IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC.

AGAINST ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE MARIANO DEL CASTILLO

FACTS:

 Isabel Vinuya, all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, seek reconsideration of
the decision of the Court that dismissed their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited
materials, and gross neglect against Justice Mariano Del Castillo in connection with the
decision he wrote in Vinuya vs Romulo
 April 28, 2010: Court did not grant the petition because:
o the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative under the Constitution
and the law to determine whether to espouse petitioner’s claim against Japan;
and
o the Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to espouse their
claims.
 June 9, 2010: Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration
 July 18, 2010: Atty. Harry Roque disclosed in his online blog that Vinuya, et. al. will be
filing a supplemental petition detailing “plagiarism committed by the courts” under the
second reason of April 28, 2010 judgment
 July 19, 2010 : Filing of supplemental motion, “manifest intellectual theft and outright
plagiarism” and “twisting of true intents of plagiarized sources... to suit the arguments”
 July 22, 2010: Justice del Castillo circulated a letter with the following content: “... there
was every intention to attribute all sources, whenever due;” “Sources were re-studied,
discussions modified, passages added or deleted;”
 August 8, 2010: Dean of UP College of Law publicizes a Statement claiming that
o It was “an extraordinary act of injustice” and a “singularly reprehensible act of
dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land,” and that he
had “ deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors’ works” which
amounted to an “act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and
deceive”
o The copy of this letter turned out to be a dummy; in actuality, the letter was only
signed by a minority of the Faculty
 Three foreign articles:
o A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens (Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent)
o Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime (Mark Ellis)
o Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations (Christian J. Tams)
 All three authors expressed concern over possible “misreading” of their works that in
actuality did not support the decision
 Tams was concerned that he was given generic reference only
 Court researcher admitted to the unintentional deletion of attribution to the writers,
faulted multiple drafts and Microsoft Word
*structure of Jules Herrera-Lim’s (C2019) digest was used as the basis ofstructure of the facts
here
ISSUE AND HELD:
 WoN the Court approved by its decision legalized or approved of the commission of
plagiarism in the Philippines.
o NO. The Court, like everyone else, condemns plagiarism as the world in general
uses and understands the term
o Plagiarism- to steal and pass off as one’s own the ideas or words of another;
implies malicious taking
o Decisions of the court are different from academic works in that they are not
written to earn merit, accolade, or prize as an original piece of work or art
o Justice, not originality, form, and style is the object of every decision of a
court of law
o Under the doctrine of stare decisis, Courts are to stand by precedent, and not to
disturb settled point
o Because of the need to be precise and correct under this doctrine, judges and
practitioners alike, by practice and tradition, usually lift passages from such
precedent and writings, at times omitting, without malicious intent, attributions to
the originators; this does not necessarily mean this is dishonest
o Ideas of judges are placed in the public sphere and therefore can be used by law
practitioners and the like without fear of committing some wrong or incurring
some liability
o This does not, however, give magistrates the license to be just mere copycats;
their decisions analyze the often conflicting facts of each case and sort out the
relevant from the irrelevant; they identify and formulate the issue or issues that
need to be solved and evaluate each of the laws, principles, or authorities that
the parties to the case can invoke; this is where the substance of decisions, their
genius, originality, and honest labor can be found
o While it is true that Justice Del Castillo failed to attribute the sources he used, the
Ethics Committee found that the attribution to the authors were found in the early
drafts of the ponencia; they were only removed from the final version because
the researcher accidentally deleted the attributions when she was cleaning it up;
this fact shows that Del Castillo has no intention to pass of those ideas as his
own

*Court found that it would be moot to discuss the plagiarism allegations in writing the Ang
Ladlad decision, as well as the motion for reconsideration of the IBP as regards the other
instances of alleged plagiarism claimed by Dr. Peter Payoyo, since Justice Del Castillo already
proved in his comment that those errors in attributions suffered only from formatting lapses

