Archive

Posts Tagged ‘reproductive health in the philippines’

maria ressa of rappler.com interview with atty. imbong, lawyer for petitioners against the RH Law at the SC

January 3, 2013 1 comment

a few things:

  • atty. imbong keeps referring to the interviewer as “ressa” or in many parts as “riza”. the interviewer’s name is maria ressa.
  • the interview questions and answers are actually a rehash of the debates done in twitter on the rh bill specially those raised by the anti rh bill groups who claim to be devout catholics and to a large part those raised in the debates in the senate and congress also raised by the anti rh bill senators and congressmen.
  • the interview hardly touched on the points of law, arguments or merits raised by the petitioners against the RH Law at the SC.
  • in today’s interview maria ressa of rappler.com had asked the following questions from the #gangsters
  • from popi sunga at around 2:50

photo

  • ressa extends the invitation from #gangsters for a tweetup with atty imbong at around 5:25 of the 3rd video. ressa also says “guys, gotta get a name that is ano…”

photo (1)

20130104-095533.jpg

RH Bill now RH Law, Republic Act No. 10354 – aquino signed the bill into law December 21, 2012

December 28, 2012 Leave a comment

representative edcel lagman has said president aquino signed the bill into law last december 21, 2012. but no announcement has been made by malacanang. in twitter, malacanang spokesperson abi valte has said the palace is neither denying or confirming that the rh bill has been signed into law.

rappler.com however has published a signed copy of the bill.

is something up?

rh law sigs

source : http://www.rappler.com/nation/18728-aquino-signs-rh-bill-into-law

MANILA, Philippines – As promised, the Philippines enters 2013 with a Reproductive Health law.

President Benigno Aquino III signed into law Republic Act No. 10354 or the “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012” Friday last week, December 21, according to a copy obtained by Rappler. Malacañang is yet to issue a formal announcement.

It was signed without fanfare, confirmed House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II on Friday, December 28.

The RH law provides universal access to reproductive health care services and information, which do not prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum as determined by the Food and Drug Administration. It prioritizes poorer households as identified by the National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction.

A new law only takes effect 15 days after it is published in the Official Gazette or in at least two newspapers.

Below is a certified true copy of the signed measure:

source : http://www.rappler.com/nation/18728-aquino-signs-rh-bill-into-law

House Of Representsatives (HOR) Champions win on RH Bill – passed on 2nd reading

December 13, 2012 Leave a comment

kerry kennedy : sotto plagiarized words of my dad, offended at distortion of Robert F. Kennedy’s words

November 10, 2012 Leave a comment

source: http://www.rappler.com/nation/15858-kennedy-to-sotto-this-is-a-clear-case-of-plagiarism

—–

makes me wonder what disappointed kerry kennedy – the plagiarism that senator sotto did or that senator sotto didn’t understanductivand misused the quoted text?

my son asked me about this when he saw the nes on tv. i explained to him kerry is the daughter of the great robert kennedy and that she sent out a letter regarding the plagiarism that senator sotto did on the kennedy speech. i told my son kerry is also the president of this group called Robert F. Kennedy Center For Justice & Human Rights.

i told my son kerry called out the sotto on two things – that senator sotto no doubt plagiarized the speech of her dad and that sotto used the words he plagiarized to stop the rh bill which among other things promote free and open choice for women on their reproductive option while the passage that was plagiarized was meant to promote freedom and human rights.

my son who is 15 years old looked at me and plainly said : “it’s the opposite!”.

this is a 15 year old son who reached the correct conclusion on what sotto did just a split second after i explained to him what happened. how can a 63 year old and a senator at that not get that?

the kennedy name and family is one of the icons of America and of freedom. they  occupy a large part of what is right and good about america. for robert kennedy’s speech used the way sotto did must be the one that hurts the most for kerry.

i don’t think she would have minded so much if the speech was plagiarized for the same values and reasons their family stand for and have been known for. but the plagiarized parts were actually used for things the kennedy family have been against for generations.

in twitter i said that the tagalog translation of kerry’s letter on the sotto plagiarism is this “nangopya na, tanga  pa”.

and   yes, senator sotto, kerry writes in tagalog too.

MANILA, Philippines – Long is the saga of Sottogate, yet allegations against Senator Tito Sotto continue.

Now 4 US copyright holders have spoken out, including the president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights: RFK’s daughter, Kerry Kennedy.

All this began again the other day, when Sarah Pope, Janice Formichella, and Peter Engelman issued a joint statement alleging that Sotto had “infringed on our intellectual property rights and plagiarized.”

