The Manila Times Govt encouraging bounty hunters A


REPORTER sought Sen. Serge Osmena’s opinion on the


“P200-million” bounty for any information leading to the arrest of fugitive Sen. Ping Lacson. “P200 million? For that amount of money, I will look for Senator Lacson myself!” Serge replied. Of course, the


amount of-


fered by the Department of Jus- tice (DOJ) is actually P2 mil- lion, not P200 million. The P2 million may not be enough to turn well-heeled senators like Serge into bounty hunters but those with more pressing needs for moolah might be induced to. And this is one of the rea- sons why the camp of Senator Ping is howling in protest. “Senator Lacson is not an out-


law in the Wild West!” protested lawyer Alexander Poblador on the offer of bounty. Like Serge, I find it unfortunate that Senator Ping is now a sub- ject of a bounty. The DOJ offered the P2 million after the National


Bureau of Investigation failed to locate Senator Ping, who is re- portedly in the country under the protection of a businessman. He has been in hiding since January 2010, a few days before he was charged with the murder of pub- licist Bubby Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito. Perhaps, the DOJ believes that the only way it could flush Senator Ping out is by offering a bounty for his capture. The camp of Senator Ping has


been saying that the case against him is very weak. Senator Ping himself had justified his going on the lam by saying he did not expect to get any justice from the administration of then President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. With these statements, one should expect him to come out in the open and face the “weak raps” filed against him. In a phone patch interview with Senate reporters last Wednesday, Poblador said Sena- tor Ping would surface only if the


EFREN L. DANAO


DOJ reinvestigates the double murder case and the arrest war- rant issued by the courts against him was withdrawn. I say, he should surface without any con- ditions. I know, he had professed innocence and claimed that the PAOCTF men also charged with double murder were reporting directly to then President Erap Estrada and not to him. (Inciden- tally, this triggered the total rift between him and Erap and Sen. Jinggoy Estrada.) I don’t know if he believes that the wheels of justice will follow the straight path under the Aquino administration which he


Plagiarism T


HE issue of who owns origi- nal thought or unique work— a book, a piece of artwork, a sci- entific invention, or even official correspondence and court deci- sions—has set forth a frenzy of blog and radio commentary, me- dia attention and academic dis- cussion of late. In this day and age of instantaneous communication and Internet-driven media and knowledge-exchange, authorial ownership or copyright claims have become all the more press- ing concerns, which encroach into a wide range of arenas: the arts and media, the judiciary and legal system, academia and the scientific community. But what all of this boils down to is accountability and respon- sibility for the actions individu- als take vis-à-vis the vast universe of available information he or she accesses, uses, claims, appropri- ates or manipulates one way or another. Plagiarism is the access- ing and appropriation of thought or ideas previously written by another without proper acknowl- edgement, or to use a precise term, attribution.


Plagiarism, after all, comes from the Latin plagiarius, which means to kidnap. To plagiarize is to “kidnap” ideas or pieces of work from someone else, to take from someone else’s work coer- cively or unjustly, in the sense that this is done with the intent of passing off citations taken from another source as one’s own. As such, this intent is seen as mali-


NERIC ACOSTA


cious, presuming bad faith on the part of the one who “kidnaps.” In the recent brouhaha on pla- giarism in the country, what has been drawn to the center has been no less than the venerable Supreme Court—and its stand and overall comportment on pla- giarism involving one of its own justices and a decision he had penned. The justice in the eye of this storm is Justice Mariano del Castillo, who wrote the decision on a petition of several Filipino comfort women during the Japa- nese Occupation seeking redress and just compensation. Del Castillo issued an unfavo-


rable verdict, saying that Japan could not be taken to task for the comfort women issue as sex slav- ery is not a crime against human- ity—but not without referring to legal opinion or commentary os- tensibly lifted from other scholarly work abroad. What made matters worse was that the citations lifted from such work were used to ar- gue points to defend a judicial decision that was patently con- trary to the very idea such schol- arly work was presenting. Several professors of the Uni-


