EN BANC
|
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled “Restoring
Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines
College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the
Supreme Court.” |
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC Present: CARPIO, CARPIO
MORALES,* VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* VILLARAMA,
JR., PEREZ,
SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: October
19, 2010 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
VILLARAMA,
JR., J.:
Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary
composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or
language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.[1]
Allegations
of this intellectual offense were hurled by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia
in the case of Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April
28, 2010. In said case, the Court
denied the petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort women to compel
certain officers of the executive department[2]
to espouse their claims for reparation and demand apology from the Japanese
government for the abuses committed against them by the Japanese soldiers
during World War II. Attys. Roque and
Bagares represent the comfort women in Vinuya
v. Executive Secretary, which is presently the subject of a motion for
reconsideration.
The
authors and their purportedly plagiarized articles are: (1) Evan J. Criddle and
Evan Fox-Decent from their article, “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens”
published in 2009 in the Yale Journal of International Law; (2) Christian J.
Tams from his book, “Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law”
published by the Cambridge University Press in 2005; and (3) Mark Ellis from
his article, “Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime”
published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law in 2006. The allegations of plagiarism centered on
Justice Del Castillo’s discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga
omnes.
On August 9,
2010, Attys. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin,
Merlin M. Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P.
Salvador Daway, Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L.
Batongbacal, Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel
J. Casis, Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa
Maria J. Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra
Marie O. Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La
Viña, Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S.
Quimbo, Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn
G. Ursua, Raul V. Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva, and Dina D. Lucenario, members
of the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law published a
statement on the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation relative to
the Court’s decision in Vinuya v.
Executive Secretary. Essentially,
the faculty of the UP College of Law, headed by its dean, Atty. Marvic M.V.F.
Leonen, calls for the resignation of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in the
face of allegations of plagiarism in his work.
Notably,
while the statement was meant to reflect the educators’ opinion on the allegations of plagiarism against
Justice Del Castillo, they treated such allegation not only as an established
fact, but a truth. In particular, they
expressed dissatisfaction over Justice Del Castillo’s explanation on how he
cited the primary sources of the quoted portions and yet arrived at a contrary
conclusion to those of the authors of the articles supposedly plagiarized.
Beyond this,
however, the statement bore certain remarks which raise concern for the
Court. The opening sentence alone is a
grim preamble to the institutional attack that lay ahead. It reads:
An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war.
The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the
decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary
as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court
of the land. The authors also not only
assumed that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they went further by
directly accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by
dismissing the petition of the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.
They further attempt to educate this Court on how to go about the review
of the case.
The insult to
the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of deliberately delaying
the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of “polluted
sources,” the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well
as the supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even
the most basic values of decency and respect.
Paragraph 9 of their published statement reads,
But
instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious
to the deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials,
the Court decided this case based on polluted sources. By doing so, the
Supreme Court added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its “power
to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance,
belies (sic) [betrays] a more alarming lack
of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect. (Emphasis
supplied).
The
publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP
While most
agree that the right to criticize the judiciary is critical to maintaining a
free and democratic society, there is also a general consensus that healthy
criticism only goes so far. Many types
of criticism leveled at the judiciary cross the line to become harmful and
irresponsible attacks. These potentially
devastating attacks and unjust criticism can threaten the independence of the
judiciary.[4] The court must “insist on being permitted to
proceed to the disposition of its business in an orderly manner, free from
outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the
administration of justice.”[5]
The Court could
hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty’s less than objective
comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s
honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for its
reconsideration. As if the case on the
comfort women’s claims is not controversial enough, the UP Law faculty would
fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not
reverse the said decision. This runs contrary
to their obligation as law professors and officers of the Court to be the first
to uphold the dignity and authority of this Court, to which they owe fidelity
according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust
in the administration of justice.[6] Their actions likewise constitute violations
of Canons 10, 11, and 13[7]
and Rules 1.02 and 11.05[8]
of the Code of Professional Responsibility.[9]
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, Attys.
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, Froilan M. Bacungan, Pacifico A. Agabin, Merlin M.
Magallona, Salvador T. Carlota, Carmelo V. Sison, Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway,
Dante B. Gatmaytan, Theodore O. Te, Florin T. Hilbay, Jay L. Batongbacal,
Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad, Gwen G. De Vera, Solomon F. Lumba, Rommel J. Casis,
Jose Gerardo A. Alampay, Miguel R. Armovit, Arthur P. Autea, Rosa Maria J.
Bautista, Mark R. Bocobo, Dan P. Calica, Tristan A. Catindig, Sandra Marie O.
Coronel, Rosario O. Gallo, Concepcion L. Jardeleza, Antonio G.M. La Viña,
Carina C. Laforteza, Jose C. Laureta, Owen J. Lynch, Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo,
Antonio M. Santos, Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc, Nicholas Felix L. Ty, Evalyn G.
Ursua, Raul V. Vasquez, Susan D. Villanueva, and Dina D. Lucenario, members of
the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law, are directed
to SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from receipt of a copy of this Resolution, why
they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 10,
11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Further, Dean
Marvic M.V.F. Leonen is directed to SHOW CAUSE, within ten (10) days from
receipt of this Resolution, why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for
violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting, through his
letter dated August 10, 2010, during the pendency of G.R. No. 162230, Vinuya
v. Executive Secretary and of the investigation before the Committee on
Ethics and Ethical Standards, for the consideration of the Court En Banc, a
dummy which is not a true and faithful reproduction of the purported statement,
entitled “Restoring Integrity: A
Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on
the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court.” Enclosed
are copies of the said dummy and signed statement, respectively, attached to
the said letter dated
Let this
matter be DOCKETED as a regular
administrative matter.
Let service
of this Resolution upon the above-named UP
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
||
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
(On leave) CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
|
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice |
(On leave) ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
|
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
JOSE CATRAL Associate Justice |
|
|
MARIA Associate Justice |
||
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
|
|
RENATO C. CORONA Chief Justice |
* On
leave.
[1] Black, Henry Campbell, black’s law dictionary, 5th ed., St. Paul Minn., West Publishing Co., 1979, p. 1035.
[2] Executive Secretary Alberto G. Romulo, Secretary of Foreign Affairs Delia Domingo-Albert, Secretary Merceditas N. Gutierrez, and Solicitor General Alfredo L. Benipayo.
[3] 35 Phil. 944, 950-951 (1916).
[4] In
the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet
Published in Malaya Dated September 18, 19, 20 and 21, 2007, A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC, August 8, 2008, 561
SCRA 395, 434.
[5] Teehankee v. Director of Prisons, 76 Phil 630 (1946).
[6]
[7] CANON 10 — A lawyer shall uphold the constitution, obey the
laws of the land and promote respect for law and for legal processes.
CANON 11 — A lawyer shall observe and
maintain the respect due to the Courts and to judicial officers and should insist on similar
conduct by others.
CANON 13 — A lawyer shall rely upon the merits of his cause and refrain from any impropriety which tends to influence, or gives the appearance of influencing the Court.
[8] Rule 1.02 — A lawyer shall not counsel or abet activities aimed at defiance of the law or at lessening confidence in the legal system.
Rule 11.05 —A lawyer shall submit grievances against a judge to the proper authorities only.
[9] Promulgated
by this Court on