Supreme retribution

CITIZEN Y By Yoly Villanueva-Ong (The Philippine Star) Updated October 30, 2010

In an age of cut-and- paste, plagiarism is an unfortunate but natural consequence. It happens so often in the hallowed halls of the Academe that websites, chat groups and software dedicated to fight this

growing menace have mushroomed. Plagiarism checker, plagiarism detector, plagiarism detect, academicplagiarism.com are but a few. In less than a minute, a free download can spot whether a piece of work used an idea, information, language or writing, without proper attribution to the source.

According to www.wadsworth.com, plagiarism comes from a Latin verb that means “to kidnap”. It is considered academic and public dishonesty to steal someone else’s work and present it as your own, with or without intent. Even if the “lifting” happened due to confusion, lack of time, sloppy footnoting or even laziness and intellectual mediocrity, it’s undoubtedly an ethical breach. Just like a kidnapping, the offense is palpable and obvious in the public eye. The consequences of being caught plagiarising are severe. In universities it could mean failure or even expulsion. For professionals, it’s a career-ender. But apparently, the Supreme Court has its own moral code.

On April 28, the petition of 70 Filipino comfort women to compel the Philippine government to demand a public apology from Japan and provide reparation was junked by the Supreme Court [Vinuya v. Romulo case, G.R. No 162230]. The ponencia was penned by Justice Mariano Del Castillo and concurred by ten justices. Several passages were copied from three published works of international legal experts without reference to the sources. Worse, perhaps in an attempt to be imaginative, Del Castillo wrote a contradictory conclusion to what the authors originally wrote.

Newsbreak annotated an alleged 31 quotations and footnotes lifted from Ivan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent’s A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens published last year in the Yale Journal of International Law; 24 counts from Mark Ellis’ Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law in 2006; and 4 passages from Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law by Christian Tams, published in 2005. Criddle and Fox-Descent are assistant professors at the Syracuse University College of Law and the McGill University Faculty of Law respectively. Ellis is the executive director of the International Bar Association [composed of 198 national bar associations and 40,000 members worldwide]. Tams is a professor of International Law at the University of Glasgow and professor at the China EU School of Law (Beijing) and the Europa-Kolleg (Hamburg). The purported theft couldn’t have happened to more renowned members of the international legal circle.

Amazingly, the Supreme Court adopted the findings of its Ethics committee that the “errors” in the subject decision was made by the legal researcher during the preparation. It ruled “that the magistrate is not guilty of misconduct and gross inexcusable negligence” because the plagiarism was done without “malice of intent” and was merely an “accidental removal of proper attributions”. It is difficult to believe that Del Castillo and his staff forgot to attribute their sources or accidentally deleted their references fifty-nine times! An early onset of Alzheimer’s would have made a more plausible explanation.

To condone and coddle its own is already a shameless act. But not content with that, the Supreme Court is now attempting to extract a pound of flesh from thirty-seven UP Law professors who signed a manifesto against Del Castillo. In the most outrageous display of arrogance and highhandedness, the tribunal has issued a show for cause order against the signatories. In the entire saga of Philippine jurisprudence, never has the highest court of the land so recklessly staked its institutional integrity. It is so reminiscent of the spite shown in nine years of the so-called “Strong Republic”. And why not? This is a 100% Arroyo-appointed court, with the midnight appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona as the final coup de grace.

The international legal community is aghast at the Supreme Court’s ruling for such a serious offense as plagiarism, compounded by the vindictive action taken against the UP Faculty of Law. Supposedly this war is being instigated by the Ateneo Law Faculty, headed by the wife of Justice Del Castillo. Furthermore, the credentials and basis of Del Castillo’s appointment to the high court is now under scrutiny. Described by some in-judiciary as “not being the sharpest tool in the shed”, Del Castillo supposedly wooed GMA until she acquiesced, no doubt with a quid pro quo.

The bewildering antics of the Supreme Court have piqued the curiosity of Media and the public. Tracking the decisions of 15 justices, columnist Jarius Bondoc has observed a pattern of   groupthink among 10 justices who have consistently voted like a flock of synchronised geese on these issues: 1) a status quo ante order on the impeachment of Ombudsman Merci Gutierrez to the House Committee on Justice. 2) Defiance of EO2 which terminates Arroyo’s 200-plus midnight executive appointees by reinstating Bai Omera Dianalan Lucman as head of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos. 3) Plagiarism case against Del Castillo, the ponente of the case of Filipino women forced into white slavery by Japanese soldiers during World War II. 4) Show-cause order on 37 UP law deans and professors who petitioned Del Castillo to resign. Only three justices have demonstrated independence from the cabal mindset. To Justices Carpio, Carpio-Morales and Sereno, may your tribe increase.

The backlash against the Philippine Supreme Court is reverberating around the world. Already Bruce Ackerman, a distinguished American constitutionalist and a Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University has warned that “the Supreme Court is risking its reputation before the international community” if it imposes disciplinary measures against the UP College of Law. He hopes that “good sense prevails and leads to some sober second-thought from the Court majority.” This is only the beginning.

When the integrity of the highest court in the land — the supposed last bastion of justice, the wisest and fairest arbiter of law — comes under a cloud of doubt, it becomes a crisis of epic proportions. It shakes the nation’s faith that a justice in-robe is presumed trustworthy unless proven beyond reasonable doubt. Ten yes-men on the bench is just a kangaroo court — with apologies to the kangaroo.

* * *

Contact the author at citizenyfeedback@gmail.com.