Don't rely too much on one source, or you may easily slip into using that person's thoughts as your own. Keep accurate records while doing research and taking notes or you may lose track of where an idea came from. If you do not know where you got an idea or piece of information, do not use it in your paper until you find out. You will need to keep track of authors, titles, page numbers, and publication information to cite each source correctly. When you take notes, be sure to put quotation marks around words, phrases, or sentences taken verbatim from a source. If you use any of those words, phrases or sentences when summarizing or paraphrasing the source, make sure to put them in quotation marks. Keep in mind that changing a word here and there while keeping a source's sentence structure or phrasing constitutes plagiarism, even if you credit the source for the ideas. Cite the source of all ideas, opinions, facts, and statistics that are not common knowledge. Choose an appropriate documentation style and use it consistently and properly. A. The samples that follow all quote, appropriately or inappropriately, from the following paragraph from page 7 of the book The Metaphysical Club by Louis Menand: We think of the Civil War as a war to save the union and to abolish slavery, but before the fighting began most people regarded these as incompatible ideals. Northerners who wanted to preserve the union did not wish to see slavery extended into the territories; some of them hoped it would wither away in the states where it persisted. But many Northern businessmen believed that losing the South would mean economic catastrophe, and many of their employees believed that freeing the slaves would mean lower wages. They feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter. (Note: The following samples feature MLA-style documentation, but each sample of plagiarism would be equally incorrect if the documentation--if present at all-- were APA, CSE, or Chicago style.) Plagiarism: People now believe that the Civil War was a war to save the union and to abolish slavery, but before the fighting began most people regarded these as incompatible ideals. (This quotation, which uses most of the source's sentence without even acknowledging that the idea comes from a source, is plagiarized. Ideas and words from a source cannot be included as if they are your own--you must give credit to the original writer.) Correct quotation: According to Louis Menand, people now believe that "the Civil War was a war to save the union and to abolish slavery, but before the fighting began most people regarded these as incompatible ideals" (7). Plagiarism: Menand observes that before the Civil War, many Northerners feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter (7). (This quotation is plagiarized because it uses the exact words of the source-- most of a sentence--without quotation marks.) Correct quotation: Menand observes that before the Civil War, many Northerners "feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter" (7). Plagiarism: According to Menand, the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the union were seen before the Civil War as incompatible ideals (7). (This is plagiarism because exact words--"incompatible ideals"--from the original source are not acknowledged as borrowed.) Correct quotation: According to Menand, the abolition of slavery and the preservation of the union were seen before the Civil War as "incompatible ideals" (7). Misleading quotation: Menand writes that many Northerners "hoped that slavery would wither away in the states where it persisted" (7). (This sentence is unacceptable because it claims to be a direct quotation, but the words have been changed.) Correct quotation: Menand writes that many Northerners "hoped that it [slavery] would wither away in the states where it persisted" (7). Misleading quotation: Menand notes that "many Northern businessmen and many of their employees feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter" (7). (This sentence is unacceptable because the writer has not used ellipsis marks to indicate where words have been omitted from the quotation.) Correct quotation: Menand notes that "many Northern businessmen [. . .] and many of their employees [. . .] feared secession far more than they disliked slavery, and they were unwilling to risk the former by trying to pressure the South into giving up the latter" (7). B. Citing sources
C. Sumarizing or paraphrasing
While documentation styles differ in what information they require you to report, when you are taking notes from sources, you should always keep track of authors, titles, page numbers, and publication information. Some documentation styles include in-text citations, and most require some list of references or works cited in the paper. In-Text Citations The page number(s) where the material quoted, summarized, or paraphrased is found in the source should be placed immediately following the cited material and preceding any punctuation marks that divide or end the sentence if the documentation style uses parenthetical citation, as MLA, APA, and CSE name-year style documentation do. If you are using Chicago or CSE number style, this information will appear in a note. You should use a signal phrase to introduce material you are quoting, paraphrasing, or summarizing from a source. This phrase is generally placed immediately before the material you are citing. It is a good practice to include the author's name in the signal phrase (for example, William Julius Wilson comments). If the author's name is not included in the signal phrase, it must be placed in the parenthetical citation after the material from the source.
