MANILA, Philippines - Saying his actions have “endangered” the foundations of the Supreme Court and the entire judicial system, UP law faculty members have urged Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo should resign his post following allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation.
In a statement, the University of the Philippines faculty led by Law Dean Marvic Leonen said Del Castillo’s ponencia in the dismissed reparation demands of Filipino comfort women has been a “fundamental breach” that already places the entire judicial system in a bad light.
Leonen was joined by 5 other former law deans, 10 regular faculty and 20 lecturers.
Del Castillo is the ponente, or author, of the Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary case issued last April 28.
The decision junked the petition of 70 Filipino comfort women to compel the Philippine government to get a public apology from Tokyo and to provide reparation for the victims of sexual abuse during the World War II.
A Newsbreak article said the ruling allegedly lifted from 3 materials by foreign legal experts without proper attribution.
The legal experts had already called the attention of the high court on the matter.
The SC, for its part, has already formed an ethics committee to look into the allegations.
The UP Faculty, however, finds the actions of SC wanting.
“Under the circumstances, however, because the Decision has been promulgated by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Court’s and no longer just the ponente’s. Thus the Court also bears the responsibility for the Decision,” they said.
For example, it has been argued that one should not expect all members of the court to be familiar with legal journals here and abroad.
The faculty said “personal unfamiliarity with sources all the more demands correct and careful attribution and citation of the material relied upon. It is a matter of diligence and competence expected of all Magistrates of the Highest Court of the Land.” Review the case
The high court further “added insult to injury” by coming out with such a decision, to the prejudice of the petitioners.
The Vinuya decision, in fact, arrived at a conclusion that is contrary to those being asserted in the allegedly plagiarized materials.
“This exacerbates the intellectual dishonesty of copying works without attribution by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and deceive,” the faculty added.
The SC “cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts,” it stressed.
It said the high court should not “casually cast aside [the decision], if not for the purpose of sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection and guidance.”
With all these in mind, the high court “must take this opportunity to review the manner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes decisions in order to prevent a recurrence of similar acts, and to provide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure only the highest quality of legal research and writing in pleadings, practice, and adjudication,” the UP Law faculty said.