DISSENTING OPINION, CARPIO

 Dissents on two grounds:
o The Court has no jurisdiction to decide in an administrative case whether a sitting
Justice of the Court has committed misconduct in office as this power belongs
exclusively to Congress
 Section 3(1), Art. XI of the Constitution
  Impeachable officers are not subject to administrative disciplinary
proceedings either by the Executive or the Judicial branch, in the same
manner that non-impeachable officers are subject; thus, impeachment by
Congress takes the place of administrative disciplinary proceedings
against impeachable officers as there is no other authority that can
administratively discipline impeachable officers
 Plagiarism is a betrayal of public trust, and thus falls within the purview of
the grounds for impeachment
 The Court may only conduct an investigation of an administrative nature
against a sitting Justice to determine if there is basis in recommending to
the HOR an initiation of an impeachment complaint against such sitting
justice; these proceedings cannot determine the innocence or guilt of
such sitting Justice because that would be an usurpation of the power of
Congress
 The decision issued by the Court also gives rise to the possibility of a
constitutional crisis (What if HOR decides to give cognizance to the
complaint and initiates an impeachment proceeding based on the same
complaint which the Court already deemed as baseless?)
 The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission also confirm this
thesis
o In writing decisions, judges must comply with the Law on Copyright as the judge
has no power to exempt himself from the mandatory requirements of the law
 Copying from works of the government- failure to attribute sources only
amounts to sloppy writing; will only be actionable if it was done to mislead
the parties or the public
 Copying from pleadings of parties- failure to attribute sources not
actionable, since putting arguments in such pleading is an implied offer by
the pleader that the judge may make use of the pleadings in resolving the
case; will be actionable if done to mislead the parties or the public
 Copying from textbooks, journals, and other non-government works- the
failure to make proper attributions will be actionable if the work copied is
copyrighted, since it is tantamount to a violation of the Intellectual
Property Code
 While judges can freely copy from works of the government, they must
follow different standards when copying copyrighted works, since they
would be treading on protected works
 Votes to recall the decision as the Court’s jurisdiction extends only to a determination
whether the administrative complaint against Justice Del Castillo constitutes contempt of
court

SEPARATE DISSENTING OPINION, CARPIO-MORALES

 Agrees with Carpio’s second thesis fully, as well as his first one, but with qualification
 The Court may wield its administrative power against its incumbent members on
grounds other than culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and
 corruption, other high crimes, and provided the offense does not carry with it a penalty
which would be tantamount to removal from office either on a permanent or temporary
basis
 Referred to the 1999 Bar Examinations Resolution of the Court, wherein Justice
Purisima was sanctioned for not disclosing his relationship with one of the bar takers;
implied that the Court could have imposed further administrative sanctions on him had
he not retired, and therefore a confirmation that the court may discipline one of its sitting
members
 The Court cannot proceed with the administrative complaint against Del Castillo for it will
either:
o Take cognizance of an impeachable offense which it has no jurisdiction to
determine
o Downplay the questioned conduct and preempt the impeachment proceedings
 Thus joins the call of Carpio to recall the court’s decision, but only insofar as Del Castillo
is concerned; all related administrative concerns involving non-impeachable officers
therein should still be considered effectual
 Also berates the Court for keeping the legal researcher anonymous; cited Biraogo case
wherein one of the lawyers involved was named as a matter of course in the committee
report; unfair to protect credentials of the legal researcher in the case at bar, since the
lawyer in the Biraogo case also had his own credentials to be protected
 Such anonymity of the researcher puts at stake the intellectual integrity of the ponencia;
disservice to judicial functions of the SC
 The legal researcher was remiss in her duties of restudying the sources invoked in the
Vinuya decision; failed to exercise the required degree of care to a task expected of a
lawyer-employee of the SC; should be punished with Simple Neglect of Duty, and fined
Php 10,000
 Also calls for a textual correction of the Vinuya decision

