Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Re: Letter of The UP Law Faculty - Restoring Integrity: Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in The Supreme Court (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Nestor Lim
    32 views2 pages
    1. The UP Law Faculty published a statement alleging plagiarism by Justice Del Castillo in his decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. 2. The Court held that the statement treated the plagiarism allegations as fact and criticized the Court's dismissal of the case, violating legal ethics. 3. Criticism that tends to influence an ongoing case is punishable as contempt of court. While criticism is allowed, attacks that threaten judicial independence cross the line. The statement appeared intended to discredit the decision rather than engage in objective commentary.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Re Letter of the UP Law Faculty entitled quotRestoring 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 Courtquotb

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. The UP Law Faculty published a statement alleging plagiarism by Justice Del Castillo in his decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. 2. The Court held that the statement treated the plagiarism allegations as fact and criticized the Court's dismissal of the case, violating legal ethics. 3. Criticism that tends to influence an ongoing case is punishable as contempt of court. While criticism is allowed, attacks that threaten judicial independence cross the line. The statement appeared intended to discredit the decision rather than engage in objective commentary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    32 views2 pages

    Re: Letter of The UP Law Faculty - Restoring Integrity: Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in The Supreme Court (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Nestor Lim
    1. The UP Law Faculty published a statement alleging plagiarism by Justice Del Castillo in his decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. 2. The Court held that the statement treated the plagiarism allegations as fact and criticized the Court's dismissal of the case, violating legal ethics. 3. Criticism that tends to influence an ongoing case is punishable as contempt of court. While criticism is allowed, attacks that threaten judicial independence cross the line. The statement appeared intended to discredit the decision rather than engage in objective commentary.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty - Restoring Integrity: Allegations of Plagiarism

    and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court (2010)

    Summary Cases:

    ● 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."

    Subject: Lawyers shall uphold the dignity and authority of the Court ; Criticism levied at the courts and
    its justices, which tends to influence the outcome of an ongoing controversy, is punishable as contempt
    of court

    Facts:

    Allegations of plagiarism were launched 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. In said
    case, the Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort women to compel certain officers
    of the executive department 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.

    The UP College of Law faculty published a statement regarding this matter, saying that the alleged
    plagiarism and misrepresentation are not only affronts to the individual scholars whose work have been
    appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious threat to the integrity and credibility of the
    Philippine Judicial System. They also stated that the High Court cannot accommodate less than absolute
    honesty in its decisions and cannot accept excuses for failure to attain the highest standards of conduct
    imposed upon all members of the Bench and Bar because these undermine the very foundation of its
    authority and power in a democratic society. It was added that the alleged plagiarism is unacceptable,
    unethical and a breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and professional competence
    expected of the Supreme Court. Such breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire
    Supreme Court and undermines the foundations of the Philippine judicial system. They also called for
    the resignation of Justice Del Castillo in order to save the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court.

    Held:

    Lawyers shall uphold the dignity and authority of the Court

    1. 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
    | Page 1 of 2
    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.

    2. 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. Their actions constitute a violation of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of
    the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

    3. 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.

    Criticism levied at the courts and its justices, which tends to influence the outcome of an
    ongoing controversy, is punishable as contempt of court

    4. Any publication, pending a suit, reflecting upon the court, the jury, the parties, the officers of the court,
    the counsel with reference to the suit, or tending to influence the decision of the controversy, is contempt
    of court and is punishable.

    5. 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. 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."

    6. The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for the faculty's less than objective
    comments except to discredit the Vinuya decision 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. Atty. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen and the rest of the faculty of the UP College of
    Law were directed to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar.

    | Page 2 of 2

    You might also like