A group of law school academics from the University of the Philippines published a position paper containing its opinion on the alledged plagiarism committed by a supreme court justice. The magistrate is alleged to have plagiarized certain portions of a published wok by someone else in writing the “ponencia”, i.e. controlling opinion, in the case of some Filipino “comfort women” during the second world war against Japan. The academics conclude that there has been an act of plagiarism commited and that the justice in question is culpable. They then publicly demand that the “erring” justice resigns or voluntarily leaves office.
While no one questions the law professors’ right to voice-out their individual or collective opinion as to whether there was indeed a sanctionable act of plagiarism done and that the accused justice did it, going a step further and presumptuously “demanding” resignation is improper and unwarranted imposition of a sanction without due process of law. The group of academics has arrogated unto itself, without lawful basis, judicial or quasi-judicial power to sanction, penalize or discipline a constitutional officer who is legally removable only by impeachment.
It has become a dubious practice of groups or individuals who have strong opinions against an office holder to demand the latter’s resignation, or otherwise pressure him into doing it. Obviously not wanting to go through the cumbersome process of removal from office and face its uncertain outcome, these impatient indiividuals would want a short-cut towards their objective. The fact that, in this instance, the interested parties are teachers and professors of the law makes one wonder whether they have forgotten, or are deliberately disregarding the concept of “due process of law”, which they are supposed to teach to their students and the public.
Without going into the legality of the professors’ action, I believe their effort to pressure the justice into resigning is, at the very least, improper and unprofessional conduct.
About the Author
Bencard has written 2 stories on this site.
Ben Cardinez is a semi-retired lawyer based in Connecticut. He specializes in Civil/Criminal Law litigation. He received his law degree from the University of Santo Tomas in 1965. The University of Connecticut awarded him the degree of Juris Doctor in 1983. His favorite quotation: The Golden Rule ("Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do you even so to them; for this is the Law and the Prophets". Matthew 7:12. "All the rest is commentary". Talmud; The Beatitudes.
Asking for someone to resign is a favorite call of some Filipino activists. Not just a favorite too; it’s the only way some believe problems can be solved. How stupid. So if you the guy does resign, who’s gonna switch in?
Tao namin.
Vested interests.
[Reply]
now i know why the UP Seal shows a Parrot rather than any other avian species. =)
[Reply]
Uso kasi yan ngayon Mr. Bencard… Ang sama nito, even the very people whom we are supposed to look up to.. nakikiuso na rin. The question is: how to change the situation?
[Reply]
ChinoF Reply:
August 14th, 2010 at 5:20 am
If I may… charter change.
[Reply]
The Filipinos prefer the quickest solutions, with no sweats, no discussions, no debates, etc. – “puwede na iyan mentality”!
If those who claim they know the laws ignore the same, what can we expect from the rest?
It seems the motto of those law professors and teachers is: Pres. Noynoy Aquino is doing it, why cannot I?
[Reply]
Plagiarism is copying somebody’s work, and claiming it your original own work; mostly written materials.
To think that Justices of the Supreme Court did that; is already a proof that we are rotten to the core. Are these Justices supposed to be more intelligent than most of us?
Japanese Imperial Army Comfort Women have been a long issue. A remnant of the attrocities commited by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II. They forced women, as their Sex Slaves; especially women in occupied countries. A fair and just compensation must be granted to these women; fairly decided by the courts. Do our Justices have to COPY court decisions, to render a fair and just verdict?
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
August 14th, 2010 at 11:19 am
No plagiarism in Del Castillo ruling
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:56:00 08/10/2010
Filed Under: Judiciary (system of justice)
THIS PERTAINS to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinuya v. Department of Foreign Affairs. Some quarters have accused the ponente (the writer of the decision), Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, of having plagiarized the works of other authors. “Plagiarism,” according to the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is “the use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”
A careful reading of the decision will show that proper attribution was made to primary sources in the footnotes appearing in the decision. It would have been different if there were no footnotes, which could then make a case for plagiarism easy to prove. But such is not the case here. The bases of the allegations of plagiarism were definitions, concepts and the history of the commonly known principles of jus cogens and erga omnes, two terms which conspicuously appear in the decision. To begin with, those terms were merely used to explain these concepts, and the original and primary sources also used by other authors were adequately attributed, as borne out in the decision. Also, the conclusions reached in the decision were certainly not borrowed and were the product of the deliberations of the Court.