Their protest was swiftly dismissed by Sotto and his staff, who, according to GMA News, “questioned its authenticity, pointing out that it did not even have an official letterhead.”

read full article here: http://www.rappler.com/nation/15858-kennedy-to-sotto-this-is-a-clear-case-of-plagiarism

8 REASONS WHY CATHOLICS SUPPORT RH by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago

September 16, 2012 Leave a comment

8 REASONS WHY CATHOLICS SUPPORT RH by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago

by RH Bill Portal on Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 10:58pm ·
 (Keynote speech at the program sponsored by the Catholics for Reproductive Health, on15 September 2012, at the UP College of Social Work and Development)

 REASON ONE
The Catholic Church Does Not Consider Anti-RH Teaching as Infallible

Theology consists of critical reflection on faith. St. Anselm of Canterbury gave to us the classic definition of theology as: “Faith seeking understanding.” But theology is the result not only of faith, but also of certain normative rules which fall into two categories: doctrines and dogmas. Doctrines consist of beliefs or teachings which receive the official approval of the Church.

But by contrast, dogmas, which literally mean “what is right,” are doctrines that are taught definitively and promulgated with the highest solemnity. In other words, dogmas are the definitive rules of faith. If you reject a dogma, you become a heretic. Parenthetically, it is very strange that our Church has failed to enumerate what are the Catholic dogmas.

A teaching which is dogma is infallible; but a teaching which is mere doctrine is not infallible. A doctrine can change over time. Thus, the 1973 Mysterium Ecclesiae, a declaration issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith states: “The expressions of revelation are historically conditioned, and therefore the meaning is not always self-evident to those in some other historical setting. The meaning in dogmatic language may change from one historical period to another. The truth itself may be expressed incompletely.”

In his classic bestseller, the 1994 revised edition of the book entitled Catholicism, Richard P. McBrien of the University of Notre Dame, said: “The Church has never explicitly claimed to such infallibility on a moral question.” The RH issue is a moral question. The Catholic Church has never claimed that any pronouncement on the RH issue is infallible.

And in the 1996 book Christ Among Us, Anthony Wilhelm said that on the question of contraception: “The large majority of theologians agree that no question of infallibility is involved.”

REASON TWO
The Catholic Enjoys Freedom of Conscience

Every Catholic, like any citizen, enjoys freedom of conscience. In fact, modern theology now recognizes the primacy of conscience over mere doctrines formulated by certain clerics. In 1965, Pope Paul 6 issued an encyclical letter entitled Dignitatis Humanae, also known as Declaration on Religious Freedom. The Pope wrote: “Man perceives and acknowledges the imperatives of the divine law through the mediation of conscience. In all his activity, a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of living. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.”

In 1967, the same Pope Paul 6 issued another encyclical entitled Populorum Progreso, also known as “On the Development of Peoples.” The Pope said: “It is for the parish to decide, with full knowledge of the matter, on the number of their children . . . in all these they must follow the demands of their own conscience.”

The 1971 statement by the US Sacred Congregation for the Clergy states: “Conscience is invulnerable and no person is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his (or her) conscience.”

Years later, in 1993, Pope John Paul 23 issued his encyclical entitled Veritatis Splendor, also known as Splendor of Truth. The Pope said: “The authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. The Church puts herself always and only in the service of conscience.”

And in 1996, in the book Christ Among Us, which I have already cited, Anthony Wilhelm wrote that some “500 American theologians, in concert with many theologians throughout the world, asserted that for grave reasons Catholics may follow their conscience this matter even though the Pope has spoken.”

Quoting Andrew Greeley, both a priest and socialist, Wilhelm reached the following conclusion: “It is a clear teaching that, while erroneous decisions might be made in following one’s conscience, one who has tried to inform one’s conscience must then follow it.”

REASON THREE
RH Observes the “Preferential Option for the Poor,” Under Liberation Theology

Liberation theology is the theory which interprets liberation from social, political, and economic oppression as an anticipation of eschatological or post-death salvation. The following are the basic principles of liberation theology:

  • It is the Church and not merely the Catholic hierarchy, which is a sacrament.
  • By Church, we mean the whole People of God, not just the hierarchy.
  • The whole People of God participates in the mission of Christ, and not just in the mission of the Catholic hierarchy.
  • The mission of the Church includes service to those in need, and, parenthetically, service to the women of the poor. The mission of the Church is not limited to the preaching of the gospel or the celebration of the sacraments.