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION, BRION

 Fully supports the conclusions of the Ethics Committee
 Argues that Carpio’s thesis on Congress’ exclusive disciplining authority over all
impeachable officers, including Justices of the SC, would be dangerous
 Considerations that would have to be made include:
o Protection of judicial independence
o Protection of judicial integrity
 The Judiciary itself must be the one to discipline its own members, since
a taint on them would necessary taint the institution as a while
o Protection of the people and fostering public accountability
 That impeachment administratively addressed only serious offenses
committed by impeachable officers cannot imply that the Constitution
condones misdemeanors and misconduct that are not of the same gravity
  He also criticizes Carpio’s expansive view of impeachment grounds, since the threat of
impeachment for ever perceived misconduct would open justices to harassment; may
ultimately trivialize the impeachment process
 Discussed the US system, wherein judicial councils are established for disciplinary
purposes; what is evident in such a system is that no inherent incompatibility exists
between the existence of Congress’ power to impeach, and the Supreme Court’s power
to discipline its own members
 When the conduct of a member of the SC is improper but of not such a gravity to be
considered an impeachable offense, the Court—to protect its integrity—may address the
misconduct through an administrative disciplinary case against the erring member
 On the dissatisfaction over the determination of the court that plagiarism requires malice,
Brion argues that there is no need to quibble over such definition, since in the absence
of any statutory limitation, the Court can define and interpret for purposes of its
administrative authority over all courts and personnel thereof; any interpretation of the
Court of plagiarism is limited to this context and cannot be held to bind the academe in
undertaking its educational function

SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION, ABAD

 Fully concurs in the majority opinion
 On Carpio’s dissent:
o Congress’ jurisdiction over disciplinary proceedings is only with respect to
impeachable offenses; infractions which do not constitute impeachable offenses
can be investigated by the Court
o Del Castillo is not charged under the Copyright Law, and the court does not have
original jurisdiction over copyright law violations, therefore his second thesis
cannot stand
 On Sereno’s dissent:
o Courts cannot be held to the same standard as the academe, since our courts
are in the business not of judicial scholarship, but of deciding fairly and honestly
the disputes before them using precedents which belong to the public domain
o Sereno has no right to demand such exacting standards since she herself has
breached those standards, since on many occasions (which were enumerated by
Abad in his dissent), she has lifted from the works of other without proper
attribution

DISSENTING OPINION, SERENO

 (The dissent itself mostly consists of comparative tables showing the work of Del
Castillo, and the sources which he lifted from; also defended herself against the
allegations of Justice Abad by showing comparative tables of her work and the sources
from which they were lifted; I don’t think those are important so just check those in the
original)
 Even if a judge has to rely in large part on the drafts of is legal researchers, the work of a
diligent and honest judge will never display the severe plagiarism evident in the Vinuya
decision
 The best approximation using the word count feature of Microsoft Word, reveals that
52.9% of the words used in Vinuya are copied without attribution
 Also posits that the manner through which the sentences were phrased, shows
deliberateness; Del Castillo cut and patched sentences to form a mishmash of
sentences, giving the reader the impression that a freshly crafted argument was an
original creation
 The research process detailed by the research assistant cast doubt on inadvertence; the
aggregate number of actions needed to erase each and every citation missing in Vinuya
is so high that the underlying cause could not have been mere carelessness; there is no
software in the world that will generate the citation without the appropriate action of the
user; following the process described by the researcher in the hearing of the Ethics
Committee, there would have had to have been 236 deliberate steps to be able to drop
the 59 citations missing in Vinuya; given the big chunk of the citations missing, Microsoft
Word would have alerted the user to the discrepancies in footnote deletions
 Applied a three-pronged test on the text:
o Extent
o Deliberateness (the first two are discussed above)
o Effect
 Using this test, Sereno makes the conclusion that the plagiarism is severe, and harmful
to the Philippine legal system
 The Court has often referred to one of its functions being the symbolic or educative
function, the competence to formulate guiding principles that may enlighten the bench,
the bar, and the public; it cannot now backpedal from the high standards inherent in the
judicial role, or from the standards it has set for itself; judges, especially justices, are
subject to higher standards by virtue of their office; being the subject of constant public
scrutiny, a judge should freely and willingly accept restrictions on conduct that might be
viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen; impact of judicial decisions codified in
par. 2 of the Canon of Judicial Ethics
 Does not, however, make a pronouncement on the court’s jurisdiction over the
plagiarism complaint