View full case

UP LAW FACULTY'S STATEMENT ON PLAGIARISM ALLEGATIONS

FACTS:

This case involves allegations of plagiarism against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his ponencia in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. Atty. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Atty. Romel R. Bagares, who represent the comfort women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, accused Justice Del Castillo of plagiarizing articles by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent, Christian J. Tams, and Mark Ellis. The allegations of plagiarism focused on Justice Del Castillo's discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes. The faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law, led by its dean Atty. Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, published a statement calling for Justice Del Castillo's resignation, treating the allegations of plagiarism as established fact. The statement criticized Justice Del Castillo's explanation on how he cited the primary sources and arrived at contrary conclusions to the authors of the allegedly plagiarized articles. The statement also accused the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort women, and made further imputations against the Court's actions and intentions in the case.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there are allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the ponencia of Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary.

  2. Whether the faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law has the right to call for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo.

  3. Whether the statement published by the UP College of Law faculty contains defamatory remarks against the Court.

RULING:

  1. Yes, there are allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the ponencia of Justice Del Castillo in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The allegations mainly concern the discussion of the principles of jus cogens and erga omnes.

  2. Yes, the faculty of the UP College of Law has the right to call for the resignation of Justice Del Castillo. However, the Court notes that the faculty treated the allegations of plagiarism as a established fact and made defamatory remarks against the Court.

  3. The statement published by the UP College of Law faculty contains defamatory remarks against the Court, such as accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice and deliberate delay in resolving the case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Plagiarism is the act of appropriating the literary composition of another and passing them off as one's own.

  • The faculty of a law school has the right to call for the resignation of a justice, but must be cautious in treating allegations of plagiarism as established fact.

  • The exercise of free speech and expression must be balanced with the duty to refrain from making defamatory remarks.