Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)
Facts:
In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, Etc., Against Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 15, 2010, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam. The matter arose from allegations that Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, who penned the Court's decision in Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al. v. The Honorable Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 162230 (the "Vinuya" case), plagiarized and misused passages from several foreign authors to support the Vinuya judgment.
Petitioners in G.R. No. 162230 (members of the Malaya Lolas Organization) sued executive officials seeking that the Executive Department espouse their WWII "comfort women" claims against Japan. On April 28, 2010 the Supreme Court in Vinuya dismissed the petition; Justice Del Castillo wrote the opinion, concluding the Executive has the exclusive prerogative to espouse such claims and that the Philippines had no international-law obligation to espouse them. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration on June 9, 2010 and, on July 19, 2010, a supplemental motion accusing Justice Del Castillo of "manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism," alleging unattributed copying from (a) Evan J. Criddle & Evan Fox-Decent, A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens (2009); (b) Mark Ellis, Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime (2006); and (c) Christian J. Tams, Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations (2005), and of "twisting" those works to support the Court's conclusions.
Because the supplemental motion drew public attention, Justice Del Castillo circulated a verified letter explaining there was no malicious intent and that the ponencia was repeatedly deliberated en banc. On July 27, 2010 the Court referred the charges to its Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards (chaired by the Chief Justice) for investigation; retired Justice Jose C. Vitug acted as consultant. The Committee received submissions, heard the parties on August 26, 2010, and considered testimony from Justice Del Castillo’s researcher, who admitted that attributions present in early drafts were accidentally deleted during electronic editing. The Committee allowed memoranda, reviewed evidence (including a contested U.P. Faculty statement), and submitted unanimous findings and recommendations to the Court.
The Court resolved the administrative case by en banc decision, dismissing the charges. Justice Del Castillo to...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether Justice Mariano C. del Castillo plagiarized the published works of Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis in composing the Vinuya opinion.
- Whether Justice Mariano C. del Castillo "twisted" or misrepresented those authors' works to support the...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)