Avoiding

Plagiarism

To avoid plagiarism, adhere to these guidelines:

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).

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.
B. Citing sources

C.

Sumarizing

or

paraphrasing

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
Last Edited: 2011-12-14 08:19:17

Driscoll,

Allen

Brizee

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 debates2 to
sticker campaigns,3 from rallies by socio-political activists to mass gatherings

organized by members of the clergy4 - 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. AntiTerrorism 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 nonabortifacient 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)