SC vs UP law and those who believe cheating is wrong

I have been away for vacation in a place where internet access was difficult. I have not dwelt on this important issue which has been discussed lengthily in this blog but under the topic of Morong 45!. I’m writing about the subject for my column tomorrow but meanwhile I’m opening a thread on this with the searing dissenting opinion of Justice Lourdes Sereno and the UP Law school faculty who are facing sanction by the Supreme Court for not criticizing plagiarism in the High Court.

Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion:

What is black can be called “white” but it cannot turn white by the mere calling. The unfortunate ruling of the majority Decision that no plagiarism was committed stems from its failure to distinguish between the determination of the objective, factual existence of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision[1] and the determination of the liability that results from a finding of plagiarism. Specifically, it made “malicious intent”, which heretofore had not been relevant to a finding of plagiarism, an essential element.

The majority Decision will thus stand against the overwhelming conventions on what constitutes plagiarism. In doing so, the Decision has created unimaginable problems for Philippine academia, which will from now on have to find a disciplinary response to plagiarism committed by students and researchers on the justification of the majority Decision.

It has also undermined the protection of copyrighted work by making available to plagiarists “lack of malicious intent” as a defense to a charge of violation of copy or economic rights of the copyright owner committed through lack of attribution. Under Section 184 of R.A. 8293 (“An Act Describing the Intellectual Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property Office, Providing for Its Powers and Functions, and for Other Purposes”), or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, there is no infringement of copyright in the use of another’s work in:

(b) the making of quotations from a published work if they are compatible with fair use and only to the extent justified for the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press summaries: Provided that the source and the name of the author, if appearing on the work, are mentioned. (Emphasis supplied)

Because the majority Decision has excused the lack of attribution to the complaining authors in the Vinuya decision to editorial errors and lack of malicious intent to appropriate ─ and that therefore there was no plagiarism ─ lack of intent to infringe copyright in the case of lack of attribution may now also become a defense, rendering the above legal provision meaningless.

Click here for the rest of Sereno’s opinion.

UP College of law Dean Marvic Leonen he and the 36 faculty members who signed the statement are overwhelmed by the support since the high court ordered them to explain their statement criticizing Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo and his supposed act of plagiarism and misrepresentation in a court decision involving Filipino wartime “comfort women.” More of this here, Inquirer.

There’s an Online petition of support for the UP College of Law: http://www.petitiononline.com/solid37/petition.html

October 24, 2010 5:14 am  Tags:   Posted in: Justice

79 Responses

  1. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:42 am

    To facilitate better discussion , I’m transferring the lively and informative comments in the other thread on this topic.

  2. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:43 am

    saxnviolins – October 21, 2010 6:09 pm

    Makiki-OT nga.

    Supreme Court absolves Mariano del Castillo – kasalanan daw ni Bill Gates.

    It is some quirk of Microsoft Word with regard to footnotes, or the drafter’s incorrect use, that produced the plagiarism.

    Sinasabi ko na nga ba’t may evil plan si Bill Gates to control the world, including the Philippine Supreme Court.


    saxnviolins – October 21, 2010 6:15 pm

    Here read the per curiam decision. Per curiam means by the court. Walang gustong umamin kung sino ang ponente.

    sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/october2010/10-7-17-SC.htm

    Handa ka Bill Gates. Huwag kang pumasok sa PI. You will be asked to show cause, why you should not be cited in contempt, for “conspiracy to make a justice look like a plagiarist, thereby embarrassing him and the Court.”

  3. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:47 am

    TonGuE-tWisTeD – October 21, 2010 11:59 pm

    Si Villarama ang sumulat ng show cause order, siya rin malamang ang ponente, sax. Brasuhan na ito.

    Ang matindi, buong Law Department yata ng UP ang na-show cause order. Kung abugado ako, at nagtuturo sa ibang Law Schools, reresponde ako para sa panig ng UP profs. Kesehodang tanggalan nila kaming lahat ng lisensya, hindi naman nila kayang gawin.

    Ang insinuation nitong show cause order ay guilty silang lahat (UP profs) kaya kailangang ipaliwanag kung bakit hindi sila dapat parusahan. Tama ba ako?

    Kumuha lang ang SC ng malaking batong ipinukpok sa ulo nila.