Undoubtedly, the best evidence that there was no plagiarism is the fact that the decision reached a different conclusion from what the authors of the allegedly plagiarized articles espoused. Clearly, there was no intention to use their ideas and pass them off as the ponente’s own because if there was, the decision could have easily gone along with the ideas being pushed by the other authors. Given this scenario, how can one say that there was plagiarism? Curiously, if the decision went along with the ideas expressed by the authors, would the critics be crying plagiarism?
—PONCEVIC M. CEBALLOS,
dean, College of Law,
Liceo de Cagayan University
and professor, Ateneo Law School
[Reply]
If the demand to resign was made by a group of freshmen law students or by a leftist partylist group, maybe it can be passed off as pure “hot air”. But, for heaven’s sake, these are supposed to be legal “scholars” teaching Law in a State-run law school! What kind of anarchic society do we have?
[Reply]
mel Reply:
August 14th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
@Bencard
Popularity at all costs! These scholars want to be popular. Maybe PNoy will take notice of them and give them government positions. I cannot think of other purpose why they did that action aside from personal aspirations.
[Reply]
ulong pare Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
… daaang
@bencard: if you really have a high regard for flipland’s judicial process, flipland will not be in a state its in…
… flipland is a lawless, failed state… with all the “allegations of graft and corruption and murders”, i have yet to see a high profile conviction…
… justice for sale >>> that’s what flipland has…
[Reply]
Panyero Bencard,
It seems unfair to attribute malice to these UP professors. Their allegations of plagiarism are not totally bereft of any basis. For instance:
Mark Ellis’s article, on page 227 of Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, stated that, “The concept of rape as an international crime is relatively new. This is not to say that rape has never been historically prohibited, particularly in war.”
Footnote 65 of Del Castillo’s ruling states, without attribution, “The concept of rape as an international crime is relatively new. This is not to say that rape has never been historically prohibited, particularly in war.” This is NOT a mere definition or explanation of a concept. It is an outright statement of the author’s opinion.
Also, In his 2005 book, Christian Tams wrote, “The Latin phrase ‘erga omnes’ thus has become one of the rallying cries of those sharing a belief in the emergence of a value-based international public order based on law.”
On page 30 of Del Castillo’s ruling: “The Latin phrase ‘erga omnes’ thus has become one of the rallying cries of those sharing a belief in the emergence of a value-based international public order based on law.” Again, not a mere definition.
These UP professors have not arrogated for themselves the power to “penalize or discipline” a Supreme Court justice. They have merely blown the whistle and called on Justice del Castillo out of delicadeza to resign and protect the honor of the highest court in the land on what they perceived (and again, it is NOT without basis) as serial plagiarism.
Thank you for considering my objections.
[Reply]
ChinoF Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 1:13 am
Thing is, calls to resign are just so tired, and for me make such parties much less credible.
[Reply]
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
ChinoF,
As a lawyer, I’ve seen too many criminal cases. And frankly, I’m tired of hearing of another criminal case being filed. But that doesn’t many mean that new complainants are less credible.
My friend, it is good that people watch out and blow the whistle on the “misdeeds” of others. It helps keep people in government honest. In the academic realm, watching out for plagiarism keeps scholars and researchers intellectually honest. If you are tired of hearing of these things, then tune out. There are those who follow this issue with great interest.
Thanks.
[Reply]
Way I see it, the justice most likely got too lazy to write his own opinion in his own words, so he decided to lift some words which had the same meaning as his stance. Another example of tinamad. Yes, it’s not a good thing at all. But do you need to call for resignation? This “resign, resign” fad has become too common for comfort… and good sense.
