ULLAH, NURFAIZA H.
BLOCK 1-G
SAN BEDA UNIVERSITY
LEGAL RESEARCH AND LEGAL WRITING
ACTIVITY 1
I. WRITE A CASE BRIEF OR A CASE DIGEST OF “In the Matter of the Charges of
Plagiarism, etc. against Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, 647 Phil. 122 (OCTOBER 10,
2010) and 657 Phil. 11 (February 8, 2011)
A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC | OCTOBER 15, 2010
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE
JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
FACTS:
Petitioner Vinuya and a group of members called the Malaya Lolas Organization filed a petition
for certiorari with preliminary injunction against the respondents Executive Secretary, the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General.
Petitioner claimed that the Japanese army systematically raped them and a number of other
women, seizing them and holding them in houses or cells where soldiers repeatedly ravished and
abused them. They also alleged that since 1998, they have been approaching the Executive
Department requesting for assistance in filing claims against the Japanese Military Officers who
established the comfort women stations. But that department declined saying that petitioners’
individual claims had already been fully satisfied under the Peace Treaty between the Philippines
and Japan. Thus, they wanted the Court to render judgement, compelling the Executive
Department to espouse their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against
Japan before the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals.
On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered a judgement. It dismissed petitioners’ action. Justice Del
Castillo wrote the decision for the Court. The Court essentially gave two reasons for its decision:
it cannot grant the petition because, first, the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative
under the Constitution and the law to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claim against
Japan; and Second, the Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to espouse
their claims.
On June 9, 2010, petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration for the Courts decision. More than
a month later on July 18, 2010, counsel for petitioners, Atty. Herminio Harry Roque Jr.,
announced in his online blog that his client would file a supplemental petition “detailing
plagiarism committed by the court” under the second reason it gave for dismissing the petition
and that “these stolen passages were also twisted to support the court’s erroneous conclusion that
the Filipino comfort women of World War Two have no further legal remedies.” The media gave
publicity to Atty. Roque’s announcement.
On July 19, 2020, petitioners filed the supplemental motion for reconsideration that Atty. Roque
announced which accused Justice Del Castillo of plagiarism, further stating that Justice Del
Castillo twisted these plagiarized sources to suit his judgement.
These were the plagiarized sources, Atty. Roque stated to have been used by Justice Del Castillo;
A. Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal
of International Law (2009);
B. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western
Reserve Journal of International Law (2006); and
C. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press
(2005).
Justice Del Castillo wrote a letter to the Court a letter explaining what happened. The case then
was referred to the Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards. And they eventually submitted
their findings to the Court.
ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of authors Tams,
Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.
RULING:
1. The Supreme Court held, No. Justice Del Castillo did not plagiarize the published works
of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.
At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft of another person's language, thoughts, or
ideas. To plagiarize, as it is commonly understood according to Webster, is to take (ideas,
writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one's own, therefore intent to deceived
is inherent.
Justice Del Castillo claimed that it was not intentional that the sources were omitted in
the manuscript. Since it was one of his researcher who made the mistake in accidentally
deleting the attributions due to the use of Microsoft Word program. He also stated that he
had no malicious intent to pass the said work as his own.
The Court did not find any motive on Justice Del Castillo and his researcher to
intentionally omit the names of these authors more so when these authors have
international reputation.
Therefore, the petition of plagiarism that was filed against Justice Del Castillo was
dismissed for lack of merit.
II. WRITE A THREE LINE SUMMARY OF THE DISSENT OF THE FORMER
JUSTICE SERENO.
III. REACTION, WHETHER TO AGREE WITH THE DECISION OR TO THE
DISSENTING OPINION OF FORMER JUSICE SERENO.
