Philippine Vice President Accused of Plagiarizing Children’s Book

On August 20, the Philippine Vice President, Sara Duterte, held a budget meeting to discuss, among other things, a P100 million ($177,000) provision to provide one million students in remote regions with provision bags.

Part of that provision includes P10 Million ($17,700) to distribute copies of Isang Kaibigan, a children’s book written by Dueterte herself.

At the hearing, Senator Risa Hontiveros asked Duterte about the book. However, rather than immediately responding, Duterte accused Hontiveros of “politicizing the budget hearing” and said that Hontiveros’s issue was with her name being on the book.

The exchange made the book front page news. Soon, Filipino citizens investigated the book and found similarities with an earlier work.

They said Isang Kaibigan was similar to a 2009 book, Owly: Just a Little Blue, published by American author Andy Runton. The book is part of the Owly series and was republished in 2020.

The Office of the Vice President (OVP) vehemently denied the allegations. According to their statement, the book was not plagiarized. They also claim the book is not for sale and is being distributed for free.

Runton has not responded to the story.

This raises a simple question: Is the book plagiarized? We need to examine the overlaps between the two works to answer that.

Similarities and Differences

According to the news coverage, Isang Kaibigan is a story about an owl who loses his home in a storm. His friends abandon him, except for one parrot who helps him rebuild. The story’s moral is that true friends stand by you during difficult times.

Owly: Just a Little Blue follows the story of Owly and Wormy. They help a family of bluebirds build a new home after their tree is damaged. However, the birds initially aren’t enamored with their new home but appreciate it when a storm moves in.

On the surface, the two books have a great deal in common. Both feature owls as main characters and have themes of friends rebuilding damaged homes and morals about friendship. Considering those similarities, it’s easy to see why so many compare the two books.

However, the two books also have some key differences. The biggest is the art style. The Owly book is much more detailed and presented in graphic novel format. Isang Kaibigan has a much simpler style with no complex layouts and a much more flat art style.

However, that art style may be a problem in itself. According to one Facebook comment, the parrot resembles an illustration on Shutterstock. It is unknown if Duterte or other collaborators licensed the image.

All in all, it’s easy to see why so many are accusing the book of plagiarism. However, it’s difficult, at least right now, to conclusively say that it is.

My Analysis

Note: I am not an expert on children’s literature. While I can comment broadly about these issues, a subject matter expert would likely have more insight on how common these themes are.

Ultimately, the highlighted similarities between the work are as follows:

1. Owl Main Characters: Both books feature an owl as the main character of the story.
2. Themes of Friendship: Both books center around the owl character trying to make new friends and learn the meaning of friendship.
3. Rebuilding Destroyed Homes: Both stories focus on rebuilding destroyed homes. Duterte’s book had the owl lose his home. In Runton‘s the owl character is rebuilding the home.
4. Storms: In both books, storms symbolize difficult times. In both cases, the storm is a tool for learning who the real friends are.

Taken by themselves, it’s a difficult argument to make. For example, are many, many children’s books that feature owls as main characters.

Likewise, themes of friendship are very common in children’s books. Though themes of storms and house rebuilding are less common, they are also presented differently between the two books. In Duterte’s, the owl is the one who loses his home. In Runton’s, the owl is the one helping the rebuild process.

Still, the similarities are notable. I feel as if I can neither completely eliminate the possibility that the works are coincidences nor decisively call Duterte’s work plagiarism. It sits somewhere in between.

However, from a copyright standpoint, that’s fairly moot. Duterte’s book didn’t copy any art or language from Runton’s. Since the overlaps are general themes and ideas, there’s no copyright protection.

In short, even if Duterte copied those elements, Runton could not do much about it, at least not with a lawsuit.

Interestingly, the Shutterstock contributor may have the best argument for copyright infringement if they can show that Duterte’s parrot was based on their drawing. However, given the differences between them, that might also be difficult.

Bottom Line

In the end, what is most bizarre about this is Duterte’s reaction. If the media reports are accurate, a question about what is in the book doesn’t seem, by itself, to be a question warranting such an extreme response.

Granted, I don’t understand the context politically or culturally. That’s also why I’m not commenting on the government paying to distribute a book written by the Vice President. This is not a political system I am familiar with.

Still, many Filipinos took her response as an attempt to hide something and that is from where these plagiarism allegations sprang from. If she had answered the question directly, it seems unlikely that this would have happened at all.

Ultimately, I don’t feel comfortable calling this clear plagiarism. However, I don’t feel comfortable dismissing it as coincidence either. The similarities warrant a closer examination, even if it is unlikely to happen.

That’s because, even if it is a work of plagiarism, it’s not likely to be a copyright infringement. Copyright protects the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. So, while this may be unethical, it isn’t likely to be illegal.

When it’s all said and done, it’s a case without a clear answer. That’s frustrating, but it’s very common in discussions about plagiarism.