[Reply]
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Plagiarism is a serious charge, ChinoF. It is intellectual property theft. The Supreme Court is not only a branch of government, but a source of judicial decisions that are seen as scholarly and academic treatise. Justices are appointed to the court for their probity and integrity. This charge of plagiarism is not good for a sitting SC justice. In fact, it is not good for the entire Court. The call for his resignation is warranted.
[Reply]
ChinoF Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:19 pm
I understand where you’re coming from. Thing is, BongV posted an article wherein another lawyer made a different analysis, saying that plagiarism didn’t really happen. If so, there’s no need for the call to resign. My view is coming from the position that if ever the erring ones have to be sanctioned, it has to be through the process, which should include establishing whether the plagiarism charge is true or not, starting from Ceballos’ view (what BongV posted). If the process though demands that the SC justice resign, then so be it. Whistleblowers are certainly welcome… but let’s be careful to discern whether such whistleblowers really mean well. They could be in it for something else…
[Reply]
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 12:33 am
Thank you for your kind reply, ChinoF.
But the issue that Atty. Cardinez raised here is the propriety of asking for the resignation of a SC justice for plagiarism. It was my contention that it is proper. And with all due respect, I objected to his accusation that these professors’ act was “dubious”. I posted above a side-by-side comparison of the alleged source and what del Castillo wrote. They appear to be exact word-for-word sentences. While I was not making a conclusion on to the issue of plagiarism, I was saying that there is BASIS for the complaint of plagiarism. Hence, these UP professors motives should not be maligned.
While we’re at it, let’s discuss Dean Ceballo’s article on the issue (thank you, Pareng Bong, for posting it). There are two sides on every issue. Ceballo is of the opinion that there is no plagiarism, and he outlines his defense. But I will not get into that, lest I muddle the issue pertinent to my point here.
Here is the rub: Apparently the UP College of Law, led by its Dean, thinks that THERE IS plagiarism. Where does that puts Ceballos’ article now? Should we believe Ceballos more than the UP Law professors? Where there truly cited footnotes and that only statements of definitions and concepts were innocently copied as Ceballos pointed out? Did the learned professors of the UP College of Law missed all that?
Thanks for reading.
ChinoF Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 1:15 am
I see. I believe that you want plagiarism to be punished accordingly. I agree. I wonder if this is mixed with sentiment that something wrong must be punished in this country of impunity, even for once. I understand that. Unfortunately, there is still the question of whether plagiarism has been done or not. Probably it goes like this; UP Law professors believe that using someone else’s text, even with proper citations and references to who said it originally, is still plagiarism, because as a justice, he is supposed to write out his own opinion, and just make the appropriate citations. The Ateneo lawyer, on the other hand, says it’s not plagiarism since proper citations were made, as the justice merely used another text as a way of stating his opinion, since it means the same thing. And both opinions have the weight of deans’ levels, both credible opinions. As for the UP College, I’m wondering, given other knowledge about the school, that it may be a leftist- or vested-interest-driven opinion. Well, you may assume the same for the Ateneo dean.
Cardinez and I believe that calls for resignation are uncalled for, since they are outside of due process. Of course, there is also the question of whether you might be basing that on school rules, that if a student is caught plagiarizing, they are usually expelled from the school. So using this rationale, the SC justice must be expelled just the same. If that is the proper decision under due process, so be it. So for me, this should be left for the SC to do; let us not do trial by journalism. Maybe you mean that the UP College has the right to recommend removal of the SC justice based on the seriousness of the offense. I’ll concede to that, then.
On the UP College vs. Ateneo Dean no. of people issue, I don’t believe number makes right. Just recall what I posted before (expounded by Bong): if 1 person says 1+1=2, while 1000 people say 1+1=5, the 1000 people are still wrong even if they are more. Thus, I don’t consider the UP College of Law’s opinion greater that Ceballo’s, just because of mere number of people. Yet I think this is more of an opinion than an absolute rule on plagiarism. Besides, rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court are based on “opinions” by each justice. Since I’m an Ateneo graduate, one could assume that I make stand based on school loyalty,
but not so. I just see Ceballo’s opinion as the cooler head, and I tend to accept that more readily.
