SC clears Del Castillo of plagiarism raps, again

Maintaining that Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo had no malicious intent to pass off as his own other authors' works, the Supreme Court has once again cleared the embattled magistrate of allegations he committed plagiarism. Last February 8, 2011, the high court issued a per curiam resolution denying the motion for reconsideration that sought to overturn the SC's Oct. 12, 2010 ruling that absolved Del Castillo of plagiarism charges. The resolution was per curiam, when the ponente or writer did not identify himself or herself. The motion for reconsideration was filed in November last year by World War II comfort women seeking the Philippine government's help in securing an apology and reparation from Japan. The sexual slavery victims, through their lawyers, sought Del Castillo's resignation because of his "pattern and practice of plagiarism" in at least two rulings: The April 28, 2010 (Vinuya vs Executive Secretary) decision denying the appeals of the comfort women, and the April 8, 2010 (Ang Ladlad vs Commission on Elections) ruling that allowed Ang Ladlad to participate in the May 10, 2010 elections as a party-list group. No malicious intent In the Supreme Court's Feb. 8 resolution, the high tribunal reiterated that Del Castillo was not dishonest because he had no malicious intent to pass off foreign authors' works as his own. The court gave weight to the defense of Del Castillo's legal researcher, who admitted she accidentally deleted the attribution marks when she was finishing the final draft of the April 28 decision on the comfort women's appeal. "True, Justice Del Castillo failed to attribute to the foreign authors materials that he lifted from their works and used in writing the decision for the Court in the Vinuya case. But, as the Court said, the evidence as found by its Ethics Committee shows that the attribution to these authors appeared in the beginning drafts of the decision," said the SC. It further held: "Unfortunately, as testified to by a highly qualified and experienced court-employed researcher, she accidentally deleted the same at the time she was cleaning up the final draft. The Court believed her since, among other reasons, she had no motive for omitting the attribution. The foreign authors concerned, like the dozens of other sources she cited in her research, had high reputations in international law." The SC added that even judges and legal practitioners sometimes fail, without malicious intent, to include attributions to original authors. "Is this dishonest? No," said the SC. The high tribunal then resolved not to entertain the allegations that Del Castillo committed plagiarism in the Ang Ladlad case because "the petitioners are nit-picking." "The Court need not dwell long on petitioners’ allegations that Justice Del Castillo had also committed plagiarism in writing for the Court his decision in another case, Ang Ladlad v. Commission on Elections. Petitioners are nit-picking," said the SC. It added that there is no need to discuss the Integrated Bar of the Philippines' plan to intervene in the plagiarism case and the other accusations of plagiarism made by former University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law professor Peter Payoyo. Del Castillo's work was honest The high tribunal added that while Del Castillo may have omitted the proper attributions, his ruling on comfort women from other sources "examined and summarized the facts as seen by the opposing sides in a way that no one has ever done." "[Del Castillo] identified and formulated the core of the issues that the parties raised. And when he had done this, he discussed the state of the law relevant to their resolution. It was here that he drew materials from various sources, including the three foreign authors cited in the charges against him. He compared the divergent views these present as they developed in history. He then explained why the Court must reject some views in light of the peculiar facts of the case and applied those that suit such facts," said the SC. The SC then concluded that "on the whole, Del Castillo's work was original. He had but done an honest work." Swipe at critics, UP Law profs Lashing back at Del Castillo's critics, the SC said it only entertained the plagiarism allegations against the magistrate because his name was being maligned by the petitioners [comfort women] and professors from the UP College of Law. "The Court probably should not have entertained at all the charges of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo, coming from the losing party. But it is a case of first impression and petitioners, joined by some faculty members of the University of the Philippines school of law, have unfairly maligned him with the charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and gross neglect for failing to attribute lifted passages from three foreign authors," said the SC. Thirty-seven UP law professors had asked Del Castillo to step down after the allegations of plagiarism broke out. A week after the Supreme Court absolved Del Castillo, the high tribunal ordered the 37 faculty members to explain or "show cause" why they should not be disciplined for asking for Del Castillo's resignation. The court said the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers bars the airing in public of statements that tend to influence public opinion while a case is ongoing. The court's decision to exonerate Del Castillo and its issuance of the show cause order to UP law professors triggered an avalanche of criticism from the academe and legal circles, including prominent law professors overseas. — LBG, GMA News