News peg: “The chief of staff of Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto III finally admitted that parts of his speech against the RH bill on Wednesday, August 15, were copied from a blog by a foreign author who calls herself the “Healthy Home Economist”.
“Lawyer Hector A. Villacorta, Sotto’s chief of staff, wrote Sarah Pope a response in the comments section of her blog in which he said: ” `I understand you felt slighted that your blog was not attributed to you which became part of the speech of the senator.’ ” (rappler.com)
The following provisions of the Intellectual Property Code may be relevant to the right of the author to require that his/her work be attributed to him/her:
“Chapter X. Moral Rights. Section 193. Scope of Moral Rights. – The author of a work shall, independently of the economic rights in Section 177 or the grant of an assignment or license with respect to such right, have the right:
“193.1. To require that the authorship of the works be attributed to him, in particular, the right that his name, as far as practicable, be indicated in a prominent way on the copies, and in connection with the public use of his work;
“193.2. To make any alterations of his work prior to, or to withhold it from publication;
“193.3. To object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, his work which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation; and
“193.4. To restrain the use of his name with respect to any work not of his own creation or in a distorted version of his work. (Sec. 34, P.D. No. 49)”
Duty (& a teeny-weeny note on “The Client”, impeachment trial)
Thanks, thanks, to “UnangHirit” (“First Hit” or “First Crack”) the morning show, GMA Channel 7 free TV, especially the producers of the segment of Arnold Clavio , “Talakayan” about 7:20-ish am everyday (weekdays) and the host himself, Arnold Clavio, for our live and lively discussion yesterday.
The fundamental principles in constitutional construction were discussed, and, in answer to questions, the following was reiterated: the words of the Constitution are construed in their plain, ordinary meaning; in particular, the provision requiring public officials and employees to declare their assets, liabilities, and net worth “in accordance with law” and to disclose them “in the manner provided by law” etc. etc.
Since the oral arguments are done, and the verdict would be released this afternoon, it might be moot and academic to repeat that discussion – there’s a fast turn of events on the subject matter.
(and what a pleasant surprise, the show has tokens for guests: a bag of goodies: a bottle of wine and all kinds of fruit-scented gels, scents, sprays, soaps, etc. thanks!)
[Also, sorry po uli sa mga hindi ko nadaluhan o napaunlakan nitong nakaraang dalawang linggo (apologies again to producers of shows where I had to beg off for interviews in the past two weeks) four invites. (Kasi, two weeks ago, I filled up my sked with required legal seminars, then, there were deadlines of certain requirements, then errands, etc etc ). Due to conflicts in schedule, or rather, conflicts of duties: duties to the legal profession, duties in admin work, duties as faculty — on one hand — and duties as a member of the academe to be available for discussions on matters within the competence of the faculty member to take up — on the other hand — i’ve had to beg off. (Members of the academe, I think, when invited, have the duty to participate in the public discussion of a subject matter that’s within their competence to elucidate on either as professors or as professionals).
Thanks again, everyone!
Just a teeny-weeny note to our colleagues in the profession involved in the impeachment trial. This part is entitled:
“The Client”
The end-game of the impeachment trial of the Chief Justice is an elephantine illustration of the old adage:
“A lawyer who lawyers for himself has a fool for a client.”
In the code of ethics of lawyers, there’s a provision that says:
a lawyer shall not let the client dictate the strategy of the case and the method of the trial.
But in this case, since the client made a spectacle on live TV, in open court, it was too late. (a defense spokesperson related how, in the hospital bed of the client, he had to convince him to go back to the impeachment court).
And so, in the oral arguments, one of the defense lawyers had to theorize anew the case:
the right to privacy versus the “right to information” which the defense said, and was saying for the first time, was the basis of the SALN law.
Novel.
And so, when the presiding officer asked “What is the injury if the respondent discloses the value of his dollar account in the SALN?”, the otherlawyer (the lead counsel), a criminal law professor, at first, thought it was a civil law question because of the word “injury”.
He proceeded to answer (because of the word “injury” in the question):
“If you mean, your Honor, the damage that would be caused ….” and the presiding officer cut him off: “No,no, no, not damages …”
The presiding officer repeated the question, “What is the injury that would be caused… etc”.
And the criminal law professor, again, because of the word “injury”, this time, thought it was a criminal law question, and answered “Well, the injury is, he might be exposed to kidnapping, extortion, etc.”
Alas.
It wasn’t a civil law question.
It wasn’t a criminal law question.
It was a constitutional law question.
Are there any rights that are being violated?
What interests are being balanced here?
What is the interest of the State in enforcing this law and, does this far outweigh any imagined hurt to an individual?
That’s the place any legal team would have gotten to if the client did not keep changing the theory of the case. At the last minute.
“Characterize the problem first”, as my public international law professor used to say.
When the client on his own, without care or counsel, changes the theory of the case at the end game, the legal team has to adjust.
The client who lawyers for himself …. has a legal team with members shaking their heads in private. Talagang ganyan ang buhay.