versity of Philippines College of Law, among other organizations and sectors, have been aghast and have raised a howl, calling no less on the Justice to own up to the transgression and resign. The Su- preme Court’s response to this was a collegial decision, save for three dissenting opinions, to clear Justice del Castillo of wrongdo- ing saying that the failure to at- tribute sources of written ideas was not intentional, inadvertent and therefore not in violation of any code or law. In a rather ab- surd, if unjust and vengeful, twist, the Court demanded that the UP College of Law professors “show cause” instead why they should not be reprimanded for calling the Supreme Court’s attention on the burning issue at hand. What does this all say? More than plagiarism and the lack of attribution, what is at stake here is what we can call the three A’s of authorial integrity, accountability, and ascendancy. Every work origi- nally produced or authored by an individual—or work that includes properly-attributed information and citations—has to have integ- rity, from the root word meaning integra, or to make whole. This means any written work should be seen as sound, credible, legiti- mate—and honest. Accountability simply means


that we take responsibility for the actions we take—for the work that we produce or the informa- tion we access and use in what- ever way. And ascendancy, flow-


ing from both authorial integrity and accountability, is about es- tablishing the moral high ground, setting an honorable ex- ample or serving as an inspiration to the audience that ultimately uses or benefits from the kind of work produced. The average law student or right-thinking citizen for that matter is led to ask: if no one, least of all, the institutions and leaders of society who ought at all times to set the highest ethi- cal standards, owns up to mis- takes and more serious violations of law, how then do we build or maintain social trust? If integrity is thrown into doubt, or account- ability is rejected, how can one claim moral ascendancy? When a prominent business leader is seen as having plagiarized parts of a graduation speech he deliv- ers, or government agency is said to have copied parts of a logo for its public relations campaign from that of another country, or a Supreme Court Justice appropriates arguments not originally his own in a court decision, what is inevitable for many is a sense of betrayal, doubt or disappointment. That is why such controversies tend to fester because in the end such sentiments are by and large affective, visceral and real—and as far as feelings go, not, verita- bly, subject to copyright infringe- ment or plagiarism.


opinion@manilatimes.net When a word can either be a noun or an adjective


ET me share with you two in- teresting questions about Eng- lish usage that were posed to me in Jose Carillo’s English Forum three days ago. Here’s the first from a Forum member who goes by the use- name Sky2: “Which of these sentence pairs are correct? (1) ‘We are family’ or ‘We are a family?’ (2) ‘They are fam- ily’ or ‘They are a family’? (3) ‘They are couple’ or ‘They are a couple’?” I explained to Sky2 that both sentences in Items 1 and 2 are grammatically correct. In the sen- tence “We are family,” the word “family” is functioning as an ad- jective; it works as a adjective complement to the subject “we.” On the other hand, in “We are a family,” the word “family” is functioning as a noun, with “a family” serving as a noun com- plement to the subject “we.” The meaning of both sentences is practically the same, but “We are family” is more idiomatic than “We are a family.” (The same analysis, of course, applies to the usage of “family” in “They are family” and “They are a family.”)


L JOSE A. CARILLO


In Item 3, though, only “They are a couple” is the idiomatically correct usage. The construction “They are couple” isn’t used in speech in the same way as “We are family” or “They are family.” Native English speakers just don’t have the same level of comfort when saying “They are couple” as when saying “We are family” or “They are family,” so “They are couple” hasn’t become accept- able in conventional speech. And here’s the next question, this time from Forum member royljc: “Hi, I ran into the confusing question below. Can you tell me why Selection (a) is the correct answer? I have not seen this type of sentence before. “‘_______ a rainy day, we had to abandon the match.’


■ LUNCH FROM A4 A memorable lunch


the fate of Ninoy Aquino. She must be allowed free- dom to move. There should be no restriction to peaceful as- sembly and visits to any part of the country.


The National Assembly should


be convened. Last, a free, untrammeled and


peaceful election should be held immediately after the dissolution of the Assembly.