    TonGuE-tWisTeD – October 22, 2010 12:14 am

    1. Tanga na, tamad pa yung researcher ni Del Castillo. Kung yun bang online source e i-print niya muna saka kopyahin, e di hindi apektado ang numbering ng footnotes. Ganyan naman ang SOP. Kaso tamad, cut and paste na lang para tapos agad, makakapag-Facebook na siya.

    2. Hindi kasalanan ng Microsoft Word kung i-adjust yung numbering, kung talagang ginawa lang nila yung trabaho nila ng tama, pwedeng i-hard insert yung number ng footnote.

    3. Kapag nagbura ka ng ibang passages, natural lang na i-check mo uli kung may nasagasaang footnote, hindi ba? Engot din naman yung nag-edit (Si Del Castillo mismo) dahil hindi niya nai-compare sa original text yung kino-quote ng assistant niya.

    4. Ang hindi katanggap-tanggap e yung palusot na hindi raw na-twist yung intent ng original author kahit pa magkasalungat yung direksyon ng argumento dahil hindi nga na-attribute kaya hindi alam ng bumabasa kung ito pa rin yung original idea ng naunang author. Ganun pala naman e, di guluhin na lang nila lahat ng attribution para sa susunod kahit anong gusto nilang desisyon, kahit walang basehan, pwede na nilang ipilit. Kahit pa yung kabaliktaran!

  4. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:47 am

    saxnviolins – October 22, 2010 12:27 am

    Mahina yang palusot na yan, because Supreme Court practice points to the immediate source, quoting the ultimate source.

    The text of the decision itself, should have alluded to the source (Criddle), who read the original sources, not del Castillo. In fact, in the Supreme Court decisions themselves, when a source points to an ultimate source, it is so stated.

    Go to lawphil.net, and search for “cited in Tolentino” and you will see a horde of decisions which quote Manresa (Spanish writer), but stating that they read it from Tolentino. (Bilang ang may dunong sa Kastila para magbasa ng Manresa). Kaya ang quote sa Supreme Court decision ay

    “Manresa page xxx cited in Tolentino”.

    Ganyan din, kung mag-search ka ng “cited in Francisco”. You will see a horde of decisions where the Supreme Court cites either Am Jur (American Jurisprudence) or some other ultimate source, but they have the intellectual honesty to say that they read it from Vicente J. Francisco, not the original American source. So the quote in the Supreme Court decison is

    “Am Jur page yyy cited in Francisco, Rules of Court”.

    Bottom line, may intellectual dishonesty diyan. Del Castillo wanted to look erudite, as if he read the original Hugo Grotius, et. al. Si Criddle and Tams ang nagbasa ng orig, not Del Castillo.

    Castillong buhangin (patawad Basil Valdes) ang intellectual erudition niyang plagiarist na yan.

  5. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:52 am

    License to Plagiarize by Rodil Rodis

    http://globalnation.inquirer.net/columns/columns/view/20101021-298952/License-to-plagiarize

  6. AnnaDeBrux - October 24, 2010 5:53 am

    From Alan Robles (husband of Raissa Robles) on Facebook:

    “Watch out for my two coming bestsellers: “Lord of the Kings” and “Henry Potter”: but first, I would like to thank the Supreme Court for making them possible”

  7. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:55 am

    Ha! Ha! Ha!

  8. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:55 am


    balweg – October 22, 2010 6:19 pm

    Makiki-OT nga.

    Supreme Court absolves Mariano del Castillo – kasalanan daw ni Bill Gates.~Sax

    Really, bwahaha…onli in the Pinas, bokya na e hihirit pa?

    Next time…pagnagappoint ng mababakanteng CJ sa Korte Supressma e never yong kabisote…dapat Makabayan at di hoodlums.

    E, bakit nasali si Bill Gates sa kabobohan ni Atorni Del Buhangin?

  9. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:56 am

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 8:08 pm

    One other thing is curious about this case. The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and has never done any fact-finding.

    In the case of Ruben Reyes for instance, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a fact-finding commission which investigated the matter. The findings were submitted to the Court, which could then adopt some or all of the findings, and apply the appropriate law.

    Had the matter been referred to a fact-finding panel like that of Justice Carolina Griño-Aquino’s then the court could have been impartial in weighing the findings. But one cannot be impartial when weighing one’s own findings.

    It is also difficult to be impartial when the respondent is a colleague. In the case of retired justices manning a fact-finding panel, there is no awkwardness; and the panel can be less involved, psychologically. After all, the respondent is not one whose office is across the hall, whom I see everyday.

