Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Philippine Constitutional Law

Digests
A site for digests of landmark Constitutional Law cases in the Philippines.

Home Privacy Policy Musings on Law All That Matters

Friday, December 9, 2011

In Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010

DECISION

PER CURIAM:

I. THE FACTS

In the landmark decision of Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230,
promulgated last April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition filed by a group of Blog Archive
Filipino comfort women during the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines. The Court,
2012 (26)
speaking through Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, held that the petition seeking to compel the
Executive Department to espouse the petitioners claims for official apology and other 2011 (11)
forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice and other December (4)
international tribunals has NO MERIT because: (1) the prerogative to determine whether to In Re del Castillo Plagiarism
Controversy (Part II...
espouse petitioners claims against Japan belongs exclusively to the Executive Department; and
(2) the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse the petitioners claims. In Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC, October 1...

Discontented with the foregoing decision, the petitioners in Vinuya filed a motion for In Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-
SC, October 1...
reconsideration. Subsequently, they also filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, this time
accusing the Justice del Castillo of plagiarizing (copying without attribution) and twisting Dante Liban, et al. v. Richard Gordon,
G.R. No. 17...
passages from three foreign legal articles to support the Courts position in
the Vinuya decision: November (7)

(1) A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Professors Evan J. Criddle (Associate

Professor of Syracuse University College of Law) and Evan Fox-Descent Followers
(Assistant Professor of McGill University Faculty of Law) published in the Yale
Journal of International Law in 2009;

(2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis (Executive
Director of the International Bar Association), published in the Case Western
Reserve Journal of International Law in 2006; and

(3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law by Professor Christian

J. Tams (Chair of International Law of University of Glasgow School of Law),
published in Cambridge University Press (2005).
About Me

The Court then referred the charges against Justice Del Castillo to its Committee Edgardo Luardo Jr.
on Ethics and Ethical Standards, chaired by Chief Justice Renato Corona, for Follow 51
investigation and recommendation. After the proceedings before it, the Committee
View my complete profile
submitted its findings and recommendations to the Court en banc, which then treated and
decided the controversy as an administrative matter.

Labels
II. THE ISSUES
2011 bar exam results (1)

1. Did Justice Del Castillo, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case, 20th century fox v. CA (1)
plagiarize the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis? 3 readings on separate days (1)
349 pepsi crowns case (1)
 abadilla 5 (1)
2. Did Justice Del Castillo twist the works of these authors to make it appear that actual case or controversy (1)
such works supported the Courts position in the Vinuya decision? alibi (1)
angara v. electoral commission (1)
ARMM elections (1)
III. THE RULING
arnault v. nazareno (1)
arroyo v. de lima (1)
[By a 10-2 vote, with three Justices including Justice del Castillo taking no part,
bar exams (1)
the Court DISMISSED the charges for lack of merit and held that Justice del Castillo was
NOT GUILTY of plagiarizing and twisting the cited materials and hence did NOT commit bayan v. zamora (1)
gross negligence.] cacho-olivares v. ermita (1)
chavez v. gonzales and ntc (1)
1. NO, Justice Del Castillo, in writing the opinion for the Court in checkpoints case (1)
the Vinuya case, did NOT plagiarize the published works of authors Tams, Criddle- china bank v. CA (1)
Descent, and Ellis. columbia pictures v. flores (1)
. combinations and restraint of trade (1)
At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft of another persons language, comprehensive agrarian reform program
thoughts, or ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly understood according to Webster, is (2)
to take (ideas, writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as ones own. The constitutionality of checkpoints (2)
passing off of the work of another as ones own is thus an indispensable element of contempt power of senate (1)
plagiarism. control test (1)
custodial investigation (1)
As regards that one passage from Professor Tams, the Court believes that
david v. arroyo (1)
whether or not the footnote is sufficiently detailed, so as to satisfy the footnoting standards
decision in in re charges of plagiarism v.
of counsel for petitioners is not an ethical matter but one concerning clarity of writing. The justice del castillo (1)
statement See Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (2005) in delegation of power (1)
the Vinuya decision is an attribution no matter if Tams thought that it gave him somewhat
dissent of justice ma. lourdes sereno (1)
less credit than he deserved. Such attribution altogether negates the idea that Justice Del
economic protectionism (1)
Castillo passed off the challenged passages as his own.
election synchronization (1)
equity structure in public utilities (1)
That it would have been better had Justice Del Castillo used the introductory
exclusionary rule (1)
phrase cited in rather than the phrase See would make a case of mere inadvertent slip
in attribution rather than a case of manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism. If filipino first policy (2)
the Justices citations were imprecise, it would just be a case of bad footnoting rather than foreign military troops in the phils. (1)
one of theft or deceit. If it were otherwise, many would be target of abuse for every fortun v. arroyo (1)
editorial error, for every mistake in citing pagination, and for every technical detail of form. freedom of expression (1)
freedom of religion (1)
As regards the passages from Ellis, the Court notes that the lengthy passages in freedom of speech (1)
Footnote 65 of Vinuya came almost verbatim from Ellis article but did not contain an freedom of the press (3)
acknowledgment or introduction that they are from that article. Moreover, as regards gamboa v. teves (1)
the passages from the work of Professors Criddle and Descent, it was also observed
general warrant (1)
that the Vinuya decision lifted the portions, including their footnotes, from Criddle-
globalization (1)
Descents article, A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens as footnotes in the Vinuya decision
GMA TRO (1)
without any attributions made to the two authors. Unless amply explained, these
grosjean v. american press (1)
unattributed lifting from the works of Ellis and Criddle-Descent could be construed as
hacienda luisita (2)
plagiarism.
hello garci (1)
The explanation came from one of Justice Del Castillos researchers, a court- HLI v. PARC decision july 5 2011 (1)
employed attorney. She explained how she accidentally deleted the attributions, originally HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011 (1)
planted in the beginning drafts of her report to him, which report eventually became the holdover of elected ARMM officials (1)
working draft of the decision. She said that, for most parts, she did her research iglesia ni cristo v. CA (1)
electronically. For international materials, she sourced these mainly from Westlaw, an impeachment of cj corona (1)
online research service for legal and law-related materials to which the Court subscribes. implied powers (1)
The researcher showed the Committee the early drafts of her report in the Vinuya case in re garcia (1)
and these included the passages lifted from the separate articles of Criddle-Descent and incompatible offices (1)
of Ellis with proper attributions to these authors. But, as it happened, in the course of
incorporation clause (2)
editing and cleaning up her draft, the researcher accidentally deleted the attributions.
ineligibility of the President to run for re-
election (1)
It was notable that neither Justice Del Castillo nor his researcher had a motive or inherent powers (1)
reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to Criddle-Descent or to Ellis. The
investigation in aid of legislation (1)
latter authors are highly respected professors of international law. The law journals that
jose midas marquez (1)
published their works have exceptional reputations. It did not make sense to intentionally
justice mariano del castillo (2)
omit attribution to these authors when the decision cites an abundance of other
justice sereno's dissent in in re charges
sources. Citing these authors as the sources of the lifted passages would enhance rather of plagiarism vs. justice del castillo (1)
than diminish their informative value. Both Justice Del Castillo and his researcher gain
kida v. senate (1)
nothing from the omission. Thus, the failure to mention the works of Criddle-Decent and
kuroda v. jalandoni (1)
Ellis was unquestionably due to inadvertence or pure oversight.
laserna v. ddb (1)
liban v. gordon (1)
 2. NO, Justice Del Castillo did NOT twist the works of authors Tams, lis mota (1)
Criddle-Descent, and Ellis to make it appear that such works supported the Courts lumanog v. people (1)
position in the Vinuya decision. maguindanao massacre (1)
mandatory drug testing (1)
The decision [in Vinuya] did NOT twist the passages from Tams, Criddle- manila hotel (1)
Descent, and Ellis. To twist means to distort or pervert the meaning of. For example, if
manila prince hotel v. gsis (1)
one lifts the lyrics of the National Anthem, uses it in his work, and declares that Jose
martial law (1)
Palma who wrote it did not love his country, then there is twisting or misrepresentation
meaning of the term capital in Sec. 11
of what the anthems lyrics said. Here, nothing in the Vinuya decision said or implied that, Art. XII of the Constitution (1)
based on the lifted passages, authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis supported the
monopolies (1)
Courts conclusion that the Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to
moot and academic cases (1)
espouse Vinuya et al.s claims.
national patrimony (1)
new york times v. U.S. (1)
[For a more detailed treatment of the Court's October 12, 2010 per curiam
office search (1)
decision in relation to the impeachment complaint filed in the House of Representatives
oil deregulation (1)
against Justice del Castillo, please click here.]
one title-one subject (1)

