in re del castillo digested

8/10/2019 In Re Del Castillo Digested

1/3

In Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM :

I. THE FACTS

In the landmark decision of Vinuya vs . Executiv e Secretary, G.R. No. 162230,promulgated

last April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition filed by a group of Filipino comfort women

during the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines. The Court, speaking through Justice Mariano C.

del Castillo, held that the petition seeking to compel the Executive Department to espouse the

petitioners claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the

International Court of Justice and other international tribunals hasNO MERITbecause: (1) the

prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners claims against Japan belongs exclusively to theExecutive Department; and (2) the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse the

petitioners claims.

Discontented with the foregoing decision, the petitioners in Vinuya filed a motion for reconsideration.

Subsequently, they also filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration, this time accusing the Justice del

Castillo of plagiarizing (copying without attribution) and twisting passages from three foreign legal

articles to support the Courts position in the Vinuyadecision:

(1)A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogensby Professors Evan J. Criddle (Associate Professor of Syracuse

University College of Law) and Evan Fox-Descent (Assistant Professor of McGill University Facultyof Law) published in the Yale Journal of International Law in 2009;

(2) Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crimeby Mark Ellis (Executive Director of the

International Bar Association), published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law

in 2006; and

(3) Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligationsin International Law by Professor Christian J. Tams (Chair of

International Law of University of Glasgow School of Law), published in Cambridge University Press

(2005).

The Court thenreferred the charges against Justice Del Castillo to its Committee on Ethics

and Ethical Standards, chaired by Chief Justice Renato Corona, for investigation and

recommendation. After the proceedings before it, the Committee submitted its findings and

recommendations to the Court en banc, which then treated and decided the controversy as an

administrative matter.


2/3

II.

THE ISSUES

1.

Did Justice Del Castillo, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuyacase, plagiarize

the published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis?

2. Did Justice Del Castillo twist the works of these authors to make it appear that such

works supported the Courts position in theVinuyadecision?

III. THE RULING

[By a 10-2 vote, with three Justices including Justice del Castillo taking no part, the

Court DISMISSED the charges for lack of merit and held that Justice del Castillo was NOT

GUILTY of plagiarizing and twisting the cited materials and hence did NOTcommit gross

negligence.]

1. NO, Jus tice Del Casti l lo, in writing the op inion f or th e Court in th e Vinuy a case, did

NOT plagiarize the pub lished wo rks of auth ors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ell is.

.

At its most basic, plagiarism means the theft of another persons 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 ones own. The passing off of the work of another as

ones own is thus an indispensable element of plagiarism.

As regards that one passage from Professor Tams, the Court believes that whether or notthe footnote is sufficiently detailed, so as to satisfy the footnoting standards of counsel for petitioners

is not an ethical matter but one concerning clarity of writing. The statement SeeTams, Enforcing

Obligations Erga Omnesin International Law (2005) in theVinuyadecision is an attribution no

matter if Tams thought that it gave him somewhat less credit than he deserved. Such attribution

altogether negates the idea that Justice Del Castillo passed off the challenged passages as his

own.

That it would have been better had Justice Del Castillo used the introductory phrase cited

in rather than the phrase See would make a case of mere inadvertent slip in attribution rather than

a case of manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism. If the Justices citations were imprecise,it would just be a case of bad footnoting rather than one of theft or deceit. If it were otherwise, many

would be target of abuse for every editorial error, for every mistake in citing pagination, and for every

technical detail of form.

As regards the passages from Ellis, the Court notes that the lengthy passages in Footnote

65of Vinuyacame almost verbatim from Ellis article butdid not contain an acknowledgment or

introductionthat they are from that article. Moreover, as regards the passages from the work of


3/3

in re del castillo digested

Documents