    Was the Chief Justice wary of an impartial Justice Griño-Aquino or other retired justice evaluating this case? If they were dispassionate in imposing appropriate penalties for the Court’s embarrassment caused by a leak, they would certainly be more dispassionate in imposing penalties on an embarrassment that has gone international. The embarrassment caused by Ruben Reyes will, in due time, be forgotten, because there is no paper trail. But the embarrassment caused by Del Castillo will forever be enshrined in an en banc decision; to be flayed by freshman law students and their professors.

    I doubt that any retired justice would have let this pass without any sanction; especially, justices of the old guard, who revered the Judiciary as an institution, and were not enamored with their titles of “Justice”. I know, I served one.

    I bet this case will be discussed more in legal ethics, or legal bibliography (how to make citations) than in international law. It may also be discussed in IP (intellectual property), and the new defense of IP (inadvertent plagiarism).

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 8:28 pm

    Il me semblent, que Del Castillo peut lire en Francais; parce que Hugo Grotius a ecrit son libre en Francais.

    I hope Del Castillo caught any grammatical error there as well as our Anna here.

    Hugo Grotius wrote in French, not in English.

    So in Justice Sereno’s dissent, on Table B, item 3, comparing Criddle and the decision, you will see the decision attributing Hugo Grotius and other classical publicists, as if to suggest that the writer read the original Grotius tomè.

    Criddle, on the other hand, has the intellectual honesty to say that he read John W. Parker’s translation of Grotius’ work, and Joseph Drake’s translation of Christian Wolff’s work. Criddle seems to have read Emer de Vattel’s original French book.

    Here is another translation of Grotius, para naman may lusot si Del Castillo; so the researcher can say she inadvertently omitted attribution of this translated work.

    lonang.com/exlibris/grotius/

    The translator is Francis Kelsey (1925).

  10. Ellen - October 24, 2010 5:56 am

    AnnaDeBrux – October 23, 2010 9:10 pm

    Hi Sax,

    Just googled Grotius who was Dutch; seems he wrote his major treatises in Latin. Still looking though for something in French.

    To be perfectly honest, what bothers me immensely re the plagiarism issue hounding the SC is that they they continue to make all sorts of excuses after they were found out and refuse to make a formal public stand that there had been a mistake, i.e., inadvertent plagiarism. Methinks things wouldn’t have been as bad had they simply done a public mea culpa.

    Their attitude in all this fracas is indefensible in my view.

    As supreme magisters of the law, they are expected to hold the highest moral ground and possess impeccable work ethics. They should have realised that given that the institution no longer enjoys full public trust and respect (on account of past misdeeds by some of them), all the more they should have taken the higher ground by issuing a public apology. Instead they went on the offensive… bad move!

  11. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:02 am

    TonGuE-tWisTeD – October 23, 2010 4:01 am

    Kahiyaan na ito, hindi na iaatras ng Supreme Court yang desisyon ng pag-abswelto kay Del Castillo. Hindi rin naman aatras yang mga propesor na abugado. Saan hahantong ito? wala bang remedyo yan?

    Di ba pwedeng buwagin yang Supreme Court? Di pa katandaan ang karamihan ng in-appoint in Putot, wala na si Noynoy sa pwesto, nariyan pa ang mga iyan.

    Isang balakid sa pagbabago yang korte ni Corona.

  12. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:05 am

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 9:28 pm

    I stand corrected Anna. From the title of the book, it looks like Latin. I thought the “et” there was the French and, but “de jure” is certainly Latin.

    De Vattel, and Wolff’s titles are in French, one of which was translated, and the earlier, apparently, Criddle read in the original French.

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 9:35 pm

    By the way, there was some declaration, or other, earlier, in support of Del Castillo, opining that he did not plagiarise.

    The Court is applying the sub judice rule, that no comment should be made on a pending case, in order not to sway the Court one way or the other, in resolving the case.

    Seems to me that those who came out in support of Del Castillo should also be issued a show cause order why they should not be cited in contempt.

    The issuance of a show cause order on UP, and not the supporters of Del Castillo, indicates that this is plain vindictiveness, because UP is criticizing the Court. It is not an evenhanded application of the sub judice rule, but partisan bullying.

  13. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:12 am

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 9:44 pm

    Okay. I got the confirmation now Anna.