Works Cited / List of References / Bibliography Page Each source mentioned in the paper must have its own entry on the works cited page, on the list of references, in the bibliography, or (in Chicago style papers without a separate bibliography) in the note where the source is mentioned in the paper. Consult a reference work about the style you are using to determine what information to include on this list or in this note. When creating a works cited page, a list of references, or a bibliography, alphabetize the list by author's last name (or by the first word of the title, if the author is not given), unless you are using CSE number style, in which case the list of references is arranged in the order you cite them in your paper. When summarizing or paraphrasing material from a source, remember that you must credit the source of the idea with an accurate citation, naming the author either in the sentence or in the citation. A correct citation is not sufficient to protect against charges of plagiarism, however: you must use your own words, sentence structure, and phrasing. Simply substituting synonyms for words in a source's original sentence is plagiarism, even if you credit the source accurately. It is best to write your summary or paraphrase without the original source in front of you, and it is also wise to check your paraphrase against the original to make sure you have not inadvertently made your words too similar to those in your source. Quoting, Paraphrasing, and Summarizing Summary: This handout is intended to help you become more comfortable with the uses of and distinctions among quotations, paraphrases, and summaries. This handout compares and contrasts the three terms, gives some pointers, and includes a short excerpt that you can use to practice these skills. Contributors:Dana Lynn Driscoll, Allen Brizee Last Edited: 2011-12-14 08:19:17 This handout is intended to help you become more comfortable with the uses of and distinctions among quotations, paraphrases, and summaries. This handout compares and contrasts the three terms, gives some pointers, and includes a short excerpt that you can use to practice these skills. What are the differences among quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing? These three ways of incorporating other writers' work into your own writing differ according to the closeness of your writing to the source writing. Quotations must be identical to the original, using a narrow segment of the source. They must match the source document word for word and must be attributed to the original author. Paraphrasing involves putting a passage from source material into your own words. A paraphrase must also be attributed to the original source. Paraphrased material is usually shorter than the original passage, taking a somewhat broader segment of the source and condensing it slightly. Summarizing involves putting the main idea(s) into your own words, including only the main point(s). Once again, it is necessary to attribute summarized ideas to the original source. Summaries are significantly shorter than the original and take a broad overview of the source material. Why use quotations, paraphrases, and summaries? Quotations, paraphrases, and summaries serve many purposes. You might use them to . . . Provide support for claims or add credibility to your writing Refer to work that leads up to the work you are now doing Give examples of several points of view on a subject Call attention to a position that you wish to agree or disagree with Highlight a particularly striking phrase, sentence, or passage by quoting the original Distance yourself from the original by quoting it in order to cue readers that the words are not your own Expand the breadth or depth of your writing Writers frequently intertwine summaries, paraphrases, and quotations. As part of a summary of an article, a chapter, or a book, a writer might include paraphrases of various key points blended with quotations of striking or suggestive phrases as in the following example: In his famous and influential work the Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud argues that dreams are the "royal road to the unconscious" (page #), expressing in coded imagery the dreamer's unfulfilled wishes through a process known as the "dream-work" (page #). According to Freud, actual but unacceptable desires are censored internally and subjected to coding through layers of condensation and displacement before emerging in a kind of rebus puzzle in the dream itself (page #). How to use quotations, paraphrases, and summaries Practice summarizing the essay found here, using paraphrases and quotations as you go. It might be helpful to follow these steps: Read the entire text, noting the key points and main ideas. Summarize in your own words what the single main idea of the essay is. Paraphrase important supporting points that come up in the essay. Consider any words, phrases, or brief passages that you believe should be quoted directly. There are several ways to integrate quotations into your text. Often, a short quotation works well when integrated into a sentence. Longer quotations can stand alone. Remember that quoting should be done only sparingly; be sure that you have a good reason to include a direct quotation when you decide to do so. You'll find guidelines for citing sources and punctuating citations at our documentation guide pages. Exercises:
Directions: Read each passage and on a separate sheet of paper:
1. Create a title for the passage related to the main idea. 2. Accurately summarize the text for each passage. 3. Your summary must describe all key ideas from the text. 4. Do not include opinions or personal info in your summary. 5. Highlight or underline key ideas in each passage.
1. Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his beliefs , and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of others and with the common good. 2. The legislative branch, as the main facet of a representative government, endeavors to enact laws and policies that aim to remedy looming societal woes, while the executive is closed set to fully implement these measures and bring concrete and substantial solutions within the reach of Juan dela Cruz. Seemingly distant is the judicial branch, oftentimes regarded as an inert governmental body that merely casts its watchful eyes on clashing stakeholders until it is called upon to adjudicate. Passive, yet reflexive when called into action, the Judiciary then willingly embarks on its solemn duty to interpret legislation vis-a-vis the most vital and enduring principle that holds Philippine society together - the supremacy of the Philippine Constitution.
3. Nothing has polarized the nation more in recent years than the issues of population growth control, abortion and contraception. As in every democratic society, diametrically opposed views on the subjects and their perceived consequences freely circulate in various media. From television debates 2 to sticker campaigns, 3 from rallies by socio-political activists to mass gatherings organized by members of the clergy 4 - the clash between the seemingly antithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and progressive liberals has caused a deep division in every level of the society. Despite calls to withhold support thereto, however, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. 4. A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are assailing the constitutionality of RH Law on the following GROUNDS: The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the petitioners, notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. 35
The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection against hazardous products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to one's health, as it causes cancer and other health problems. 36
The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the procurement of contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public funds for purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.