In his 1988 book, A Theory of Liberation, Gustavo Gutierrez wrote that the preferential option for the poor is central in liberation theology. He advocated giving “preference to the poorest and most needy sectors.” He reminded Catholics of the statement made by Pope John Paul 23 just before the opening of Vatican 2 that the Church is called upon to be a church of the poor. Gutierrez said: “Let me say only that we have here two aspects of the church’s life that are both demanding and inseparable: universality and preference for the poor.”

REASON FOUR
RH is Part of Today’s Sense of the Faithful, Also Known as Sensus Fidelium

Literally, sensus fidelium means “the sense of the faithful.” It refers to doctrinal truth recognized by the whole body of the faithful. In theology, the sense of the faithful belongs to the individual believer within the community of the faithful. In other words, God teaches us not only through the priests and the bishops, but also through the laity, to whom God gives understanding of the faith.

In opposing the RH bill, certain members of the Catholic religious fail to listen effectively to the sense of the faithful. The Catholic clergy have a moral duty to take into consideration the experiences and consciousness of the laity. The religious should descend from the pulpit and consult with parishioners on RH. Today we find some of the male religious issuing their orders and directives from the pulpit, or in other words using the bully pulpit. Some of them manage only to appeal to blind faith, instead of participating in a consultative process with the Catholic laity, particularly the poor and the underprivileged.

Read more…

sotto on rh bill is the laughing stock of social media, he victimized himself – patricia evangelista

September 9, 2012 Leave a comment

The lightning rod

 By  

Tito Sotto is a victim, or so Tito Sotto claims. He believes he is the focus of a concerted effort by the heavily funded supporters of the Reproductive Health bill, all of whom are desperate to demonize him and weaken his resolve. He suspects he is the first senator to be made victim of cyberbullying. He has been insulted, criticized and threatened with lawsuits. His history has been exploited. It is a hatchet job, he says, a demolition job.

The senator is correct when he says that plagiarism has become the issue, instead of the nuances of the bill itself. He is also correct when he talks about the online response to his speeches. He is the laughingstock of cyberspace. “Sinotto” is a trending hashtag for plagiarized lines. The face that once decorated blockbuster movie billboards is a Facebook meme. When the senator used translated-into-Filipino chunks of Robert F. Kennedy’s 1966 Affirmation speech in his latest privilege speech, the online community responded with a slew of translated song lyrics and movie lines from Lady Gaga to Cherie Gil, all attributed to Tito Sotto.

He also finds it odd that none of his opponents, not a single one of his critics, has attempted to rebut the ideas he has put forward in his privilege speeches.

“I have not heard a response to any of the criticisms I have thrown against the RH bill.”

The senator is not correct. It is true that the plagiarism issue has made him less believable, far less credible, but advocates of the Reproductive Health bill have refuted his ideas point by point, in columns and blogs and television interviews, establishing his sources as outdated, his claims misrepresentations, and his statistics misinterpreted, while pointing out the fundamental factual error in his emotional claim that his child died in 1975 because his wife had ingested birth control pills. The pill he specified, Diane, was yet to be distributed the year he lost his son.

Read more…

the copy empire of google senator tito sotto

September 8, 2012 2 comments

life on twitter has not been this interesting since google senator tito sotto revealed himself at the senate floor a few weeks ago. aside from the continuing drama that sotto has been doing, a few other things have evolved that we should all know about.

we are putting here for your “dagdag kaalaman”.

we saw this on twitter from @isupportRHBill

we do not know the location of the above and we also do not know if that is where all the sottohan happens.

read more about google senator tito sotto and his achievements in the senate:

serial plagiarist Senator Tito Sotto plagiarizes AGAIN in his september 5 speech, this time robert f. kennedy #rhbill

September 5, 2012 40 comments

this just exploded once again on twitter just a few hours after senator sotto delivered his 4th and last privilege speech at the senate floor just today. apparently senator sotto, the hero plagiarist of the anti rh bill advocates and the serial plagiarist in the philippine senate  did it AGAIN today. this time he plagiarized the last part of his speech from a speech by the great Robert F. Kennedy, “Day of Affirmation Address” speech delivered on june 6, 1966.

abs-cbn’s TV Patrol reported tonight that senator said the english parts were just “texted to him by a friend”. also of interest was his answer to senator jinggoy estrada’s question to him if there was any part of his speech was plagiarized. sotto replied there was none and the way he made sure of that was he delivered the speech in filipino.

