In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism against J. Mariano Del Castillo 3.

3. Del Castillo circulated a letter to his colleagues stating that when he wrote the
2010 | Per Curiam | Introduction to Legal Technique decision for the Court, he had the intent to attribute all sources used in it. His
counsels requested the Committee for investigation to hear his court researcher
FACTS: explain the research work that went into the making of the decision in the
Vinuya Case: Vinuya case.
1. Isabelita C. Vinuya and about 70 others, all members of the Malaya Lolas 4. The researcher demonstrated by Power Point presentation how the attribution of
Organization, filed with the Court a special civil action of certiorari against the the lifted passages to the writings of Criddle-Descent and Ellis, found in the
Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, beginning drafts of her report to Del Castillo, were unintentionally deleted.
and the Office of the Solicitor General. 5. Vinuya group’s counsel insisted that lack of intent is not a defense in plagiarism
2. Vinuya group alleged that they have since 1998 been approaching the Executive since all that is required is for a writer to acknowledge that certain words or
Department requesting assistance in filing claims against the Japanese military language in his work were taken from another’s work. They cited University of
officers who established the comfort women stations but that Department the Philippines Board of Regents vs. CA and Arokiaswamy William Margaret
declined. Celine wherein Atty. Harry Roque argued that the standards on plagiarism in the
3. Vinuya group wanted the Court to compel the Executive Department to espouse academe should apply with more force to the judiciary.
their claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan
before the ICJ. RULING: Petition DISMISSED for lack of merit.
4. On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered judgment dismissing Vinuya group’s
action. Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, ponente, gave two reasons for the ISSUE:
decision: (1) the Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative under the WoN in writing the Court’s opinion in the Vinuya case, Del Castillo plagiarized
Constitution and the law to determine whether to espouse petitioners claim the published works of the said authors - NO
against Japan; and (2) the Philippines is not under any obligation in international
law to espouse their claims. The SC defined “plagiarism” as the theft of another person’s language,
thoughts, or ideas. The passing off of the work of another as one’s own is thus an
Plagiarism Case against J. Del Castillo: indispensable element of plagiarism.
1. Vinuya group filed the supplemental MR accusing Del Castillo of manifest
intellectual theft and outright plagiarism when he wrote the decision for the Passages from Tams [Footnote 69] - case of bad footnoting not plagiarism
Court and of twisting the true intents of the plagiarized sources to suit the Tams thought that he was given generic reference only in the footnote and
arguments of the assailed Judgment. in connection with a citation from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with
2. They charged Del Castillo of copying without acknowledgement certain respect to the passages taken from his work. Although Tams himself may have
passages from three foreign articles written by Criddle-Descent, Ellis, and Tams. believed that the footnoting in this case was not an appropriate form of referencing,
a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox- he and Vinuya cannot deny that the decision did attribute the source or sources of
Descent (2009) such passages. Del Castillo did not pass off Tams work as his own. The Justice
● Criddle expressed concern about the use of their work to support the primarily attributed the ideas embodied in the passages to Bruno Simma, whom
Court’s conclusion that prohibition against sexual slavery are not jus Tams himself credited for them. The statement “See Tams, Enforcing Obligations
cogens (basically, he’s worried that their work has been “twisted”) Erga Omnes in International Law (2005)” in the Vinuya decision is an
b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark ellis attribution no matter if Tams thought that it gave him somewhat less credit
(2006) than he deserved.
● Ellis had the same concern as Criddle
c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams (2005) Passages from Ellis and Criddle-Descent [Footnote 65] - accidental deletion in
● Tams thought that the form of referencing was inappropriate the course of editing not plagiarism
 The lengthy passages in Footnote 65 came almost verbatim from Ellis masters degree that a student obtained based on evidence that she misappropriated
article and such passages ought to have been introduced by an acknowledgement that the work of others, passing them off as her own. While the academic publishing
they are from that article. But, as it happened, the acknowledgment above or a model is based on the originality of the writers thesis, the judicial system is
similar introduction was missing from Footnote 65. based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical
legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions.
Also, the Vinuya decision lifted passages, including their footnotes, from
the Criddle-Descents article. Criddle-Descents footnotes were carried into the
Vinuya decisions own footnotes but no attributions were made to the two authors in WoN Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make it appear that such
those footnotes. Del Castillo’s researcher showed the Committee the early drafts of works supported the Court’s position in the Vinuya Case - NO
her report in the Vinuya case and these included the passages lifted from the separate
articles of Criddle-Descent and of Ellis with proper attributions to these authors. But, The SC ruled that nothing in the Vinuya decision said or implied that, based
as it happened, in the course of editing and cleaning up her draft, the researcher on the lifted passages, Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis supported the Court’s
accidentally deleted the attributions. conclusion that the Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to
espouse the claims of Vinuya et al.
The researcher deleted the subject tags and, accidentally, their
accompanying footnotes that served as reminder of the sources of the lifted passages. The SC averred that (1) Since the attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis
With 119 sources cited in the decision, the loss of the 2 of them was not easily were accidentally deleted, it is impossible for any person reading the decision to
detectable. The SC ruled that Given the operational properties of the Microsoft connect the same to the works of those authors as to conclude that in writing the
program in use by the Court, the accidental decapitation of attributions to decision Justice Del Castillo twisted their intended messages; and (2) The lifted
sources of research materials is not remote. Neither J. Del Castillo nor his passages provided mere background facts that established the state of international
researcher had a motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted law at various stages of its development.
passages to Criddle-Descent or to Ellis.
The SC ruled that Del Castillo is not guilty of any misconduct since only
Just in case sir would ask, the credentials of the researcher are: errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice should be subject of
1. Finished law from a leading law school; disciplinary action. Neither is he guilty of inexcusable negligence, Del Castillo did
2. Graduated third in her class; not abdicate the writing of the Vinuya decision to his researcher. As his researcher
3. Served as Editor-in-Chief of her school’s Law Journal; testified, he set the direction that the research and study were to take by discussing
4. Placed fourth in the bar examinations; and the issues with her, setting forth his position on those issues, and reviewing and
5. Earned a master’s degree in International Law and Human Rights from a commenting on the study that she was putting together until he was completely
prestigious university in the US under the Global-Hauser program. satisfied with it.

The SC also ruled that Vinuya group’s theory that intent is immaterial, SEPARATE OPINIONS:
ignores the fact that plagiarism is essentially a form of fraud where intent to deceive Sereno, J. (Dissenting Opinion)
is inherent. Their theory provides no room for errors in research, an unrealistic ● There is such a thing as judicial plagiarism. And though judicial plagiarism does
position considering that there is hardly any substantial written work in any field of not necessarily carry with them the imposition of sanctions nor does it mean that
discipline that is free of any mistake. a case should undergo retrial based on it, the existence of which should be
acknowledged.
Also, the Court said nothing in the case cited by Vinuya that would indicate
that an intent to pass off another’s work as one’s own is not required in plagiarism.
The Court merely affirmed the academic freedom of a university to withdraw a