Monday, October 25, 2010

OPM: Outdated Pilipino Music

By Siesta-friendly

Ballads are not bad.  Slow music not detestable.  But all the time? Everywhere?  Come on.  Previously, ballad-heavy OPM (Original Pilipino Music) had to compete with American Top 40 songs, now there’s the undeniably engaging (even if unintelligible) K-Pop that’s gotten much local attention. Canto-pop and J-pop haven’t even crossed over to our shores yet.

Implementing measures to promote OPM, like E.O. 255 (Requiring All Radio Stations With Musical Format Programs To Broadcast A Minimum Of Four Original Pilipino Musical Compositions In Every Clockhour And For Other Purposes) which imposes a paltry fine of P100.00 per violation[1], is laughable. 

First of all, P100.00 is nothing, especially if there’s juicy payola coming from foreign recording companies.

Although the same E.O provides that “[t]he National Telecommunications Commission may, after due hearing, suspend or cancel the Certificate of Registration and Authority to operate of any radio station in the event of repeated violations of this Executive Order or its implementing rules and regulations”, that obviously hasn’t scared radio stations.  When’s the last time you heard 4 Pilipino songs in 1 hour from 1 radio station? 

Second, radio stations are getting away with it also because the audience is not complaining about the lack of OPM.  Why would they?

When was the last time you wanted to endure 4 Pilipino songs in 1 hour from 1 radio station?  When’s the last time you felt like dancing to OPM? Or got excited to hear a newly released local song? How many more times do we have to hear un-original remakes of cheerless OPM classics? When people do get up and dance, isn’t it because there’s a good foreign pop song playing?

Even local bands, which are, at least, trying to come up with original material are not appealing to the mainstream. Of course, they’re mostly into rock but it’s also because their music is generally just not catchy.  No budding Eraserheads nor Rivermaya in their midst.

Maybe we need to revive the Metropop Song Festival, or something like it.  And have them at least 2x a year.  Perhaps also hold a No-Ballad Singing Contest to reintroduce singer and audience together to the lively potential of Philippine pop.  OPM is dying. Certainly, in the wide world of pop, it’s at least outmoded.

If music is the universal language, OPM can survive only if people choose to listen to it, not because it is required on the airwaves.  It has to compete on its own merits against all the other music made available to the Filipino public. We have to play it by ear, not by executive order.



[1]  Sec. 2, E.O. 255.  July 25, 1987.


NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

By Your Own Hand or Not, who cares? (When Plagiarism isn’t Plagiarism according to the Supreme Court)


The Supreme Court recently held in In The Matter Of The Charges Of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 15, 2010), how certain acts of lifting direct quotes without making proper attributions in Justice De Castillo’s penned decision in Vinuya, et al. vs The Executive Secretary, et al. (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010) do not constitute plagiarism.

Let’s see for ourselves, shall we?

Lifted lines from the introductory chapter of Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law by Christian J. Tam, (Cambridge University Press 2005) as enumerated in the annex of Mr. Tams’ letter to the Supreme Court

The following are the lifted lines comprising 3 lines forming 1 paragraph of page 30 of the main text plus its relevant footnote.  None of the 3 lines are enclosed in quotation nor indented to indicate they were lifted from another’s work.  None of the lines are attributed.While the 3rd line has a footnote, the footnote begins with another line taken from the same unattributed source.

The Latin phrase ‘erga omnes’ thus has become one of the rallying cries of those sharing a belief in the emergence of a value-based international public order based on law. [However, as is so] often [the case], the reality is neither so clear nor so bright.  [W]hatever the relevance of obligations erga omnes as a legal concept, its full potential remains to be realized in practice. [69] [the changes made in the Vinuya decision are enclosed in parenthesis.]

_______
[69] Bruno Simma’s much-quoted observation encapsulates this feeling of disappointment:‘Viewed realistically, the world of obligations erga omnes is still the world of the “ought” rather than of the “is” ’The Charter of the United Nations: A commentary 125 (Simma, ed. 1995). See Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga omnes in International Law (2005) ... ”

As written, the footnote seems to merely state the writer’s comments to his main text paragraph.  It does not look like Bruno Simma is cited as the source of the 3rd line - much less the entire paragraph - especially in the absence of quotations or indentation.