In a speech, after our meeting,


Daw Aung San Suu Kyi expressed this sanguine outlook: “How wonderful it is. It is no simple matter to decide who are the more fortunate. Those to


“(a) It being, (b) Being, (c)


Having been, (d) It been.” The sentence “It being a rainy


day, we had to abandon the match” is the only possible cor- rect answer here. It’s a grammati- cally airtight construction that uses the pronoun “it” as the sub- ject in a sentence that has the pro- gressive form of “be” as the verb and “a rainy day” as subject com- plement. Practically, that sentence has the same sense as “This being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” except that in this sen- tence, the pointing adjective “this” has taken the place of “it.” On the other hand, if any of the three other answer choices is used, a grammatically or structur- ally wrong sentence would result. Answer “(b) Being” is wrong be- cause in the sentence “Being a rainy day, we had to abandon the match,” the modifying phrase “being a rainy day” would be a dangling modifier; it couldn’t logically modify the pronoun “we” in the main clause. Answer “(c) Having been” is also wrong because “Having been a rainy day” would similarly be a dangling


whom life gives all or those who have to give all to life? A ful- filled life is not necessarily one constructed strictly in accord- ance with one’s own blueprint. It can be a glorious collage of materials that have come unex- pectedly to hand.”


Editor’s note: The Philippines since 1989 has advocated full freedom for Daw Aung Suu Kyi and the restora- tion of democracy in Burma. The ruling junta finally released Aung Suu Kyi from house arrest on No-


modifier in the absence of a noun that it can logically modify. And answer choice “(d) It been” is also wrong because “been” alone is the wrong form of the present perfect tense for “be”; the correct form is “has been.” (But even if “has been” is used, the construc- tion would still be wrong because it would be a run-on or fused sen- tence: “It has been a rainy day, we had to abandon the match.”) We must take note that the “it” in the correct answer for the sen- tence in question is an authen- tic neuter pronoun that refers to the noun “day.” This is in con- trast to the expletive “it” in the sentence “It is raining, so we had to abandon the match.” Here, “it” is a syntactic expletive, a filler subject used by the imper- sonal verb “is” to express a con- dition or action without refer- ence to an agent. As such, “it” performs a syntactic role that contributes nothing to meaning.


Visit Jose Carillo’s English Forum at http://josecarilloforum.com.


j8carillo@yahoo.com


vember 13, 2010, but not after an army-backed political party “won” the first “free” national poll in over 20 years. The gallant leader contin- ues to fight for the full restoration of political rights, the release of politi- cal detainees and the recognition of the National League for Democracy as a full-fledged political party. Dr. Romulo’s essay forms part of the privileged speech he delivered in the Philippine Senate in 1999 as Ma- jority Floor Leader. His recollection of the meeting reflects his high es- teem for Daw Aung Suu Kyi.


supported. But if he does, then he should not seek any special treat- ment. Ordinary persons go to jail when they are charged with non- bailable crimes. Even unordinary persons like then Bar reviewee Ferdinand Marcos in the Nalun- dasan case, and Erap and Jinggoy in the plunder case. They did not run away. They faced the charges. Senator Ping should do so, too. Who was it who said that prison bars do not a jail make? Sen. Gringo Honasan and Sen.


Kiko Pangilinan have been urg- ing Senator Ping to come out in the open and face the charges. Certainly, these two have the best of interest for him at heart. Here are the words of Senator Kiko: “If he is innocent, then he has noth- ing to fear. We have a new admin- istration whose mandate is to serve best interest of the people.” Senator Kiko cited the case of Sen. Antonio Trillanes 4th who continued to face the charges of coup d’etat filed against him even


when he was already a senator. “That is what Senator Lacson should also do—face the charges and submit himself to the justice system,” he added. This, of course, presupposes that Senator Ping has faith and confidence in our justice system. As Gringo said in a radio inter- view with Nimfa Ravelo of dzBB last Friday, “Ultimately, it will be Senator Lacson’s call [on surfac- ing], depending on how high his confidence on getting justice.”


House honors Solarz The Senate glossed over the death


of former US Rep. Stephen Solarz because it had other priorities in mind. Not so with the House of Representatives. The House, led by Speaker


Feliciano Belmonte Jr. unani- mously adopted Resolution 720 this week honoring Solarz, a long-time friend of the Philip- pines, who died last November 29 at age 70. Solarz, a Brooklyn


Democrat, and chairman of the US House subcommittee on Asian and Pacific Affairs, is best remembered for helping restore freedom and democ- racy in the Philippines. Solarz also personally at- tended the funeral of the mar- tyred former Sen. Ninoy Aquino in 1983 and badgered then Presi- dent Ronald Reagan to stop sup- porting President Ferdinand Marcos. He also urged Marcos to return democracy to the country. It is no wonder that when Cory Aquino became president, she called Solarz “The Lafayette of the Philippines.”


