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