of course he lied. his speech did contain plagiarized parts.

sotto also probably thinks translating it to filipino is not plagiarim.

here is the side by side comparison of the speeches we got from here : https://twitter.com/ChiliMedley/status/243281155581935618

the above pic was posted by Michel Eldiy (@ChiliMedley)

senator sotto’s speech todayhttp://anc.abs-cbnnews.com/articles/605/sen-sottos-turno-en-contra-speech-on-rh-bill-parts-3-4-as-prepared-for-delivery/

speech of robert f kennedy herehttp://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/RFK-Speeches/Day-of-Affirmation-Address-news-release-text-version.aspx

the plagiarized parts of the kennedy speech is on paragraph #34 (at around the last 1/4 of the speech; the paragraph starts with:  “Give me a place to stand,” said Archimedes….” ) of the kennedy speech while sotto said them on the second to the last paragraph of his speech (last paragraph is “Maraming salamat po.”)

PDI article, september 6:

Sotto does it again, channels Robert F. Kennedy in Filipino

 By 

Did Robert F. Kennedy know how to speak Filipino?

This appears to be the gist of Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III’s defense amid new allegations of plagiarism after he delivered the fourth and last part of his “turno en contra” speech against the reproductive health bill.

It took bloggers less than two hours to find out that Sotto did it again.

A tweet from a certain Michel Eldiy at 5:30 p.m., more than an hour after the Sotto speech, triggered online discussions on the supposed intellectual dishonesty of the senator.

“Not true that last part of Sotto’s speech is original. See Day of Affirmation speech of Robert Kennedy in 1966 in South Africa,” said Eldiy, who goes by the Twitter handle, “ChiliMedley.”

She then tweeted a link to the Kennedy speech and later compared it with the speech of Sotto.

Sought for comment, the senator said: “It was texted to me by a friend.

“I found the idea good. I translated it into Tagalog [Filipino]. So what’s the problem?” Sotto told the Philippine Daily Inquirer when asked about his reaction to the fresh accusations.

“Ano? Marunong nang mag-Tagalog si Kennedy? (What now? Does Kennedy now know how to speak in Tagalog)?” he added.

In a separate text message, the senator lamented that proponents of the RH bill were nitpicking

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/264818/oops-sotto-did-it-again

news article from abs-cbn, september 5.

Sotto’s last speech copied from Kennedy?

by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNnews.com
Posted at 09/05/2012 6:57 PM | Updated as of 09/05/2012 6:59 PM

MANILA, Philippines –  Did Senator Tito Sotto, who has been accused of plagiarism, copy yet again from someone else in the last part of his “turno en contra” privilege speech against the reproductive health (RH) bill on Wednesday?

Social media users called out Sotto anew, accusing him of only translating parts of a speech originally delivered by the late US Senator Robert F. Kennedy.

CBCP answers fr joaquin bernas on rh bill via print ad at philippine daily inquirer

August 31, 2012 2 comments

this was published as a 3/4 page print ad at today’s philippine daily inquirer on page 11.  it is a direct reaction to the articles that fr. joaquin bernas, a jesuit has been publishing in his column in the same newspaper on the rh bill.

fr. bernas is a prominent filipino jesuit in the country respected and admired by all for being one of the country’s most authoritative on philippine law. fr. bernas teaches law at the ateneo law school and was a member of the constitutional convention that drafted the current constitution of the country. fr. bernas is often called by the courts and other lawyers for his opinion on matters of law.

we have printed here many of the important articles fr. bernas has written on the rh bull. (click here : https://2010presidentiables.wordpress.com/?s=bernas)

this is the first time that the cbcp has directly answered fr. bernas on his views on the rh bill. fr. bernas has been publishing his views on the rh bill for many months now without a reaction from the cbcp. we give an explanation on this “sudden” reply by the cbcp to fr. bernas.

the print ad reply of the cbcp must have been triggered by the recent controversy that is still brewing right now on the ateneo professors’ stand on the rh bill. 192 ateneo professors have recently released a statement saying they support the rh bill and are calling for congress to immediately pass it into law. this is the thrid time that the ateneo professors have released such a statement but this one was different in that a large number, 192 in all have signed on to the statement. the first statement of the ateneo professors only had 60 professors signing up (“catholics can support the th bill in good conscience”)

read relevant articles on the ateneo professors support on the rh bill here: (click to read)

a bigger controversy was sparked when a permanent member bishop of the CBCP called for the ateneo to investigate the ateneo professors for their stand on the rh bill and said that they should be sanctioned, in fact fired from their jobs for their stand. the bishop also said catholic schools that do not teach the stand of the church on the rh bill should lose their “catholic” status.