Anyway, this is my mere opinion from a non-lawyer. Yet I see even lawyers have different opinions on the same thing. It’s a tricky world out there, I guess.
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Hello ChinoF,
Thanks for your comments above. I’ve structured my reply in the manner below to make our discussions easier to follow and to pinpoint where we agree and disagree. And there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing as long as we’re not disagreeable, right? =)
ON THE ISSUE OF THE CALL OF RESIGNATION:
When the UP professors asked del Castillo to resign, it was, as calls for resignation are wont to be, designed to do the following:
1) to call attention to the “plagiarism”;
2) to give the “offender” an honorable way out (voluntary resignation vs. forced removal); and
3) to show the country (and the world) that the legal profession safeguards its integrity against intellectual dishonesty.
Hence, it was a necessary call (the call for resignation) to make. It got the ball rolling. Imagine if no call was made and the authors of the alleged plagiarized articles found out about it on their own. It would be embarrassing for the Philippine legal community as well as the country. It would seem that Philippine jurists tolerate intellectual property theft.
Let’s keep this in mind: The UP professors are NOT asking that del Castillo NOT be given due process. They made the initial call for the 3 reasons I mentioned above, thinking that grown-ups own up to their mistakes. But, as it is, del Castillo took the other route. And that’s why the whole matter now has become an issue to be resolved by the SC Ethics Committee where he will be given due process.
CASTING ASPERSIONS ON MOTIVES:
My objections to Atty. Cardinez’s article is his unfair characterization on the motives of the UP professors. Let’s argue on the merits of the allegations of plagiarism, as Dean Ceballo did on his article. I’m glad that you hinted that Ateneo professors defending del Castillo might have dubious motives too – but we will not traffic in that because it muddles the issue.
I would like to reiterate that I have the utmost respect for Atty. Cardinez,. It is just on this point on which I am calling him.
UP LAW VS. ATENEO LAW:
ChinoF, I just want to make clear that I was not making numerical superiority the controlling factor on whether there was plagiarism or not – Lol! It seemed that you and Bong were putting a lot of stock on Dean Ceballo’s article in defense of del Castillo. In this article, Ceballos pointed out that there were citations. All I was saying is that: if there were citations how come NONE in the entire faculty of the UP College of Law saw them? I have not seen the decision and the plagiarized articles so I don’t know. But the UP College of Law dean and faculty made the comparisons and they believe there is plagiarism. So baka nga meron. And that’s why the charge is now being investigated.
Also, Ceballos can hardly be said to be “the cooler head.” Ceballos positively asserted that there was NO plagiarism. If there was a “cooler head”, that would have been Fr. Bernas.
And to clarify the newspaper article on Fr. Bernas’ opposition for the call for resignation: he did not say there was no plagiarism. All he said was that “let the Court decide.”
Remember also, that the whole issue of Cadinez’s article: Was the call for resignation proper? I answered in the affirmative. But since del Castillo chose to fight it out, then we’ll let the Court decide.
PERSONAL NOTE:
When I was doing my law thesis at Ateneo, I was constantly being warned against plagiarism – even unintentional plagiarism – so that I do not get expelled. On my own, I took pains to make sure citations were made. Ironically, we have a sitting Justice, also an Atenean, who probably has a group of researchers making this potentially career-ending error. Should he be penalized for what might have been a subordinate’s error? Yes – you put your name on the decision, you answer for everything written on it. Manny Pangilinan did the honorable thing when caught – even as he hinted that his speech-writer was the culprit.
Thanks again for taking time out to read my humble opinion on the matter. I thoroughly enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter too. Take care, my friend.
BongV Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
@Uncle Pinoy. I always give room for the “element of doubt” and “proven beyond reasonable doubt”.
In this specific case, the UP law school called for the resignation of an SC justice on the basis that plagiarism was committed. I do understand the implications on the integrity of a supreme court that engages in plagiarism. However, before getting to that point – I would like to know first – whether plagiarism was truly committed.
