View full case

UP LAW FACULTY'S STATEMENT ON PLAGIARISM ALLEGATIONS

FACTS:

On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court of the Philippines promulgated the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo. Subsequently, on May 31, 2010, the counsel for the petitioners, known as the Malaya Lolas, filed a Motion for Reconsideration raising issues of constitutionality and the broader responsibility of states to protect human rights. On July 19, 2010, their counsel, Attys. Roque and Bagares, filed a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration alleging that the Vinuya decision contained extensive plagiarism. They claimed that the decision used texts from various authors without proper acknowledgment and twisted the arguments of the plagiarized sources to support the decision’s reasoning. Media reports and public commentary followed, spreading the allegations. In response, on July 27, 2010, the Supreme Court formed an Ethics Committee to investigate the allegations against Justice Del Castillo.

In a Statement publicly released and formally submitted to the Court on August 11, 2010, 37 members of the University of the Philippines College of Law faculty criticized the Supreme Court for the alleged plagiarism. They argued that such acts seriously undermined the integrity and credibility of the judiciary and called for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo. The Statement accused the Court of dismissing the Vinuya petition based on “polluted sources” and failing to show concern for basic values of decency and respect.

On October 19, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Resolution directing the respondent law professors to explain why they should not be disciplined for their actions, as their statements were seen as potentially undermining the dignity and authority of the Court. Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen was additionally directed to explain why he submitted a version of the Statement that was not a true and faithful reproduction of the original document.

In their Compliance, the 35 respondent law professors emphasized their role as educators and members of the bar, acting out of a perceived duty to uphold the integrity of the legal system. They claimed their intention was not to malign the Court but to constructively criticize and call for reform in light of the allegations against Justice Del Castillo. They invoked their rights to freedom of expression and academic freedom, stating their actions were a part of their duty to promote the highest standards of legal ethics and scholarship. However, they also requested a hearing to present evidence and further argue their case. Professor Vasquez, in his separate Compliance, conceded that he might have been remiss in assessing the impact of the language used and expressed willingness to be more careful in the future. Professor Lynch, who is not a member of the Philippine Bar, manifested similarly, asserting his right to comment on public issues. Dean Leonen, in his Compliance, explained the discrepancies in the submitted versions of the Statement, attributing them to administrative errors and overzealousness, but without intent to deceive.

ISSUES:

  1. Does the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of expression?

  2. Does the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents' academic freedom as law professors?

  3. Do the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why they should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility?

  4. Does the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily explain why he should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03?

  5. Are respondents entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and in relation to such hearing, are respondents entitled to require the production or presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case (G.R. No. 162230) and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC) and to have access to the records and transcripts of, and the witnesses and evidence presented, or could have been presented, in the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo?

RULING:

  1. Denial of Freedom of Expression: The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents their freedom of expression. The Court held that it is not the criticism of the decision or charging one of its members of plagiarism that prompted the resolution but the contumacious language used by respondents.

  2. Violation of Academic Freedom: The Show Cause Resolution does not interfere with respondents' academic freedom. The Court maintained that while respondents are free to determine what they teach and how they teach, they must still adhere to ethical duties as lawyers which include giving due respect to the courts.

  3. Explanation for Discipline as Members of the Bar:

    • 35 Respondents: The Common Compliance of the 35 respondents is found unsatisfactory. They are reminded of their duty under Canons 1, 11, and 13 to give due respect to the courts and to refrain from intemperate and offensive language.

    • Prof. Vasquez: The Court found Prof. Vasquez's Compliance satisfactory due to his candor and sincere deference to the Court.

    • Dean Leonen: The Compliance concerning Dean Leonen was found unsatisfactory. He is admonished to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court.

  4. Dean Leonen's Compliance: Dean Leonen’s submission of a "dummy" statement was found to lack candor, resulting in an admonishment but not severe disciplinary action.

  5. Entitlement to Hearing and Access to Evidence: The Court denied respondents’ requests for a hearing, production/presentation of evidence, and access to records and transcripts related to the ethics case. The Court ruled that an administrative proceeding does not necessarily require a trial-type hearing and that respondents were given ample opportunity to present their side.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Freedom of Expression and Contumacious Language: While freedom of expression is critical, it is circumscribed by ethical duties when exercised by members of the Bar, especially in a context that may undermine the judiciary’s integrity and functionality.

  2. Balance between Criticism and Judicial Independence: Criticism of judicial decisions must not threaten the judiciary’s independence or degrade its dignity; ethical boundaries must be respected.

  3. Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility: Academic freedom does not exempt law professors, who are also members of the Bar, from adhering to legal ethical standards that include showing respect to court decisions and processes.

  4. Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: Administrative proceedings may not require a trial-type hearing provided parties have a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their side.

  5. Honesty and Candor: Full candor and honesty in dealings with the Court are paramount, and even perceived intentions require a high degree of integrity and transparency from members of the Bar.