the very next day the bishop made the threat of removing the “catholic status” of the ateneo and asking for the ateneo to fire the professors from their jobs, fr. jett villarin, president of the ateneo de manila university published an open letter to the ateneo community at the ateneo website.

fr. villarin in his letter did not say the ateneo professors will be given any sanction, will not be fired from their jobs and instead he even appreciated the efforts of the ateneo professors at forwarding their stand on the rh bill. the ateneo president also reiterated that as a catholic school, the ateneo is anti rh bill but respects the individual stand of the professors which was contrary to the university’s stand.

some things on the CBCP statement:

  • we find it strange that the name of fr. bernas is mentioned in this statement posted at the CBCP for Life website but has been deleted in the print ad released at the Philippine Daily Inquirer. we wonder what the reason is for that change.
  • this statement admits the CBCP stand against the rh bill is not based on theology,  “It is also good to point out that the church teaching regarding contraceptives is not based on Faith or revelation”.
  • it confirms our view that the CBCP’s opposition on the rh bill is based on Humanae Vitae, the encyclical pope paul VI released in 1968. (click to read here: Humanae Vitae encyclical – the catholic church’s basis for it’s stand on birth control)
  • it specifically basses its objection on “natural law”
  • humanae vitae and natural law while talke about by the church are not infallible and not dogma. a pope need to declare a church teaching to be infallible or dogma. no such thing has been done for both.
  • infallible encyclicals or dogma need to be followed by all catholics. it is a sin for catholics not to follow them.
  • since humanae vitae and natural law are not infallible and not dogma, catholics can treat these only as guidelines or food for thought. they have the freedom to follow it or not.
  • the above has been the position of fr. bernas and the ateneo professors.

(note : highlights are mine)

Defense of the Stand of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines on the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill)

Bishop of Antipolo defends the CBCP.

One of the main reasons, if not the main reason, why the Catholic Church is against the House Bill 4244 (Reproductive Health Bill or Responsible Parenthood Bill) is that the bill directs the government to promote contraception and to give free contraceptives to people. According to Father Bernas, SJ (Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, May 23, 2011), this opposition of the Church is against religious freedom. He says that, because of religious freedom, “the state should not prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their beliefs nor may churchmen compel President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious belief.”

First of all, by opposing the RH Bill, the Catholic Church is not moving for the ban of contraceptives (the non-abortifacient ones), although she would be happy if these contraceptives were banned. At present, in the Philippines, anyone can buy contraceptives from drugstores and even from some “convenience stores”. What the Church is against, I repeat, is that government should promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people. Therefore it is wrong to say that the Church wants the government to “prevent people from practicing responsible parenthood according to their religious belief” and that the Catholic churchmen are compelling “President Aquino, by whatever means, to prevent people from acting according to their religious beliefs.” What the church does is to try to convince President Aquino and our senators and congressmen not to enact a law that directs the government to promote contraception and provide free contraceptives to people.

It is also good to point out that the church teaching regarding contraceptives is not based on Faith or revelation, although it is confirmed by our Faith. This church teaching is based on natural law, which we know through natural reason. By studying through correct reasoning the nature of the human person, we arrive at this teaching regarding contraception. All human beings, Catholic or not, are obliged to act according to right reason. By the efforts of the Church to go against the RH Bill, the Church is not imposing her religious beliefs on others. She is trying to stop a bill which is against natural law, a law which all human beings, Catholic or not, should follow. The RH Bill, judged from the principles of natural law, is against the good of the human person and the common good. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in its “Doctrinal Note regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life” tells us that all citizens, including Catholics, have the right “to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good.” In a democracy, any group of citizens has the right to campaign and lobby so that what they consider to be good for the country are enacted into law and what they deem to be harmful for the country are not enacted into law.