    Amazon is selling reproductions of the original work for $33.98. It is, in fact, in Latin.

    amazon.com/jure-belli-ac-pacis/dp/3166111824


    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 9:59 pm

    Okay. In item 6 of Table B of Justice Sereno’s dissent, there is reference to the dissent of Judge Schucking in the Oscar Chinn case.

    Here is the pdf of the dissent:

    icj-cij.org/pcij/serie_AB/AB_63/06_Oscar_Chinn_Opinion_Schucking.pdf?PHPSESSID=da18a27680650cb9e738aa7a55203ed1

    Please supply the three w’s. I don’t want this to be spam.

    Note the dissent is in French. So did Del Castillo or his researcher read this? They want us to believe that their digest of this French dissent has the exact same phraseology as Criddle’s.


    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 10:04 pm

    Oops. It seems there is a translation of the dissent supplied by the ICJ.

  14. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:15 am

    AnnaDeBrux – October 23, 2010 10:39 pm

    Hi Sax,

    Link goes direct to home page :-( and I have to search for item among the interminable cases in the list :-( but never mind… will search diligently :-) Thanks for the link (wink)

    Incidentally, I think ICJ uses French and English (or vice-versa) officially so all opinions or decisions are written in both languages.

    AnnaDeBrux – October 23, 2010 11:29 pm

    Seems to me that those who came out in support of Del Castillo should also be issued a show cause order why they should not be cited in contempt.

    Good point! Now, we’ll see how judicious these SC justices are…

  15. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:19 am

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 11:35 pm
    Anna:

    If you type out whole link, unbroken (no spaces), including the second line, it will give you the pdf file.

    I just tested it now, before this post.

    The dissent is written in French, and each page is translated on the succeeding page in English. So that you have French, English translation, French, etc.

    Since it say, “translation”, before the English text, I presume the original dissenting opinion was in French. Otherwise, it would say “translation” with regard to the French text.

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 11:36 pm

    I didn’t mean type out, I meant cut and paste. Remember to supply the three w’s at the front.

  16. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:22 am

    saxnviolins – October 24, 2010 12:14 am

    To those who are usyoso like me, the following describes (on the last paragraph), the researcher who took the bullet for the Castillong buhangin ang utak.

    newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101016-297971/Footnotes-SC-drops-case-of-plagiarism-against-justice

    Fourth placer in the bar exams? A female fourth placer? That kinda narrows it down. You look at the all the fourth placers, eliminate the males, and you are left with a handful.

    Now usually, a stint in the once revered Supreme Court will net you a plum job at the de kampanilya law firms in Makati. This may produce the opposite effect.

    Then again, the brave lady who took the intellectual bullet for the Castillo may one day aim for a judgeship herself. She may have to re-present her PowerPoint presentation at the JBC.

  17. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:26 am


    TonGuE-tWisTeD – October 24, 2010 1:10 am

    I’m not so much concerned with the “technical glitch” that screwed up the supposed attribution as claimed.

    What bothers me is the fact that the authors claim that the conclusions arrived at contradict the very essence of the articles that were plagiarized.

    I’m not one who will bother to read the lengthy details of the pertinent text now. But seriously, these acts only reinforces the impression of the dysfunction of the whole justice system that we have in this country.

    Just after hostage-taking and rescue-bungling policemen, here come the cheating supremes and their complicity in covering up for their blatant misdeeds.

    God save the country.

  18. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:27 am

    TonGuE-tWisTeD – October 24, 2010 1:17 am

    Let’s cool down for a while.

    At a rally in front of the Supreme Court, a man shouts “The Supreme Court Justices are assholes”.

    A man quickly shouts back, “I resent that!”

    The rallyist turns to him and asks, “Why are you a justice?

    To which the man replies, “No, I’m an asshole”.

  19. Ellen - October 24, 2010 6:29 am

    saxnviolins – October 24, 2010 1:24 am

    I agree. The use of the articles to arrive at a contrary result is like using Miranda v Arizona to conclude that the police may question an individual without reading him his rights.

    If the people have lost their trust in the justices, they may be impeached for betrayal of public trust. That is a political decision, to be arrived at by the political leaders (House and Senate). Since it is a political question, the exoneration by the Supreme Court of Del Castillo will not bar impeachment proceedings.

    Del Castillo may be removed, as well as all the justices who decided to reopen the Cities and Municipalities case, after the decision had become final and executory.

    You will have removed all the negotiable (by the Glue) justices, Presbitero Velasco, de Castro, the Cheap Justice, etc.

