Case Summary (G.R. No. 115349)
Allegations of Plagiarism and Sources Identified
The alleged plagiarized materials identified by counsel for the petitioners and referenced by the UP faculty are: (1) “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens” by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent (Yale Journal of International Law, 2009); (2) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law by Christian J. Tams (Cambridge University Press, 2005); and (3) “Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime” by Mark Ellis (Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 2006). The contested portions of Justice Del Castillo’s ponencia focus on principles of jus cogens and erga omnes.
UP College of Law Statement and Its Content
On August 9, 2010, members of the UP College of Law faculty published a statement (headed by Dean Leonen) titled “Restoring Integrity,” which: treated the allegation of plagiarism as established fact; called for Justice Del Castillo’s resignation; criticized the Supreme Court’s decision in Vinuya as a “reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation”; and alleged institutional delay, dismissal based on “polluted sources,” indifference to petitioners, and an “alarming lack of concern” for basic values of decency and respect. Paragraph 9 of the statement specifically accused the Court of delaying resolution for nearly seven years and of deciding the case on misrepresented and plagiarized materials.
Majority Court’s View and Stated Rationale
The Court characterized the faculty’s publication as unnecessary, rash, and an institutional attack tending to discredit the Court’s honesty, integrity, and competence while a motion for reconsideration and an investigation were pending. The majority invoked concerns about outside interference with the orderly disposition of court business and cited precedent (In re Kelly) that publications reflecting upon a court and tending to influence a pending controversy may constitute contempt. The majority concluded the faculty’s statement crossed the line from permissible criticism into improper conduct warranting disciplinary proceedings.
Specific Ethical and Procedural Violations Alleged
The Resolution charged the faculty members with violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the same Code. Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was separately directed to show cause for alleged violations of Canon 10 and Rules 10.01, 10.02 and 10.03 for submitting, during the pendency of the Vinuya motion for reconsideration and of a related investigation, a “dummy” representation of the faculty statement that was not a true reproduction of the purported signed statement.
Orders Issued and Procedural Directions
The Court ordered the named faculty members to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt of the Resolution why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for the cited violations. Dean Leonen was likewise directed to show cause within ten days. The matter was ordered docketed as a regular administrative matter and service of the Resolution upon the listed faculty members was to be effected by personal delivery. Copies of the “dummy” and the signed statement were attached to the referenced submissions and made part of the record underlying the show-cause directive.
Legal Authorities and Rules Referenced by the Majority
The Resolution relied on the Code of Professional Responsibility (promulgated June 21, 1988), as well as precedents and authorities cited in the text: In re Kelly (35 Phil. 944, 1916), In the Matter of the Allegations Contained in the Columns of Mr. Amado P. Macasaet (A.M. No. 07-09-13-SC), Teehankee v. Director of Prisons (76 Phil. 630, 1946), and other jurisprudence cited for the proposition that certain publications during pending proceedings may amount to contempt and threaten the independence and orderly functioning of the judiciary. The Resolution proceeded on the legal framework in force for a 2010 decision, applying the 1987 Philippine Constitution as the governing constitutional backdrop.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio Morales — Main Arguments
Justice Carpio Morales dissented, asserting that the Resolution exemplified injudicious, abrasive use of judicial power and amounted to prejudgment. The dissent argued that the Court had already characterized the faculty’s conduct in conclusory and pejorative terms, thereby compromising impartiality before any administrative hearing. The dissent emphasized the historical role of legal academia as a constructive critic and resource for the judiciary, advocated judicial restraint in responding to public criticism, and relied on authorities suggesting that a judge should often pass unnoted the momentary outbreak of public disappointment. Carpio Morales also criticized the initiation of a disciplinary action grounded on a purported finding of indirect contempt without a proper hearing and urged that the dignity of the Court would not be harmed by passing the faculty’s statement in silence.
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno — Main Arguments
Justice Sereno likewise dissented, highlighting procedural and substantive defects in the majority’s action. Sereno critiqued the show-cause order as premised on premature adjudication and failure to specify which particular mode of indirect contempt under Section 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court was alleged. Sereno stressed that indirect contempt is a criminal proceeding requiring strict adherence to due process, including clear identification of the charge. She articulated that contempt powers must be exercised only where there is a demonstrable causal relationship between the alleged act and an effect on the admin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 115349)
Case Caption and Procedural Posture
- Citation: 648 Phil. 1 EN BANC; A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC, October 19, 2010.
- Subject: Resolution on a letter/statement by members of the University of the Philippines College of 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.”
- Nature of proceeding: The Court directed that the matter be docketed as a regular administrative matter and issued Show Cause directives to specified UP Law faculty members and to Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
- Relief/order sought by the Court: Respondent faculty members directed to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for alleged violations of specific Canons and Rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Dean Leonen directed to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for alleged violations concerning submission of a “dummy” instead of a true and faithful reproduction of the purported statement.
- Mode of service: The Resolution ordered service upon the named UP College of Law faculty members by personal delivery.
Relevant Factual Background
- Allegations of plagiarism were made by Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010.