The only reference to Tams (“See Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga omnes in International Law (2005). …”) gives the impression that Tams’ work might be read to gain more information on the matter. It does not make it appear that the entire paragraph on the main text or the introductory line of the footnote is taken from Tams’ book. 
       
Without indicating in any way that the above 4 lines were lifted word for word from another source, the writer makes it appear all the words and ideas are his.

The Supreme Court, however, explains the lack of plagiarism in all these instances as follows –

“…The Justice primarily attributed the ideas embodied in the passages to Bruno Simma, whom Tams himself credited for them.  Still, Footnote 69 mentioned, apart from Simma, Tams’ article as another source of those ideas. 

The Court believes that whether or not the footnote is sufficiently detailed, so as to satisfy the footnoting standards of counsel for petitioners is not an ethical matter but one concerning clarity of writing.  The statement “See Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (2005)” in the Vinuya decision is an attribution no matter if Tams thought that it gave him somewhat less credit than he deserved.  Such attribution altogether negates the idea that Justice Del Castillo passed off the challenged passages as his own.   

That it would have been better had Justice Del Castillo used the introductory phrase “cited in” rather than the phrase “See” would make a case of mere inadvertent slip in attribution rather than a case of “manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism.” If the Justice’s citations were imprecise, it would just be a case of bad footnoting rather than one of theft or deceit.  If it were otherwise, many would be target of abuse for every editorial error, for every mistake in citing pagination, and for every technical detail of form.”

Not an ethical matter but one concerning clarity of writing?  Mere inadvertent slip in attribution?  Bad footnoting?

Hmmm.  Sure.


The lines are too many to list but they comprise almost all 6 paragraphs of footnote 65 of the Vinuya decision.  The lines were taken from parts III-VI, pages 3-12 of Ellis’ article.  Nowhere in the entire Vinuya decision is Mark Ellis or his article cited.  Nowhere is there any indication that substantially all 6 paragraphs were not Justice Del Castillo’s words or ideas.


8 sentences, 8 footnotes (footnotes 70 - 78) in 3 paragraphs (the 2nd, 3rd and 4th to the last paragraphs) of the Vinuya decision were taken from different parts of the more than 50 pages of the Criddle & Fox-Decent article.  As with Mark Ellis, neither Criddle, Fox-Decent nor their article are cited in the entire Vinuya decision.  Unlike the lifted Ellis lines (which are found in a footnote), the Criddle & Fox-Decent lines form part of the main text, yet, no lines were with quotation nor were they indented to indicate they were sourced elsewhere. 

The Supreme Court explains the Ellis and Criddle & Fox-Decent citation snubs thus –

“… [Justice Del Castillo’s researcher] electronically “cut” relevant materials from books and journals in the Westlaw website and “pasted” these to a “main manuscript” in her computer that contained the issues for discussion in her proposed report to the Justice.  She used the Microsoft Word program.  Later, after she decided on the general shape that her report would take, she began pruning from that manuscript those materials that did not fit, changing the positions in the general scheme of those that remained, and adding and deleting paragraphs, sentences, and words as her continuing discussions with Justice Del Castillo, her chief editor, demanded.  Parenthetically, this is the standard scheme that computer-literate court researchers use everyday in their work.

Justice Del Castillo’s researcher showed the Committee the early drafts of her report in the Vinuya case and these included the passages lifted from the separate articles of Criddle-Descent and of Ellis with proper attributions to these authors.  But, as it happened, in the course of editing and cleaning up her draft, the researcher accidentally deleted the attributions.”  

It is one thing to accidentally delete attributions, but you have to use several strokes to “accidentally” delete quotation marks at the beginning and end of, and to delete the indentation encompassing, the lifted work. Unless, of course, they weren’t there in the first place. 

In ending, the Supreme Court noted that –

“What is important is that, in this case, Justice Del Castillo retained control over the writing of the decision in the Vinuya case ...  The Justice’s researcher was after all competent in the field of assignment given her.  She finished law from a leading law school, graduated third in her class, served as Editor-in Chief of her school’s Law Journal, and placed fourth in the bar examinations when she took it.  She earned a master’s degree in International Law and Human Rights from a prestigious university in the United States under the Global-Hauser program, which counsel for petitioners concedes to be one of the top post graduate programs on International Law in the world ...”