    Can the Senate muster two-thirds? Maybe, maybe not. But it is worth a shot, if only to cleanse the judiciary.

    This should be given serious thought, before somebody pays off Oliver Lozano again, to file his usual dismissible impeachment complaint.

  20. 2b1ask1 - October 24, 2010 9:21 am

    Sad…it’s sad. The Supreme Court has never been as controversial as it is now…since Davide started toying with our constitution. What do we expect of the kind of SC we have today with almost all the Justices including the Chief appointed by Gloria?

    Protecting their colleagues was expected. Some might be hiding their own secrets afraid to suffer the same fate. Perhaps the way to resolve this problem at SC is for these Justices including the Chief be elected by the people and not appointed by the President.

  21. Ellen - October 24, 2010 10:32 am

    From Ferrum Mann’s Facebook:

    I just heard the Post Office recalled their latest stamps. The stamps had the picture of the SC justices. People were confused as to which side they would spit on.

  22. Isagani - October 24, 2010 10:33 am

    As I am not a Philippine-licensed attorney, the Philippine Supreme Court cannot cite me for contempt so I can freely declare what my “companeros” in the Philippines may not dare say. The majority members of this Court, all GMA appointees, are contemptible for making “a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.” – R. Rodis

    Plus Davide = Lusot na si Gloria.

  23. MrG - October 24, 2010 12:23 pm

    Indeed these are really very sad indications to the depths that our institutions have become dysfunctional. The Supreme Court has shown conclusive proof that the whole government from the smallest barangay unit to the three branches have all been shown to be acting only for the interests of a few and inutile in promoting the interests of the people.

    The Truth Commission has work enough for the next ten years if only to show and explain to the people how this has happened. One of its tasks, I suppose should be to expose all those in the previous regimes that have participated in allowing themselves and their institutions to wallow in such deprivation. Where we had the friars as the symbol of this cancer during Rizal’s time; today we ought to expose all those holding government positions that have allowed themselves to be corrupted and still willing to hold back the truth.

    Do they have to wait for divine intervention similar to the Glorietta bombing investigator to save their souls? What if there is none coming?

    BTW, just like Sollano, there is someone at the Maritime Industry Authority that made an official report that the Super Ferry 14 was not bombed. Is there a pattern here?

  24. MrG - October 24, 2010 1:26 pm

    What I really wanted to express by citing the examples was that people have been conditioned to easily say that something “black” is indeed “white” and rationalize that it is so. It’s not just the ordinary police or Marina investigator that has been afflicted. Even the SC justices have not been immune from the cancer. Like dengue, it has become endemic and maybe also incurable.

  25. masha - October 24, 2010 3:56 pm

    1. before a decision is promulgated it is drafted, re-drafted, checked and re-checked many, many times. many eyes would have seen it before its final form, many eyes would have vetted it (ahh save for those that the justice wants to keep for himself and his most trusted ca. wink wink) before the clerk of court gets a hold of it. in principle, the division/en banc would have even discussed the case before promulgation. and a proofreader vets everything, as in everything, before the justices sign on it. the point is somebody would have caught it at any of these stages if it were truly just an omission.

    to put it on a single ca/researcher is a load of crock. my theory is that this justice lazily added the stuff himself and did not think much of it. is he from up? ;-)

    2. used to be that up law deans were shoo-ins for a seat in the high court. this is what we get for getting intellectual lightweights in the highest tribunal in the country.

  26. masha - October 24, 2010 4:09 pm

    i’ve always taken issue with the phil supreme court having the power to cite anybody who disagrees with them in contempt. imho it is an infringement on the freedom of speech.

    imagine how many people in the u.s., including lawyers, could be cited in contempt for just trashing the federal sc/citizens united ruling. even the potus has criticized the ruling.

  27. vic - October 24, 2010 5:04 pm

    Harper speech plagiarized…staffer resigned!!

    Question: did someone in the Staff of the SC Justice in question quit his job for this scandal?

    A campaign worker for the Conservatives has resigned, after the Liberals showed a 2003 speech by Stephen Harper that plagiarized sections of an address by then-Australian prime minister John Howard.

    “In 2003, I worked in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition. I was tasked with — and wrote — a speech for the then Leader of the Opposition,” Owen Lippert said in a press release issued Tuesday. “Pressed for time, I was overzealous in copying segments of another world leader’s speech. Neither my superiors in the Office of the Leader of the Opposition nor the Leader of the Opposition was aware that I had done so.”

