A.M. No.

10-10-4-SC

In 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,”
8 MARCH 2011
 Works were allegedly plagiarized from the
Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R.
No. 162230)

According to Attys. Roque and Bagares, works

FACTS plagiarized in the Vinuya decision include the ff:
-Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent’s
article “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens”
-Christian J. Tams’ book “Enforcing Erga
Omnes Obligations in International Law”
-Mark Ellis’ article “Breaking the Silence: On
Rape as an International Crime”
 The decision reportedly plagiarized the above
mentioned articles. Furthermore, what made
the plagiarism even more vague is the fact
that materials directly lifted from the above
FACTS mentioned articles were used to convey points
that were the complete opposite of what they
were truly meant to be. This makes the
misrepresentation and the plagiarism even
more unforgiveable.
 The argument that the ponente cannot be
expected to have been thorough in citing
sources is a weak one as this is a matter of
discipline that is expected of the Supreme
Court of the Philippines.
FACTS
It is then the opinion of the Faculty of the
University of the Philippines College of Law
that Plagiarism committed in the case of
Vinuya v Executive Secretary is unacceptable.
 It endangers the integrity and credibility of the
entire Supreme Court and undermines the
foundations of the Philippine judicial system. It
does damage to the primordial function of the
SC as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all.
FACTS
To save the honor and dignity of the SC as an
institution, the ponente of the Vinuya case
must resign, without prejudice to any other
sanctions that the court may consider
appropriate
 SC must take this opportunity to review the
FACTS manner by which it conducts research,
prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes decisions
in order to prevent a recurrence of
similar act
 ISSUES:

WON the Show Cause WON the Show Cause

Resolution denies respondents Resolution violates
their freedom of expression respondents’ academic
freedom as law professors -
 NO.
A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was neither the
fact that respondents had criticized a decision of the Court nor that they had
charged one of its members of plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It
was the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which
respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have
expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for
RULINGS:
WON the Show Cause
the “proper disposition” and consideration of the Court that gave rise to said Resolution denies respondents
their freedom of expression
Resolution. The Show Cause Resolution painstakingly enumerated the
statements that the Court considered excessive and uncalled for under the
circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to this
Court of the UP Law faculty’s Restoring Integrity Statement.
The right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and
of expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must be exercised
responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding obligation.
Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with
responsibility. Thus, proscribed are the uses of unnecessary language,
which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or promotes distrust in
judicial administration, or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of
people in the integrity of the members of the Court. In other words, while RULINGS:
WON the Show Cause
a lawyer is entitled to present his case with vigor and courage, such Resolution denies respondents
their freedom of expression
enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive language.
Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but
respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.
A long line of cases shows that the Court has held that the right to
criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the
equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be
protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the critics
are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly RULINGS:
affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements WON the Show Cause
Resolution denies respondents
regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, their freedom of expression

have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency.


RULINGS:
WON the Show Cause Resolution violates
respondents’ academic freedom as law
professors
NO.
There is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that
dictates upon respondents the subject matter they can
teach and the manner of their instruction.
Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the principle of
academic freedom for this Court to subject lawyers who
teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious conduct
and speech, coupled with undue intervention in favor of
a party in a pending case, without observing proper
procedure, even if purportedly done in their capacity as
teachers.

RULINGS:
WON the Show Cause Resolution violates
respondents’ academic freedom as law
professors
Respondents cannot successfully invoke academic freedom
in this case. The constitutional right to freedom of
expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed
by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to
the courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal
profession and the justice system. The Court believes
that the reason that freedom of expression may be so
delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater
force to the academic freedom of law professors.

RULINGS:
WON the Show Cause Resolution violates
respondents’ academic freedom as law
professors
The Court reiterates that lawyers when they teach law
are considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike
professors in other disciplines and more than lawyers
who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their
oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal
profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must be
measured against the same canons of professional
responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar
as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably
entwined with the fact that they
are lawyers.
Thank you by:
KHRIZZIA FATE M. TOLEDANA