5. In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the OSG asserts that it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of Congress and respect the compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law, it being "a product of a majoritarian democratic process" 75 and "characterized by an inordinate amount of transparency." 76 The OSG posits that the authority of the Court to review social legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since the Constitution vests the discretion to implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the political departments, in particular, with Congress. 77 It further asserts that in view of the Court's ruling in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti- Terrorism Council, 78 the remedies of certiorari and prohibition utilized by the petitioners are improper to assail the validity of the acts of the legislature. 79 6. Moreover, the OSG submits that as an "as applied challenge," it cannot prosper considering that the assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied to the petitioners, and that the government has yet to distribute reproductive health devices that are abortive. It claims that the RH Law cannot be challenged "on its face" as it is not a speech-regulating measure. 80
In many cases involving the determination of the constitutionality of the actions of the Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the Court temper its exercise of judicial power and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal branch on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. To be clear, the separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government, which obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere. 81
7. Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines; 82 (b) the executive power shall be vested in the President of the Philippines; 83 and (c) the judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. 84 The Constitution has truly blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, the allotment of powers among the three branches of government. In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of separation of powers which imposes upon the courts proper restraint, born of the nature of their functions and of their respect for the other branches of government, in striking down the acts of the Executive or the Legislature as unconstitutional. Verily, the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution. 8. In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial challenge, also known as a First Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the validity of statutes concerning not only protected speech, but also all other rights in the First Amendment.
These include religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 107 After all, the fundamental right to religious freedom, freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are but component rights of the right to one's freedom of expression, as they are modes which one's thoughts are externalized. 9. In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating from the U.S. has been generally maintained, albeit with some modifications. While this Court has withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues, 108 it has expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights. 109 The underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart in the U.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental Law not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. 110 Verily, the framers of Our Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution. 10. Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously alleged that the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion and other fundamental rights mentioned above have been violated by the assailed legislation, the Court has authority to take cognizance of these kindred petitions and to determine if the RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these petitions on the simple expedient that there exist no actual case or controversy, would diminish this Court as a reactive branch of government, acting only when the Fundamental Law has been transgressed, to the detriment of the Filipino people. 11. The PMA throws its full weight in supporting the RH Bill at the same time that PMA maintains its strong position that fertilization is sacred because it is at this stage that conception, and thus human life, begins. Human lives are sacred from the moment of conception, and that destroying those new lives is never licit, no matter what the purported good outcome would be. In terms of biology and human embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a "potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact. 12. The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined "moment of conception." This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious view of human life or of human embryos. 164
In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization. 13. For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation. 165 According to him, "fertilization and conception are two distinct and successive stages in the reproductive process. They are not identical and synonymous." 166 Citing a letter of the WHO, he wrote that "medical authorities confirm that the implantation of the fertilized ovum is the commencement of conception and it is only after implantation that pregnancy can be medically detected." 167
This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object - it is a living human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes. 168 Implantation has been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also to the Constitution. If such theory would be accepted, it would unnervingly legitimize the utilization of any drug or device that would prevent the implantation of the fetus at the uterine wall. It would be provocative and further aggravate religious-based divisiveness. It would legally permit what the Constitution proscribes - abortion and abortifacients. 14. Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that the RH Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum already has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it. The conclusion becomes clear because the RH Law, first, prohibits any drug or device that induces abortion (first kind), which, as discussed exhaustively above, refers to that which induces the killing or the destruction of the fertilized ovum, and, second, prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb (third kind). By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient (third kind), the RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins only at implantation, as Hon. Lagman suggests. It also does not declare either that protection will only be given upon implantation, as the petitioners likewise suggest. Rather, it recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect the fertilized ovum which already has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it becomes existent - all the way until it reaches and implants in the mother's womb. After all, if life is only recognized and afforded protection from the moment the fertilized ovum implants - there is nothing to prevent any drug or device from killing or destroying the fertilized ovum prior to implantation. 15. From the foregoing, the Court finds that inasmuch as it affords protection to the fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction abortion. To repeat, it is the Court's position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum is implanted in the uterine wall , its viability is sustained but that instance of implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started earlier. And as defined by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that is, which kills or destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb, is an abortifacient. This notwithstanding, the Court finds that the proviso under Section 9 of the law that "any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient" as empty as it is absurd. The FDA, with all its expertise, cannot fully attest that a drug or device will not all be used as an abortifacient, since the agency cannot be present in every instance when the contraceptive product or supply will be used. 171
Pursuant to its declared policy of providing access only to safe, legal and non- abortifacient contraceptives, however, the Court finds that the proviso of Section 9, as worded, should bend to the legislative intent and mean that "any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it cannot be used as abortifacient." Such a construction is consistent with the proviso under the second paragraph of the same section that provides: Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall not purchase or acquire by any means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will be used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent.
Note: Passages were lifted verbatim form the consolidated cases of: JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., Petitioners, vs. HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents (G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014)