    Lippert, who also became a senior policy advisor for the Canadian International Development Agency in 2008, apologized to “all involved.”

  28. vic - October 24, 2010 5:12 pm

    The SC as one of the co-equals branch of the government in a tri-pitrate is not dissimilar to the other Two in most respect…the Congress has already proven beyond doubt then the past Executive branch, especially the last of GMA, so it is just expected that the other co-equal the SC could not be any different…even the last redeeming institutions in the country expected to be the check for all these three in now becoming one of them, the churches…now do i expect the SC to ask me to explain why would i not get sanctioned for making this comment…i’d say be my guest…googles and ma bell well be ready to help if they too have any more respect left for that court.

  29. chi - October 24, 2010 8:59 pm

    This plagiarism sin of del Castillo reminds of a Spanish friend whose PhD dissertation was rejected right before the eyes of friends and relatives by the PhD committee when one member rose up and claimed that a portion of his thesis was his. The candidate said it was his editor’s mistake but was not bought by the committee.

    The poor guy was given another year to revise but delete the plagiarized portion in his paper. Sa hiya, he left Barcelona with his American wife and moved to the US for good. He did not get back to his thesis again. Last time we heard, he’s enjoying America. :)

    I agree with Anna that it was better if publicly the SC apologized once and shut their mouths na. E kaso mas madakdak pa sila sa akin! :) Buti nga siguro nabisto na xerox machine lang pala ang ating Supreme Court!

  30. jawo - October 24, 2010 10:39 pm

    Sabi (siguro) ni Renato Corona, “whosoever among us justices who did not in any way copied/plagiarized at any time in our lives, let him cast the dissenting vote and send Mariano del Castillo to hell”. Well, we all know that all of them did so del Castillo was forgiven of sins. I believe he was simply asked to pray the Act of Contrition and three Our Fathers as his punishment.

  31. balweg - October 24, 2010 11:07 pm

    Onli in d’ Pinas! Bwahaha, CHEATING…di maunawaan ng ating CJ and his minions, bawal ang mangopya?

    My bad experience ako diyan sa word na CHEATING…imagine, nakisilip lang ang klasmayt ko sa aking test paper during our final exam sa Chem 1-Laboratory at walang kopyahan dito na naganap…pero ang masaklap nagalit ang aming Professor hayon automatically 5 ang ibinigay sa aming final grade?

    Walang apela ito…so dapat masmabigat ang punishment kay AJ Del Castillo kasi may pag-amin dito na nangopya siya ng Desisyon ng ibang atorni…he he he!

  32. ocayvalle - October 24, 2010 11:47 pm

    diyos ko po..!! ano pa ba nag aasahan natin sa supreme court ni corona, e di wala..!! diba sila din ang nag sabi na hindi midnight appointee si corona, maski na itinago pa ni putot GMA ang pag administer sa kanya, eh di ganon din, dapat kampihan din nila si del castillo de buhangin.. sa susunod, sila na lang ang tama, baka nga ma ibalik pa nila si GMA bilang presidente ulit..naku nakakatawa na talaga ang pilipinas..!!

  33. Ellen - October 25, 2010 6:53 am

    From Gaynat:

    What we are seeing now of the Supreme Court is just the tip of the iceberg, and I have no doubt that the member justices appointed by Gloria Arroyo are there to destroy the constitution instead of protecting it.

    These justices have since lost their integrity when they accepted her appointment, for she would not appoint them unless there is a hidden and sinister agenda.Renato Corona’s appointment no matter how illegal it was, was just an icing in the cake. ( Why do you think Gloria have the gall to be in congress and in silent content nowadays?)

    These are the current Supreme Court’s bottom line agenda;

    1. protect Gloria Arroyo and her loyal minions (at all cost) from any criminal suits
    2.destroy the institutions that protects our democratic way of life and those that provides checks and balances ( espousing divide and rule paradigm)
    3. disestablish the constitution and the legal traditions that serves the interest of the people so that the populace will loose faith in our legal system
    4.create a constitutional crisis that will hasten the collapse of the Government and those that represents the people

  34. Ellen - October 25, 2010 6:54 am

    From Gaynat:

    Before the Arroyos left their position of power they have been studying ways to perpetuate their control of our rotten system and when they failed to alter the constitution they have now to execute a fall back strategy that will create an opportunity for them to come back and be in power again.