The resolution was authored


by Belmonte, House Deputy Speakers Raul Daza, Lorenzo Tañada 3rd, Pablo Garcia, Noli Fuentebella, Boying Remulla and Maria Isabelle Climaco, Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales 2nd and Minority Leader Edcel Lagman.


efrendanao2003@yahoo.com


SATURDAY


December 4, 2010


A 5


‘An A-Z Guide for a Green Pinoy’ T


HURSDAY evening was a fel- lowship of family, friends and like-minded individuals when Annie Pascual-Guerrero of the Cravings Group launched her book “An A-Z Guide for a Green Pinoy,” lovingly dedicated to the late Odette Alcantara, one of the pioneers of the Philippine envi- ronmental movement. In her book’s introduction, Annie re- counts her childhood experiences when her family never threw any- thing away, making do with what they had. (Now we call it recy- cling.) Inspired by Odette, her zero waste mentor, Annie has taken up her challenge by turn- ing her business empire into the country’s foremost “green” chain of restaurants and hotels winning numerous awards, providing live- lihood to poor communities and influencing its clientele and the general public to go green. Annie’s mantra is “Reduce, Re-


use, Recycle.” Her tips include buying less stuff, refusing pack- aging when possible by bringing your own shopping bag, buying quality goods, buying local and thus, supporting the local eco- nomy, donating or selling things, reusing envelopes and paper clips and storing manuals and other documents online, thus, reducing volume of printed documents. Annie demystifies several recy- cling myths. One is that all waste gets dumped anyway. She coun- tered this by stating that recycling existed before in the form of the itinerant bote-garapa buyers that are now exemplified in the Fed- eration of Environment Coopera- tives founded by Ms. Narda Camacho. This is now the core of the recycling industry in the country generating hundreds of millions of pesos in our under- ground economy and providing thousands of jobs.


A whole chapter of the book is


devoted to the A-Z guide that lists more than a hundred things and tips on how these things can be reused and recycled. The reader will find the information simple to understand, very doable and can easily become good habits. I didn’t know that aluminum is one of the most energy-consum- ing and CO2-producing products on the planet and that to manu- facture an aluminum can, it needs a quarter of the can’s vol- ume in gasoline, 100,000 to 150,000 amps of electricity, inevi- tably generating perfluorocar- bons, a greenhouse gas with a global warming potential a thou- sand times greater than carbon dioxide. Annie advises to use aluminum foil sparingly, reuse it by cleaning, drying and flatten- ing or using it for scrubbing


ANABELLE E. PLANTILLA


barbeque grill grates. On the other hand, aluminum cans can be recycled as garden pots or as ashtrays by filling them with a bit of sand. (While writing this, the aluminum-wrapped Kisses cho- colates in front of me catch my eye and suddenly, I promise my- self to reduce my intake of this sinful delight.)


The choices we make spell a lot of difference for the environ- ment. A behavioral change to- wards a greener lifestyle will defi- nitely have a positive impact on both our surroundings and on other people that we interact with. One of Annie’s vision for the future is zero waste which maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back into nature or the market- place. The availability of biode- gradable products in the market is a first step towards achieving this vision. The ultimate goal is for the production cycles to mimic natural cycles as much as possible where the “waste stream” will now become a clean resource stream.


Annie names environmental champions from where she draws further inspiration. These are cor- porations that have educated themselves and have leveled up by walking their talk.


Annie’s


Cravings Group has an Environ- mental Management System Committee with sub-committees divided according to the 4 Es of waste management: education, enforcement, engineering and entrepreneurship. She also initi- ated the “Green Chefmanship Program” which aims to instill the tenets of a “green” kitchen and lessen the chef’s carbon foot- print. “Green chefmanship is 80 percent attitude,” according to Annie and she has instilled in her students the habits necessary to be a green chef.


The book is an easy and very informational read. It has a glos- sary of terms and a directory of recyclers making recycling easy for all. And as Annie declared “Let us be the kindred spirit in making our country a better place to live in.”


orgsus@haribon.org.ph Global view


opinion


ENGLISH PLAIN & SIMPLE


FREE CORNER


INSIDE CONGRESS


NATURE FOR LIFE


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16