A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC - IN RE: Del Castillo

Petitioners Isabelita C. Vinuya and over 70 elderly women filed a certiorari with preliminary mandatory injunction against the Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Solicitor General, seeking to compel the Executive Department to espouse their comfort-women claims against Japan before international tribunals.
On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court en banc, through Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo’s ponencia, dismissed the petition on two grounds:

Exclusive constitutional prerogative of the Executive Department to espouse foreign claims;
Absence of any binding obligation in international law to take up petitioners’ claims.

On July 18, 2010, petitioners’ counsel Atty. Herminio H. Roque, Jr., announced on his blog intention to file a supplemental motion accusing Justice del Castillo of plagiarizing and twisting three foreign works in support of the second ground.
The July 19, 2010 supplemental motion for reconsideration charged “manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism” of passages from:

Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-DeDescent, “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens” (Yale J. Int’l Law 2009);
Mark Ellis, “Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime” (Case W. Res. J. Int’l Law 2006);
Christian J. Tams, *Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law* (2005).

Justice del Castillo circulated a verified letter to colleagues explaining that he intended to attribute all sources, that the ponencia underwent three en banc deliberations with major revisions, and that any twisting of concepts remained petitioners’ opinion.
On July 27, 2010, the Court en banc referred the charges to its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, chaired by the Chief Justice, with retired Justice Jose C. Vitug as consultant.
The Committee’s proceedings included:

Petitioners’ reply to del Castillo’s letter;
Hearing on August 26, 2010, where del Castillo’s court researcher testified she had copied relevant electronic materials—including proper attributions—in early drafts but unintentionally deleted some attributions during cleanup; she expressed remorse;
Submissions by petitioners’ counsel arguing that intent is irrelevant in plagiarism, invoking *UP Board of Regents v. CA*;
Written memoranda filed by both sides;
Original authors Criddle, Ellis, and Tams commenting on alleged misreading of their works;
A “dummy” faculty statement from U.P. College of Law revealed to be partially unsigned.

Whether Justice Mariano C. del Castillo committed plagiarism in writing the Vinuya decision by appropriating published works of Tams, Criddle-DeDescent, and Ellis without proper attribution.
Whether Justice del Castillo twisted the meaning of those authors’ works to support the Court’s conclusion that no international obligation existed to espouse petitioners’ claims.