Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC)
Facts:
In A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, the Supreme Court, en banc, motu proprio issued a Show Cause Resolution on October 19, 2010, directing thirty-seven members of the University of the Philippines College of Law faculty to explain why they should not be disciplined for allegedly violating specific provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility. These respondent-professors had published and, on August 11, 2010, formally submitted to the Court a statement 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.” The statement was prompted by allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the April 28, 2010 ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230). The Show Cause Resolution charged the faculty with violating Canon 1 (Rule 1.02), Canon 10 (Rules 10.01–10.03), Canon 11 (Rule 11.05) and Canon 13Case Digest (A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC)
Facts:
- Vinuya Decision and Motions for Reconsideration
- April 28, 2010 – Promulgation of the Supreme Court’s ponencia in Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230).
- May 31, 2010 – Petitioners (“Malaya Lolas”) file Motion for Reconsideration, raising constitutional limits on executive prerogatives and confusion between diplomatic protection and jus cogens norms.
- Plagiarism Allegations and Public Discourse
- July 19, 2010 – Counsel for the Malaya Lolas file Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, charging that the Vinuya ponencia plagiarized three foreign sources (Criddle & Fox-Decent; Tams; Ellis) and misrepresented their arguments.
- July 19–22, 2010 – Media reports break the plagiarism story; comments appear on legal blogs; letters of concern from foreign authors (Criddle, Ellis, Tams) are published.
- Court’s Ethical Proceedings and UP Law Faculty Statement
- July 27, 2010 – En banc forms Ethics and Ethical Standards Committee (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and refers Justice del Castillo’s letter to it.
- August 2, 2010 – Ethics Committee requires petitioners’ counsel to comment on Del Castillo’s letter.
- August 9, 2010 – “Restoring Integrity” Statement by UP College of Law Faculty is posted online and on bulletin boards.
- August 11, 2010 – Dean Marvic Leonen formally submits the Statement (unsigned version listing 37 names) to the Court for its “proper disposition.”
- Show Cause Resolution and Pleadings
- October 19, 2010 – Supreme Court issues Show Cause Resolution, docketing the controversy as an administrative bar-discipline matter under specific canons and rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- November 18–19, 2010 – Respondents file common Compliance (35 professors), separate Compliances (Prof. Juan-Bautista, Prof. Vasquez, Dean Leonen) and Manifestation (Prof. Lynch).
Issues:
- Does the Show Cause Resolution infringe the respondents’ freedom of expression?
- Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents’ academic freedom as law professors?
- Are the respondents’ submissions adequate to avert discipline under Canons 1, 11, 13 and Rules 1.02, 11.05?
- Is Dean Leonen’s explanation sufficient to avoid discipline under Canon 10 and Rules 10.01–10.03?
- Are respondents entitled to a hearing or to access records/transcripts and witnesses from Vinuya (G.R. No. 162230) and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)