What if Dean Ceballos was correct? Then we have done ourselves a great injustice by making an SC justice resign for unfounded reasons. What does that say about “rule of law” in the Philippines? Who will still respect an already damaged institution? Thus, the call for resignation was deemed improper. If the UP Law professors are fully convinced about plagiarism – the better call would have been to file a complaint and let due process take its course.
As to motives – all bets are off. One can also say Aquino wants to thin down the ranks of Arroyo-appointed SC justices and load it with his appointees. Del Castillo provides a convenient opening – and Aquino’s media allies will gladly amplify the issue.
It can also be presented as a way of cutting the Corona and the SC to size. In doing so, Corona and the SC will be pressured to toe the line and be “more friendly” to Aquino and his allies in Congress. In effect, del Castillo is a warning shot to Corona.
Let due process take place and decide with finality on whether plagiarism was committed or not.
ChinoF Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
Your opinion is good too. Hmm, didn’t know you’re an Atenean. Well, whatever school of origin, it’s the head worn on our necks that matters. Well, let’s see what we can learn from what happens in this issue.
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 12:21 am
Hello Pareng BongV,
The accusation of plagiarism is a tricky business. Plagiarism is not a crime in our penal code that can be a cause of action in which a complaint can be filed (except when the complainant is the author himself in which case the action would probably be for copyright infringement). Hence, the only recourse is for people from the same academic community (in this case law professors) to point out the plagiarism and ask that the offender be sanctioned. In the del Castillo case, he is being asked to do the honorable thing and resign.
As I pointed out earlier, the charge of against del Castillo is not entirely without basis. At best, it is a close call – a sprinkling of sentences (from the little that I’ve read) that are exact copies and without citation. Ceballos claims that there was no plagiarism at all. Period. Ceballos was teaching at Ateneo when I was a student there but never had him as a professor. Without disparaging him, he didn’t come across as an academic heavyweight. Hence, his opinion wouldn’t impress me as much as a Jacinto Jimenez, Ruben Balane, or a Cesar Villanueva opinion, for example. Even Fr. Bernas wouldn’t venture to say there was no plagiarism. In fact, no one else ventured to say that.
Personally, I suspect that the “plagiarism” were mere citation omissions. Now whether unintentional plagiarism should be sanctioned or not is actually being debated in legal circles.
Since intent may be a controlling factor, only del Castillo knows whether he intentionally plagiarized or not. If the SC says there was no plagiarism, then the matter is closed. The important thing is this: it was Filipino legal scholars who called on a Filipino jurist on what could have been plagiarism of works by international legal authors. We want the world to know that we are serious scholars who value intellectual honesty. If there was plagiarism, then the SC would either sanction or expel del Castillo, By doing either one, we would still show the world that we take plagiarism, at any level, seriously. The SC would not be damaged for the misdeeds of one Justice. I reiterate that 1) the call for sanctions against plagiarism HAD to be made, and 2) there is basis for the accusation.
Thanks for weighing in, Bong. You know I always value your opinion.
BongV Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Apparently, Poncevic Ceballos differs
[Reply]
mel Reply:
August 15th, 2010 at 5:43 pm
@Uncle Pinoy
Was it plagiarism or not? If not, that means anybody can call for resignation of those who claimed the decision was copied from somebody. It will be interesting to know if those professors and teachers from UP are willing to step down from their offices without due process of law.
Now, who decides if it is really plagiarism or not? The people deserve to know since it is already being discussed in public. Will you be so kind to give me a copy of that decision so I can decide for myself?
We can get rid of the judicial system. I think we do not need it anymore!
[Reply]
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 1:04 am
Lol! Huwag naman, Mei. We need the judicial system. In fact, I am of the opinion that we need the judicial system more than the other two branches of government. But that’s a discussion for another day. =)
The decision of Vinuya v. Romulo is available online (in the Supreme Court website), but reading it without the alleged plagiarized sources won’t help. In fact, I’m looking for the UP professors’ position paper. I’ll post it here if I find it.
