In the matter of the charges of plagiarism, etc., against associate justice mariano c. del castillo.

a.m. no. 10-7-17-sc

February 8, 2011

Subject matter: Plagiarism and Negligence

Facts: In the decision promulgated by the Supreme Court (SC) on April 28, 2010 dismissing the
petition filed by the Malaya Lolas Organization in the case of Vinuya vs. Romulo. Vinuya’s
attorney Herminio Harry Roque Jr,. questioned the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration
and subsequently filing a separate supplemental motion for reconsideration arguing that the
ponente in the case at bar, Justice Mariano Del Castillo, plagiarized three books namely:

1. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of
International Law (2009);

2. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law (2006); and

3. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

When the Associate Justice allegedly “twisted the true intents” of the said books to justify the
decision rendered by the SC.

The SC then referred the case against the Associate Justice to its Committee on Ethics and Ethical
Standards, spear headed by then Chief Justice Renato Corona, for further inquiry and
investigation. Upon careful consideration, the committee then forwarded its findings to the SC en
banc which considered the issue as an administrative matter.

Issues:

Whether or not Justice Del Castillo, in writing the opinion for the court in the said case,
plagiarized and twisted the published works of the authors Criddle-Descent, Ellis, and Tams to
support the court’s position in the decision.

Held:

The SC with a vote of 10 – 2, precluding three votes from the justices including Justice Del Castillo,
Dismissed the charges on the grounds of lack of merit and held that Justice Del Castillo was not
guilty of plagiarising and twisting the true intent of the materials.

The SC in its decision argued that there is a basic reason for individual judges of whatever level of
courts, including the Supreme Court, not to use original or unique language when reinstating the
laws involved in the cases they decide. Their duty is to apply the laws as these are written. But
laws include, under the doctrine of stare decisis, judicial interpretations of such laws as are
applied to specific situations. Under this doctrine, Courts are "to stand by precedent and not to
disturb settled point." Once the Court has "laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain

Ashlene Eve S. Pineda JD1- D

state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties or property are the same."

The court also stated that “A judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is
exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article,
novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without
giving attribution. Thus judges are free to use whatever sources they deem appropriate to resolve
the matter before them, without fear of reprisal.”

Arguing that the mistake in attributing to the three authors was committed by Justice Del
Castillo’s researcher, the court ruled that in plagiarism intent is material. Therefore, Justice Del
Castillo cannot be held liable as there was no intent to take the said foreign works as his own and
that the Justice cited the materials in good faith.

Meanwhile Justice Sereno in her dissenting opinion in relation to the letter of the UP Law faculty
with the headline “Restoring Integrity” stated that “Given the Court’s recent history and
controversy that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges to such clear and obvious plagiarism
to pass without sanction, as this would only further erode faith confidence in the judicial system”.
And that “It is also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the SC as the final arbiter of all
controversies: a position that requires competence and integrity completely above any and all
reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of judicial and professional ethics.”

Ashlene Eve S. Pineda JD1- D