthy economist.’ Consequently, he copied and pasted the words of Sarah believing that they were direct quotes from McBride. Honest mistake. Sotto would have been forgiven for it. Hugs and kisses all around.”
“So, okay, plagiarism is not a criminal offense in this country. That’s settled. Sen. Vicente ‘Tito’ Sotto III is not a criminal. That’s settled too. We can lay the legal issue to rest.”
“The only issue remaining, at least for those who have not liberated themselves from the tyranny of delicadeza, is the shamelessness in the commission of a shameful act, the sin vergüenza-ness of plagiarism and the brazen rationalization that followed. Sotto is obviously not bothered by that at all. Shamelessness liberates. Sotto is a free man. I’m still a slave. That’s the last difference I can think of. For now,” wrote Buencamino.
While both parties (Sotto’s and his detractors’) are still unrelenting on the plagiarism issue, it brings to the forefront, a matter which has long been taken for granted: the need for a defined set of internet laws and regulations in the Philippines.
Yet, the biggest irony (and perhaps, even travesty) is to have Senators Sotto and Enrile co-author a “blogging” bill, when they both admit to being “illiternet,” which UrbanDictionary.com defines in three ways: “a person who is not e-literate; complete ignorance of the internet; or a person who is NOT new to the internet, but cannot grasp the concepts.”
But then again, to quote (and give due attribution to) Sotto’s own words: “I would rather be a clown and make people laugh, than criticize others.”
(AJPress)