Who decides whether there was plagiarism or not? In this case, it would be the Supreme Court’s Ethics Committee. For removal of a justice, the issue would be given to the Court sitting en banc (meaning the entire Court voting).
What the UP College of Law professors are calling for is the voluntarily resignation of del Castillo out of delicadeza because of what appears to be a decision written by him which was wrought with plagiarism. It is an important call to make because international groups have already taken notice of this issue. The UP professors, I can only surmise, are doing this to protect the integrity of the country’s Supreme Court.
However, del Castillo denies he plagiarized, hence, we have an impasse. It’s a tough call.
Remember a few months ago when PLDT Chairman Manny Pangilinan, another Atenean, was caught giving a plagiarized commencement exercise speech? While he didn’t admit to any wrongdoing, he just voluntarily returned the honoris causa traditionally given for commencement speakers and resigned as Ateneo’s sports chairman (or some position). He did this out of delicadeza and to protect Ateneo’s academic standing in the international community.
Thank you for your comments, Mei.
mel Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 5:22 pm
@Uncle Pinoy
PLDT Chairman Pangilinan did not write his speech. It was his ghostwriter, but he still is, responsible. He returned the honoris causa because he “lost his face” but after that, he excuses himself letting everyone know that he did not write that plagiarized speech, which to my mind, is irresponsible and hypocrite.
Thanks for the information that the Ethics Committee will decide on the issue. Thing is, the UP professors are already calling for resignation prior to the outcome of the due process. I do not believe those who claim to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court when they already publicly have made their position on the matter. It is not just proper.
Imagine the public distrust if the Ethics Committee decides it was not plagiarism? To my mind, UP and the Supreme Court will both lose integrity.
[Reply]
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 16th, 2010 at 10:59 pm
I agree, Mei, that it will be perceived that the SC is protecting its own if it “acquits” del Castillo. Magkakaibigan nyang mga Justices so it would be difficult to expel one of their own. The SC is really in a bind. And I think that’s why the UP professors are still calling for del Castillo to resign voluntarily – to free the SC from this.
Good observation re Pangilinan.
ChinoF Reply:
August 17th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I think Mel has the view I wanted to express thus far.
Uncle Pinoy,
What if Del Castillo were just suspended, or given other punishment other than being removed/resigned from the SC? Would that still constitute a failure to you? Bong though has a point in saying that it’s probably a kind of intimidation for Corona. If not, that’s good; but if so, that’s a real vested interest for me, which is inappropriate.
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 12:11 am
ChinoF,
I apologize if my position remains unclear – I’m probably not doing a good job of explaining it. I do not care whether del Castillo is found guilty or not of plagiarism, or whether he is expelled from the SC or simply suspended for a couple of weeks. The fact that the UP professors called del Castillo on the plagiarism and asked him to resign is already a victory for Filipino scholars everywhere. It showed the international community that we value intellectual honesty. It would be a disgrace to the entire nation if it were a foreigner who leveled the accusation of plagiarism against one of OUR own justices.
Also, there is nothing wrong in asking for the resignation of a jurist who is accused of plagiarism. Remember that resignation is a SELF-IMPOSED punishment, one that is designed to: 1) give the offender an honorable way out, and 2) to save the institution from embarrassment. The UP law professors saw plagiarism and told him to do the honorable thing. Del Castillo denies the plagiarism and refuses to resign. He has decided to fight it out – which is his right.
To wit, the UP professors are NOT asking that del Castillo be denied due process – they are not asking the SC to expel him without a hearing – they are asking HIM to voluntarily resign. I think the defenders of del Castillo are disingenuous in their defense of the Justice by stating it as if he is being denied due process.
Finally, I don’t think this plagiarism issue against an SC justice is being orchestrated by Noynoy to intimidate Corona. The most logical explanation for any event is always the simplest: Maybe there is basis for the plagiarism charge against del Castillo.
Again, sorry for raising all these points which are probably not necessary to explain my position. Thanks, C!
BongV Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 6:18 am
if he is made to “voluntarily” resign by the mob of UP Professors – that means del Castillo will no longer undergo due process – not by his own volition on the belief that he did something wrong – but due to mob pressure from UP law professors – that does not add up. that’s short circuiting the process – that’s no different from asking del Castillo to commit hara-kiri – when his guilt has not been established beyond doubt.
but hey… if that logic is valid for UP professors – maybe it’s high time to go with the flow – NOYNOY RESIGN!!!!
BongV Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 6:31 am
if del castillo believes he did not commit plagiarism – he’ll be stupid to agree to a clamor for his resignation.
if he is wrong – take him out via due process.
if he is proven right – i hope there will be the same amount of clamor for the law professors to be debarred.
ChinoF Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 4:02 am
Thanks for making it clear, Uncle Pinoy. Even if I may not agree completely with the call to resign (perhaps we can call it a recommendation after all), I understand the principle and that it may be the best thing for him to do so as to avoid dishonor to the SC. Perhaps it makes sense especially after the case of Manny Pangilinan. In this case, the decision would seem to be in del Castillo’s hands. May he make the right one.
Uncle Pinoy Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
I agree with you, Chino, that del Castillo should not resign, because I think the plagiarism is unintentional. It is embarrassing nonetheless that a Justice of the HIGHEST COURT OF THE LAND (and/or his researchers) should be so sloppy and careless. I think he will be disciplined.
As to the UP professors: again, let’s not put malice in their motives. There was basis in their accusation. Even the “Rockwell boys” couldn’t flat out say that there was no plagiarism.
Bong – huwag naman sana. If acquittal of a defendant will penalize the the plaintiff, eh di wala nang mag-sasampa ng kaso.
What this whole episode has also accomplished is to make all judges careful when penning their decisions.
Take care, guys!
Fr. Bernas, law professors oppose call for SC justice to resign
MANILA, Philippines – More legal luminaries have defended Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo against calls for his resignation amid allegation of plagiarism in the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) that he wrote last April junking the bid to compel the government to support demands for official apology and other reparations from Tokyo in the comfort women case.
Led by noted constitutionalist and Ateneo Law School Dean Emeritus Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., the group opposed the call of University of the Philippines-College of Law faculty led by Law Dean Marvic Leonen for Justice del Castillo to resign pending the investigation of the SC on the controversy.
“There is a call from quarters for Justice Mariano del Castillo to resign because of a charge of plagiarism. But the case is with the Supreme Court now. Let us wait for the verdict of the Court. Like everyone else, Justice del Castillo is entitled to due process,” Bernas stated in his Facebook account.
The Ateneo Law professors, led by Bernas and 35 others, also signed a manifesto in support of the truth and in giving due process to Justice Del Castillo.
“We urge everyone who wishes to make an informed decision, especially the lawyers, to read the decision of the Supreme Court in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary before making a judgment on whether the Court intended to appropriate the ideas of someone else, considering the citations, quotations, and end notes used in the decision,” they said.
[Reply]
For everyone’s perusal, here is a copy of the Justice del Castillo’s ponencia:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35499463/vinuya-vs-romulo
The UP professors alleged that there were 31 parts of “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens” by Ivan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, published last year in the Yale Journal of International Law; 24 parts of “Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime” by Mark Ellis, published 2006 in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law; and four parts of “Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law” by Christian Tams, published in 2005, that were lifted by del Castillo but not given credit.
I don’t have the supposedly “lifted” statements, but I searched for the names of Ivan Criddle, Evan Fox-Descent and Mark Ellis , and could not find them in the decision nor in the footnotes (click on the footnote numbers). Christian Tams was mentioned, but I do not know the four other parts where Tams was supposedly not given credit for.
Again, personally I think del Castillo (and his researchers) got sloppy or lazy. Or, as ChinoF mentioned early on, “tinamad”.
Happy reading!