- Vinuya v. Executive Secretary involved a petition for certiorari filed by Filipino comfort women seeking to compel certain executive officers to espouse their claims for reparation and demand apology from the Japanese government for wartime abuses; the Court denied the petition.
- The plaintiffs (comfort women) in Vinuya are represented by Attys. Roque and Bagares; the Vinuya decision was the subject of a motion for reconsideration at the time.
- The alleged sources of the purportedly plagiarized materials in Justice Del Castillo’s ponencia included:
- Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent, “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens,” Yale Journal of International Law (2009).
- Christian J. Tams, Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law, Cambridge University Press (2005).
- Mark Ellis, “Breaking the Silence: On Rape as an International Crime,” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (2006).
- The allegations focused on Justice Del Castillo’s discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes.
The UP College of Law Statement and Its Contents
- On August 9, 2010, a statement entitled “Restoring Integrity…” was published by members of the UP College of Law faculty, headed by Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen.
- The statement:
- Called for the resignation of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in view of the allegations of plagiarism.
- Treated the allegation of plagiarism as an established fact and truth rather than as an allegation under investigation.
- Expressed dissatisfaction with Justice Del Castillo’s explanation concerning citation of primary sources and a contrary conclusion to those authors.
- Began with the opening sentence: “An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war.”
- Characterized the Vinuya decision as “a reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.”
- Accused the Court of deliberately delaying resolution of the Vinuya case, dismissing the petition on the basis of “polluted sources,” showing alleged indifference to petitioners, and demonstrating “a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect.”
- Included the following passage in paragraph 9: “But instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious to the deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials, the Court decided this case based on polluted sources. By doing so, the Supreme Court added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its ‘power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance, belies (sic) [betrays] a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect.” (Emphasis supplied in source.)
Respondents Named and Representation
- The Resolution named the following members of the UP College of Law faculty as respondents, directing each to SHOW CAUSE: Marvic M.V.F. Leonen; Froilan M. Bacungan; Pacifico A. Agabin; Merlin M. Magallona; Salvador T. Carlota; Carmelo V. Sison; Patricia R.P. Salvador Daway; Dante B. Gatmaytan; Theodore O. Te; Florin T. Hilbay; Jay L. Batongbacal; Evelyn (Leo) D. Battad; Gwen G. De Vera; Solomon F. Lumba; Rommel J. Casis; Jose Gerardo A. Alampay; Miguel R. Armovit; Arthur P. Autea; Rosa Maria J. Bautista; Mark R. Bocobo; Dan P. Calica; Tristan A. Catindig; Sandra Marie O. Coronel; Rosario O. Gallo; Concepcion L. Jardeleza; Antonio G.M. La ViAa; Carina C. Laforteza; Jose C. Laureta; Owen J. Lynch; Rodolfo Noel S. Quimbo; Antonio M. Santos; Gmeleen Faye B. Tomboc; Nicholas Felix L. Ty; Evalyn G. Ursua; Raul V. Vasquez; Susan D. Villanueva; and Dina D. Lucenario.
- Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was separately directed to SHOW CAUSE for the alleged submission, through his letter dated August 10, 2010, of a “dummy” rather than a true and faithful reproduction of the purported statement; copies of the dummy and the signed statement were attached to the letter and to a Compliance dated August 31, 2010 filed by Roque & Butuyan Law Offices with the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards.
Majority Resolution: Findings and Reasoning (Villarama, Jr., J.)
- Definition of plagiarism: The Resolution quotes Black’s Law Dictionary: “Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind.”
- The Court recounted the allegations and the context of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, noting the motion for reconsideration was pending and that an investigation into the plagiarism allegation was ongoing.
- The Court criticized the UP Law faculty’s publication as:
- “Totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance.”
- Treating allegation as established fact although investigative and appellate processes were ongoing.
- The Court cited precedent (In re Kelly) for the proposition that publications reflecting upon a court or pending suit may constitute contempt: “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.”
- The Court emphasized the importance and limits of criticism of the judiciary:
- Acknowledged that the right to criticize the judiciary is essential in a free society but observed that criticism can become harmful and irresponsible when it threatens judicial independence or obstructs the administration of justice.
- Quoted the principle that the Court must be permitted to proceed in an orderly manner “free from outside interference obstructive of its functions and tending to embarrass the administration of justice.” (Citing Teehankee v. Director of Prisons.)
- The Court expressed that the UP faculty’s statement could have no reasonable purpose other than to discredit the Vinuya decision and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity, and competence; that it would fan the flames of controversy and invite resentment; and that such actions run contrary to the faculty’s obligations as law professors and officers of the Court to uphold the Court’s dignity and authority.
- The Court found that the faculty’s actions constituted violations of Canons 10, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
- Based on the above findings, the Court ordered the named faculty members and Dean Leonen to SHOW CAUSE within ten days why they should not be disciplined and why Dean Leonen should not be disciplinarily dealt with for the dummy submission; the matter was to be docketed as a regular administrative matter.