Read more…

senator sotto’s legacy- sotto makes it to New York Times on the rh bill

August 30, 2012 2 comments

the honorable senator tito sotto has made it to the big apple, at least at the New York Times on the speeches he has been making on the rh bill at the senate floor. we think this piece by miguel syjuco is an excellent piece that gives very good snapshots of the legacy of the senator at the philippine senate.

sotto’s latest rant on the rh bill at the senate floor gave us these:

  • sotto thinks he is immune from criticism and disagreement from social media netizens. sotto in his latest rant at the senate floor practically spent 99% of this speech complaining about how he has been criticized for his plagiarized speech.
  • not only that, sotto has threatened to pass a bill to stop or control bloggers and netizens from social media.
  • president noynoy aquino also makes speeches and he also gets criticized by social media netizens but we have not heard the president complain, much less threaten netizens of censorship. sotto apparently feels otherwise.
  • he spent 99% of his speech complaining about the criticisms and disagreements thrown at him by social media netizens, the balance 1% he spent on one sentence, at the very end of his speech – he asked the senate to remove from the senate records the plagiarized parts of his speech that he delivered on the floor.
  • to this date, sotto has not admitted he has plagiarized parts of his speech but now we wonder why he needed to ask the senate to remove parts of his speech from the senate record.

A Plagiarist’s Rant Against Birth Control

By MIGUEL SYJUCO Published: August 29, 2012

WHILE anatomically illiterate politicians in America babble about “legitimate rape,” a Filipino legislator opposed to birth control has been shedding crocodile tears in Parliament and plagiarizing speeches to bolster the case against reproductive rights.

On Aug. 13, the Senate majority leader, Tito Sotto, wept while addressing his assembled peers. The former actor told the Senate that birth-control pills, used by his wife in 1974, had led to the death of their newborn son a year later. The emotional scene shut down the day’s debate. It was the latest obstruction to passing a reproductive health law that has languished for 14 years.

Proponents of the reproductive health bill say it will address poverty, women’s rights, infant and maternal mortality, and overpopulation in a poor nation crowded with 94 million people. Though contraceptives are currently available, the general population can’t afford them. The bill seeks to offer natural and artificial birth-control options, reproductive health care and sex education in public schools.

Opponents, like Mr. Sotto and the powerful Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, saycontraception is akin to abortion. They claim the bill is an elitist and foreign conspiracy to corrupt a country in which 80 percent of the population is Catholic. They fear the erosion of family values, state intrusion on religious freedom, tacit approval of promiscuity and side effects of oral contraceptives.

Two days later, news that Mr. Sotto had plagiarized his speech spilled across blogs, Twitter and Facebook. Careful readers proved that he’d copied and pasted, without citation, large portions from as many as at least five online sources. Among them were the writings of Sarah Pope, who blogs as “the Healthy Home Economist”; a New York University Web site on the notable birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger; and an American activist named Janice Formichella, writing for Feminists for Choice. What’s more, the senator twisted their words for his own purposes.

Mr. Sotto forcefully denied responsibility rather than confessing and offering an apology. When Ms. Pope blogged her dismay at being plagiarized, the senator declared on Filipino TV: “Why would I quote from a blogger? She’s just a blogger.” His chief of staff, Hector Villacorta, told reporters that blogs aren’t copyrighted, governments are exempt from copyright laws, and parliamentary immunity protects the senator. Besides, the Philippines “plagiarized the U.S. Constitution,” he said. “Even our image was copied from God. We are all plagiarists.”

God, it seems, is also on Mr. Sotto’s side.

Read more…

unheard women of palawan speak on family planning & the rh bill

August 22, 2012 Leave a comment

the continuing saga of Sarah Pope, the blogger senator tito sotto plagiarized

August 16, 2012 Leave a comment

we will be aggregating posts on the blogs of sarah, (the healthy home economist) on the alleged plagiarism charge on senator tito sotto. these posts are available on these sites :

this will make it easier for everyone to appreciate the posts made so far on her sites.

notice : these are actual screen caps from her blogs, nothing added, nothing removed. and senator sotto – everything here is properly referenced and acknowledged. (ahem)

sarah posted these comments on her facebook page:

sarah was referring to this post by a certain atty. hector villacorta who claims to be the chief of staff of senator sotto.

caution : we have no way of confirming if the person who posted that on her site is really from atty. villacorta nor do we know if the atty is senator sotto’s chief of staff.

—-

here is the latest:

Sotto’s office admits copying US blog

by Jojo Malig, ABS-CBNNews.com
Posted at 08/16/2012 9:45 PM | Updated as of 08/16/2012 11:04 PM
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Senator Tito Sotto’s chief of staff on Thursday night admitted that they copied the work of an American blogger in the lawmaker’s turno en contra speech on the reproductive health (RH) bill.

Atty. Hector Villacorta, in a message posted on the Facebook page of Sarah Pope, said it was the senator’s staff who lifted the content of the blogger’s work without attributing it to her.

Read more…

%d bloggers like this: