2ND CASE Digest - Plagiarism VS AJ DEL Castillo PDF

Preview

Summary

THIS IS A CASE DIGEST ON JUSTICE DEL CASTILLO REGARDING THE PLAGIARISM CASE AGAINST HIM.

HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE USEFUL TO ANYONE....

Description

MAYETH B. RAMOS ARISTOTLE

CASE TITLE:

PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC

October 15, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO FACTS:

This case materialized from a case filed in Court with G.R. No. 162230. BACKGROUND: G.R. No. 162230 was a case filed by ISABELIT C. VINUYA, together with 70 elderly ladies, members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, (petitioners) vs. the Honorable Executive Secretary ALBERTO G. ROMULO, the Honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs DELIA DOMINGO-ALBERT, the Honorable Secretary of Justice MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, and the Honorable Solicitor General ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO. (respondents). With Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, presiding the case. As per the court records Vinuya, et. Al. claimed that during World War 2, Japanese Army attacked their villages, bombed their habitats and raped women systematically. The system being pertained to as “comfort women” stations in the Philippines, as ordered by the Japanese officials and military officers. Their plight had caused them mental and emotional suffering, hence they intended to ask for legal compensation from the Japanese government. Vinuya et.al, also claimed that since 1998, they have appealed to the Executive Department through the DOJ, DFA, and OSG, so that they may be assisted in filing a claim against the Japanese officials responsible for their misery. However, officials of the Executive Department declined to assist the petitioners, for the reason that the claims of the comfort women for compensation had already been provided by Japan’s compliance with the Peace Treaty between the Philippines and Japan. In the Ruling of Associate Justice Mariano dated April 28, 2010, he emphasized on the Court’s sympathy and understanding of the ordeal of the Malaya Lolas Organization members have gone through, but as quoted in his ruling “…our government should take the lead in protecting its citizens against violation of their fundamental human rights. Regrettably, it is not within our power to order the Executive Department to take up the petitioners’ cause. Ours is only the power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up petitioners’ cause.” On June 9, 2020, counsel for Malaya Lolas Organization, Atty. Herminio Harry Roque Jr. filed for Motion of Reconsideration. On July 18, 2010 Atty. Roque announced in his blog that they would file supplemental petition, Re a plagiarism case against Justice Del Castillo.

MAYETH B. RAMOS ARISTOTLE

PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS

On July 19, 2010, Vinuya et.al. through counsel Atty. Harry Roque, filed the said supplemental motion for reconsideration, which accused Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo of plagiarism, further stating that Justice Del Castillo twisted these plagiarized sources to suit his judgement. These were the plagiarized sources, Atty. Roque stated to have been used by Justice Del Castillo; 1. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005); 2. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of International Law (2009); and 3. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006) With this argument, Atty. Roque claimed that the act of fraud of Justice Del Castillo, should be addressed, as it did not only put the Court deliberation’s integrity into question but also has been prejudicial to the members of Malaya Lolas Organization. Due to the publicity of the case, Justice Del Castillo wrote a letter to his colleagues stating that he had every intention to attribute to the right sources whatever was used in the ruling. ISSUES/S:

The case Vinuya vs Del Castillo presents 2 issues: (1) Whether or not Justice Del Castillo in his ruling of G.R. No. 162230, plagiarized the published works of authors Criddle-Descent, Ellis and Tams; and (2) whether or not the works of these authors were twisted by Justice Del Castillo, to make it appear that these works supported the Court’s ruling in the Vinuya decision. In addition, the court needed to rule whether the letter written by Justice Del Castillo to his colleagues, is an attempt to whitewash his act of plagiarism. Moreover, the Court also needed to decide whether intent to deceive is essential in plagiarism. The court found the following discoveries: 1. Plagiarism is in essence a form of fraud, therefore intent to deceive is inherent. Plagiarism is considered “a theft of another person’s ideas, thoughts and language.” In which case, “intent to deceive” is essential in a case of plagiarism. The motive of passing the work as one’s own is a requisite element for the act to be considered as plagiarism. 2. The Passages of Tams. Tam’s claimed that a mere reference in the footnote is not enough to give him credit for his work. Upon examination of the Court, it was found that the passage was also attributed by Tam to Bruno Simma, which Justice Castillo also attributed to. Hence, Justice Del Castillo did not intend to pass

MAYETH B. RAMOS ARISTOTLE

PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

the work of Tam’s as his own. Hence, it was just a matter of precision of the writing. The Passages from Ellis and Criddle-Descent. Justice Del Castillo claimed that it was not intentional that the sources were omitted in the manuscript. Though he was the one who directs the research, it was one of his researchers who made the mistake in accidentally deleting the attributions. Due to the use of computers, specifically Microsoft Word program. In the said program, once a certain text is deleted, it will not be retrieved any longer, unlike the way it was done before, wherein strips of paper were used to mark the passages which will be referred to in the ruling. In addition, it will not give alarm that a certain text was deleted, may it be intentional or accidental. The researcher in addition showed the early drafts of the ruling and it did provide evidence that the attributions to the sources were included in the original draft. With regard to the letter of Justice Del Castillo dated July 22 to his colleagues which stated that he had every intention to attribute to all the sources their works and he had no malicious intent to pass the said works as his own, was just merely stating the truth. The court did not find anything in the letter that would show a cover-up. The Court did not find any motive for the Justice or his researcher to intentionally omit the names of the authors, more so when these authors have international reputation, and their names will give more credence to the ruling. The petition whether Justice Del Castillo twisted the passages of his sources to support his decision, was taken into audit. The court ruled that the word “twist” means “to distort or to pervert.” The Court, stated that “first, since the attributions to CriddleDescent and Ellis were accidentally deleted, it is impossible for any person reading the decision to connect the same to the works of those authors as to conclude that in writing the decision Justice Del Castillo "twisted" their intended messages. And, second, the lifted passages provided mere background facts that established the state of international law at various stages of its development. These are neutral data that could support conflicting theories regarding whether or not the judiciary has the power today to order the Executive Department to sue another country or whether the duty to prosecute violators of international crimes has attained the status of jus cogens. The Court did not find any Misconduct on the part of Justice Del Castillo, as there were no malicious motives. Only those with disreputable motives are subject to disciplinary action. The court did not find any Inexcusable Negligence on the part of Justice Del Castillo, as the petitioners assert, stating that Justice Del Castillo left the writing of the ruling to his researcher. The Court stated in its findings that Justice Del Castillo was in control of the writing of the decision as was stated by the researcher, he was supervising and directing the research

MAYETH B. RAMOS ARISTOTLE

PROF: DR. KATHRINA VANESS Y. HAGORILES LEGAL WRITING AND ANALYSIS

himself. Additionally, the court-employed attorney who was the researcher for the said decision, has all the credentials needed to be considered competent to take on the post as researcher. RULING: THE SUPREME COURT RULED AS FOLLOWS: 1. DISMISSES for lack of merit petitioner Vinuya, et al.’s charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano C. del Castillo; 2. DIRECTS the Public Information Office to send copies of this decision to Professors Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Dr. Mark Ellis, and Professor Christian J. Tams at their known addresses; 3. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to provide all court attorneys involved in legal research and reporting with copies of this decision and to enjoin them to avoid editing errors committed in the Vinuya case while using the existing computer program especially when the volume of citations and footnoting is substantial; and 4. Finally, DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to acquire the necessary software for use by the Court that can prevent future lapses in citations and attributions. ==== FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya, filed for Motion of Reconsideration, Re the Court decision dated October 12, 2010, which dismissed charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited texts, and gross negligence against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the ruling on the case with Court G.R. No. 162230, entitled Vinuya v. Romulo. On the grounds that the decision dated October 12, 2010 by virtue had legalized the act of plagiarism in the Philippines. The Court found the claim to be absurd, as Supreme Courts condemns plagiarism as the people in general understands the term and uses it. Petitioner further included the case Ang Ladlad vs COMELEC as an example, in which the court found the petitioners to be ‘nit-picking.’ THE COURT DENIED THE PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR LACK OF MERIT....