Justice Del Castillo is a former MTC judge, RTC judge and Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals.  He’s used to writing intellectual works.  Based on her credentials, so is his researcher.  How then, with all their writing experience put together, could numerous accidental deletions referencing 3 different sources and inappropriate referencing have occurred in one single work?

Intent now an element of plagiarism

Apart from excusing plagiarism, the Supreme Court has now also added an element to plagiarism.

In finding that the claim of “accidental removal of proper attributions to the three authors is credible,” the Supreme Court also pronounced that:

“ … plagiarism is essentially a form of fraud where intent to deceive is inherent.  [The petitioners’ theory that intent is not material in plagiarism] provides no room for errors in research, an unrealistic position considering that there is hardly any substantial written work in any field of discipline that is free of any mistake.  The theory places an automatic universal curse even on errors that, as in this case, have reasonable and logical explanations.”
             
Now, all plagiarists can claim lack of intent as an excuse for dishonesty.  Elsewhere, lazy, dishonest writers are celebrating …

In recent memory, we’ve already had a captain of industry and a Supreme Court justice both caught very publicly “unintentionally” copying another’s work.  It’s even more alarming when the university and the court concerned did not acknowledge the actions for what they really were: acts of plagiarism.  Giving credit where it is due is a deliberate act and its absence through accident or mere lack of intent is simply inexcusable.


NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

UNCIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: When pretense becomes offense

By Obiter07

A protester waltzes in while a mass is ongoing, shouts at some bishops and displays a placard.[1] His act of defiance had a thespian air as he was even in period costume.  Has a crime been committed?  It would appear so, at least as far as the statute books go.  Art. 133 of the Revised Penal Code provides:

“ARTICLE 133. Offending the religious feelings. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”

But it does contain a subjective test that some defense lawyers may have a field day over, that the acts must be “notoriously offensive” to the “feelings of the faithful.”

Based on jurisprudence, the acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing at or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II (1981), p. 75. Please see also People vs. Tecson as cited in Padilla, Criminal Law, Book II (1976), p. 171). Would asking priests to stay out of politics and reproductive measures qualify? Or is calling priests “Damaso” the hypocrite friar in one of the national hero’s books fall within what is prohibited by law?

Believe it or not, but there are actual cases on this provision of law as when the following was found to be notoriously offensive and criminal: (1) when a rock was thrown at a minister of the Iglesia ni Cristo while he was preaching and (2) when remarks were made that Christ was called the Anti-Christ,  that  the Church marked by a demon and that the Pope is the Commander of Satan (Ibid., citing  People vs. Migallos, CA-G.R.NO. 13619-R, Aug.5, 1955 and People vs. Mandorio).  However, it was found that there is no such offense in an instance where a Protestant maligned the Pope as a Catholic procession was passing through near the house where they were having a meeting (Ibid., citing People v. Gesulga, pp. 75-76). And entering an assembly of a congregation which was having chapel services while drunk and attempting to grab the song leader is only unjust vexation (Ibid. citing People vs. Nanoy). 

It should be noted, however, that the offense is judged from the point of view of the complainant, and not that of the offender.  As held by the Court in one case, “whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of fact which must be judged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise offensive to the feelings of those professing another faith.” PEOPLE vs. BAES, [G.R. No. 46000.  May 25, 1939.]

This boils down to the ageless debate on whether freedom of expression trumps the rights of other people to have peaceful meetings, even religious ones.   Does freedom of expression occupy a higher rung over that of worshippers exercising their freedom of religion?

There are worse crimes than holding up placards at a mass.  But there is a degree of polite discourse we may all wish to maintain where we can disagree without being disagreeable, when dialogue should be paramount over threats of excommunication and where faith must meet with what the people need to contend with every day. The tour guide may have had a valid message to convey, but there are venues and appropriate times for such protests.  Should it be done during a time of prayer, when we have so much to pray for now? The courts will say whether he should be criminally liable.  But in terms of civility, he is clearly guilty of lacking it.



[1] http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20101001-295403/Lawyers-post-bail-for-jailed-tour-guide

NEWER POST       |       PREVIOUS POST