[Next post: Digest of Justice Sereno's Dissenting Opinion from the October 12, p.s. bank v. senate impeachment court
(1)
2010 per curiam decision.]
people v. exala (1)
Philippine National Red Cross (1)
Posted by Atty. Ed at 3:01 AM pimentel v. comelec (1)
Labels: decision in in re charges of plagiarism v. justice del castillo, justice mariano del castillo, plagiarism, piracy (1)
vinuya v. executive secretary plagiarism (3)
Location: Cebu City, Philippines
police lineup (1)
pollo v. david (1)

No comments: pormento v. estrada (1)

power to promulgate rules of procedure
(1)
Post a Comment
presentation of master tape in piracy
cases (1)
president's power to appoint ARMM
Enter your comment... OICs (1)
prior restraint (3)
privacy of communications and
correspondence (1)
Comment as: Unknown (Goo Sign out
probable cause for issuance of warrant
of arrest (1)
probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant (1)
Publish Preview Notify me
RA 9165 (1)
requisites of judicial review (2)
Links to this post resolution in in re charges of plagiarism
Create a Link v. justice del castillo (1)
review/censorship of religious tv
programs (1)
right against self-incrimination (1)
right against unreasonable search and
seizure (2)
right of privacy (1)
right to travel (1)
roberts v. CA (1)
search and seizure (4)
search warrant (1)
secrecy of foreign currency deposits (1)
self-executing provision (1)
sjs v. ddb (1)
speedy disposition of cases (1)
stock distribution option (2)
Newer Post Home Older Post
stop-and-frisk (1)
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) suspension of privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus (1)
taada v. angara (1)
tatad v. executive secretary (1)
terry search (1)
terry v. ohio (1)
treaty (3)
TRO vs. senate impeachment court (1)
 university of cebu college of law (1)
valid form of warrantless search (1)
valmonte v. de villa (2)
vinuya v. executive secretary (2)
visiting forces agreement (1)
warrant of arrest (1)
warrantless arrests (1)
warrantless search and seizure (1)
world trade organization (1)

TopBlogs.com.ph

Feedjit

Total Pageviews

287,520

Copyright 2011-2012 by Atty. Ed. Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.