[Reply]
mel Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 5:37 am
@Uncle Pinoy
Thank you for the copy. Researchers are usually students who are making their Praktika. After high school, I worked in a legal office of a known author of law books from San Beda doing research, bibliography and footnotes. If they are really “tinamad” or just careless, SC Justice del Castillo is responsible.
If plagiarism is indeed committed, I still think that the call for resignation is too much. It is like punishing a false parker with death penalty. SC Justice del Castillo having made it to the Supreme Court is no doubt a man of integrity.
Interesting how the Ethics Committee will decide on the matter.
[Reply]
killem Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
FYI, many if not all researchers in the SC are lawyers, and generally they do not accept “praktika” person..
with regards to plagarism charges, there was an earnest effort on the part of del castillo to attribute those borrowed words to the author, besides judges/lawyers somtimes thru excusable neglect failed to attribute the sources, its a common thing, its just a matter of form, rather than substance….
From my point of view, this bruhaha is part of the power play from the malcolm boys to retain their status as a “primier law school in RP “, in which the boys from “rockwell” are challenging… (remember the noise created in cj appointment started from the same malcolm boys against the “rockwell boys”, as if they have the monopoly of legal knowledge)
[Reply]
mel Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
@Killem
Of course, the SC do accept students making their Practicum. They are under supervision of the lawyers but they do most of the researching and clerical works.
http://www.up.edu.ph/upforum.php?issue=36&i=317
Here are some excerpts from the above link:
“In 1980, Prof. Alfredo Tadiar, the second and longest serving director of OLA (from 1978 to 1996), petitioned the Supreme Court to amend Rule 138 of Rules of Court. The goal was to allow students more active participation in the trial.
Six years after the petition was filed, the Supreme Court issued Rule 138-A allowing law students to represent indigent clients in any civil, criminal, or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal, board, or officer. The rule, however, requires the law student to be done with the third year of the regular four-year prescribed law curriculum and enrolled in a law school’s clinical legal education program approved by the Supreme Court. The student will receive no compensation for services rendered.”
You do not even need to be “officially” in. A good connection with some civic clubs will do, as long as you are willing to work for free.
i just got “unfriended” on facebook by the dean of the U.P. College of Law after an otherwise civil exchange of views on the same subject of this post. Why, i have no idea!
[Reply]
BongV Reply:
August 18th, 2010 at 10:14 pm
@bencard seems like you are saying the right things
[Reply]
Hahaha! Maybe he already has too many friends, Panyero.
We’ll remain your friends.
[Reply]
please do remind yourself that the provsion you mention, is not what you call “praticum” but is one of the exception in the practice of law… even in rtc, the sc discourages/prohibit the hiring of “ojt” student… As of now, there was a proposal to create rtc that will allow “‘ojt” but the resolution was still not approved by the sc…
[Reply]
mel Reply:
August 19th, 2010 at 3:17 am
@killem
What you said is theory but the practice is different. Those lawyers have their own researchers. You only need to have the right connections.
Finalizing decisions needs a lot of citations, supplying text with footnotes, etc. Do you really believe justices/lawyers have plenty of time and enough staff to do those simple tasks?
[Reply]
IN RESPONSE TO UNCLE PINOY
You made a misleading statement that I “cast aspersions” on the U.P.academics subject of my article.
Please read again what I wrote and point to me which part “cast aspersions” on anyone. On the contrary, I was careful to say that I respect the individual or collective opinion of the dean and his professors on the commission of plagiarism by Associate Justice Del Castillo. I might or might not have agreed with them, but it was irrelevant, for purposes of my article, whether or not they think the associate justice was culpable. I think your and their exposition as to the evil of plagiarism was unnecessary and misplaced. It was not an issue at all.
all.
The whole point of my article is the impropriety (or possible illegality) of the group’s “demand” for the supreme court justice to resign, given the group’s presumed respect for the rule of law and of the fundamental tenets of due process. I guess, I was looking for the group’s authority, if any, to do what they did.
[Reply]
You are correct, Atty. Cardinez, and I withdraw that statement re your article. I apologize.
[Reply]