Sotto isn’t sorry, says chief of staff

MANILA, Philippines – “He can’t apologize for something he did not know.” 

With this statement, lawyer Hector Villacorta absolved his boss, Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III of liability in plagiarizing the post of an American blogger in his first speech against the Reproductive Health (RH) bill delivered Monday. Villacorta is Sotto’s chief of staff. 

In a phone interview on Friday, August 17, Villacorta told Rappler that he immediately apologized to blogger Sarah Pope through a message online after one of his staff members came forward and said, “I could have been the one not to attribute [the speech] to Sarah.”

Villacorta said as chief of staff, he took responsibility because he is in charge of coordinating staff work and research for Sotto. He, however, said that the senator should not be faulted. 

“[In Senator Sotto’s speech], he always says the catchall phrase: These are not my words. Hindi ako nagdu-dunung-dunungan (I am not pretending to be wise.),’” Villacorta said.

Villacorta added that he does not see any need to sanction the staff members because they committed the error “in good faith.” He also stressed that the information on blogs are part of public domain.

Rappler has been trying to reach Sotto but has not received a response as of posting time. 

The chief of staff issued what he called a “semi-apology” to Pope on Thursday after the Filipino Freethinkers, a supporter of the RH bill, spotted nearly verbatim similarities in Sotto’s speech and Pope’s blog.

Pope responded, “I do not agree with Senator Sotto’s position on this issue and he twisted the message of my blog to suit his own purposes against the women of the Philippines.”

Prior to Villacorta’s statement, Sotto explained that he and the blogger were quoting the same source: Doctor Natasha Campbell-McBride.

Sotto said Thursday morning, “Why should I quote a blogger?”

The senator also told the Inquirer, “I would rather that those who support the RH bill answer the issues I am raising instead of diverting the issue by criticizing me.”

‘Not elegant to quote blogger’

Villacorta said that while the staff may have failed to attribute at times, it did not make it a habit to source information from blogs. The staff is composed of a team of 7 lawyers and researchers.

“In hindsight, perhaps we should have mentioned that we also got it from Sarah’s blog but it may be inelegant to say that.”

Sotto’s chief of staff added, “There is no jurisprudence on that (quoting blogs) because blogs are part of public domain. They can test the liability of the senator but that is virgin territory, even in the US.” 

“Are you also going to accuse the Constitutional Commission of plagiarism for copying the Bill of Rights of other countries like the US?”

Villacorta said that both Sotto and Pope quoted McBride because the two used the phrase “according to.”

The chief of staff added that Sotto and his staff took the pains to cite and recite the speech’s book and newspaper sources even if this took up so much time on the Senate floor.

‘Print, Internet reinforce each other’

Villacorta admitted that he is not a netizen or a person well-versed with the use of the Internet.

He confirmed that the staff got information from the web also for the second speech of Sotto delivered on Wednesday.

“Like the meeting of [International Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret] Sanger and [Mahatma] Gandhi, that was proven by the Internet through a picture but it started with a book. Print and Internet reinforce each other. After a period, we don’t know what came from the book and what came from the Internet.”

Villacorta, however, denied that the staff copy-pasted the Internet article.

“I doubt it’s word for word because we’ve been going over and meeting about this research for months. It’s the product of our minds.”

Wait, there’s more 

Asked about the observation of Internet users that Sotto’s second speech seemed to have been sourced from 5 more bloggers, Villacorta said he was not aware of this.

“Show us first. We always cite our source naman. It’s hard to comment without seeing it side by side.”

Villacorta hoped that after his message to Pope, there would be “closure” on the issue because he did not want to have “a black hole of discussions.”

Journalist and blogger Raissa Robles, author Miguel Syjuco, and other netizens have pointed out similarities in Sotto’s second speech to blogs and articles on the Internet. Here are some samples:

 

Sotto’s speech: 

Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed she wrote in her book Woman and the New Race: “The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for IPPF.

But there was even a darker side to Margaret Sanger: a side that IPPF people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in “eugenics.” Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of hereditary to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.”

“Breaking up the family” by Filipino Marlon C. Ramirez:

Sanger was so intent on reducing family size that she seemed to not stop even at abortion. Many believe that, under the right circumstances, Sanger would have condoned infanticide. Indeed, she wrote in her book Woman And the New Race: “The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” This comes from the woman who formed the philosophical base for Planned Parenthood. You can also see that her interest in birth control was not just due to some humane concern for health of women (which birth control doesn’t help anyway), but was driven in part by her desire to encourage women to engage in sex without having children.

But there was another side of Margaret Sanger; a side that Planned Parenthood people try to cover up or explain away. That was her belief in eugenics. Eugenics is defined as “the application of the laws of heredity to physical and mental improvement, especially of the human race.” To Sanger this meant the systematic elimination (through birth control, including abortion) of all those people she and her cohorts considered to be of “dysgenic stock” in order to create a race of superior intellectuals.

 

Sotto’s speech:

The two activists met in December of 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control, population and the plight of women in India. At that time, Sanger staunchly advocated the global use of artificial contraceptives and, in order to make the acceptance of such contraceptives easier to the Indian populace, sought to make Gandhi an ally. While Sanger claimed she merely wanted to pay her respects and give a personal tribute to Gandhi, she coveted nothing less than his endorsement of the widespread use of artificial birth control methods. Gandhi firmly stood by his belief that the spiritual bonds of marriage are strengthened by sexual abstinence. He thus completely rejected Sanger’s plea for contraception as a tool to control population growth, fearing it would lead to an increase in non-procreative sex, which he viewed as immoral lust.

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that

“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”

Blog post ‘Gandhi’s Birth Control of Choice’:

I recently read an article about the correspondence and meeting between two of the most independent thinkers of the 20^th Century, Margaret Sanger and Mahatma Gandhi. The two activists met in 1936 when Sanger traveled to India to speak with Gandhi about birth control. By that time Sanger was advocating internationally for artificial contraceptives and sought to make Gandhi an ally.

Despite the fact that the movement was gaining popularity in a society with a serious poverty crisis, Gandhi was an outspoken critic of artificial birth control. His general attitude was that

“Persons who use contraceptives will never learn the value of self-restraint. They will not need it. Self-indulgence with contraceptives may prevent the coming of children but will sap the vitality of both men and women, perhaps more of men than of women. It is unmanly to refuse battle with the devil.”

 

Sotto’s speech:

In fact, in a study undertaken by Raymond Pearl, a John Hopkins professor and noted authority on this matter, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often proportionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.”

Also in a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population in Great Britain found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.

Blog called ‘Truth of Contraceptives’:

In 1939, Raymond Pearl, a Johns Hopkins professor and noted authority, wrote: “Those who practice contraception as part of their sex life, by their own admission, resort to criminally induced abortions about three times as often propotionately as do their comparable non-contraceptor contemporaries.”

-In Great Britain, in 1949, a report prepared for the Royal Commission on Population found that the incidence of induced abortion as a percentage of all pregnancies was nine times higher for women using contraceptives than for women not using birth control.

 

Villacorta said Sotto will continue with the third part of his speech when session resumes next week. He said the third and fourth chapters will focus on Filipino values and the supposed unconstitutionality of the RH bill. – Rappler.com

For more on the RH bill and the Senate, read: 

• Sotto’s staff admits plagiarism 
• Sotto: Why should I quote a blogger? 
• The 7 deadly sins of the RH bill, according to Sotto
• Battle over RH bill shifts to Senate
• RH bill and a tale of two senator-parents
• ‘RH bill harms women, the unborn’
• Pia Cayetano: 5 misconceptions about the RH bill
• Senate Bill 2865: The Reproductive Health Act of 2011