    Using the Supreme Court is one of these strategies, and if they succeed in these four point agenda, then who can stop them?

    Sadly, I still remember ‘ Ninoy’s” reply to a question asked at the time when Marcos health was rumored to be failing and He is the only perceived and acceptable alternative to replace the ailing president.

    quote ” Democracy doesn’t always work in a situation like this, what the country needs is a strong authoritarian president who will serve the people and will dismantle the corrupt system made well entrenched by years of being in power and position”

    And as they say, ” you ain’t seen nothing yet!”

  35. Ellen - October 25, 2010 6:55 am

    From Gaynat:

    Question?

    Does the current leadership have them? do they really represent the sentiments of the people? Are they there serving the national interest or of others of foreign origin? At a time when there is an economic and power global shift happening,can we remain stable and not be a pawn serving foreign interests?

    Who will benefit if our system collapses? are we blind not to see the strings and who is pulling them? isn’t it obvious that these high profile personalities are just pawns?

    What is happening in the Supreme Court right now is just one in the strategic plan laid out years before Gloria even leaves the Presidency, Noynoy’s assumption of office is of no consequence to it, in fact it is complementing the events.

    Let us pray for the country and for all Filipinos that we survive one of the most challenging times in our Nation’s history.

  36. baycas2 - October 25, 2010 7:18 am

    PHILIPPINES: Ongoing institutional persecution of a law school faculty
    by Professor Diane Desierto

    http://www.ahrchk.net/statements/mainfile.php/2010statements/2888

  37. renaldo - October 25, 2010 11:31 am

    As they say “Ibahin mo ang Pinoy”. How I wish we got the trait of the Japanese. Kung sa Japan, nag-resign na seguro yung justice na pinaratangan ng ganito. O baka naghara-kiri pa.
    Now, all the decisions written by Del Castillo must be reviewed. Mayroon pa bang iba?

  38. koko - October 25, 2010 11:42 am

    Malakas ang loob ng SC dahil alam nilang kontrolado nila ang batas ng bansa.Alam dn nila na kakaunti lang ang naagbabasa ng ellenville and therefore majority of the citizens do not know or not interested as they are all busy trying to earn a living.Since all options look useless i suggest Pnoy declare martial law even for one week only.Dissolve SC immediately,kick maldita and co.,and put the Arroyo’s behind bars.Only after this that we can start anew, drastic measures needs in desperate times…

  39. masha - October 25, 2010 2:37 pm

    …and do the supreme court justices really want to butt heads with merlin magallona? good luck sa kanila. pag di ba naman sumakit ang ulo nila trying to make heads or tails of what merlin says…

  40. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 25, 2010 4:47 pm

    Is he from UP? – masha

    Nope, he is from Ateneo – batch ’71. And to top it all, he is a pre-Bar reviewer on what subject? Legal ethics.

  41. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 25, 2010 4:56 pm

    Jarius Bondoc’s article dissects the voting pattern in the SC among the Gloria appointees on the hottest political issues, it’s about time people filed impeachment charges on them for wholesale loss of confidence. Read it here.

  42. saxnviolins - October 25, 2010 5:56 pm

    I browsed through the Supreme Court website, specifically the decisions of August and September 2010, looking for decisions penned by Del Castillo. The decisions I read were crisp, concise, to the point. There was no attempt for a quotable quote like CJ Fernando of yesteryears.

    He starts with a preliminary statement, usually a quote from a previous decision, then the facts, the arguments of the petitioner, the arguments of the respondent, the decision of the RTC, the CA, then announces the ruling of the Supreme Court. He, then discusses how the SC arrived at its ruling. I would have like reading his decisions as a student, pressed with too many cases to digest.

    I was looking for a case similar to Vinuya, where many sources were cited, but there was none in those two months.

  43. baycas2 - October 25, 2010 6:10 pm

    The legal researcher was not named in the decision, which noted how during the committee hearing, she had “tearfully expressed remorse at her ‘grievous mistake’ and grief for having ‘caused an enormous amount of suffering for Justice Del Castillo and his family.”

    She had explained to the committee in a PowerPoint presentation, how she had made the accidental deletions in the footnoting for the Vinuya, et al. court decision.

    Court spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said no sanctions were imposed on the researcher.

    The high tribunal, in fact, noted that she was “competent” to handle the task assigned to her by Del Castillo, having graduated third in her class from a leading law school, became the editor in chief of her alma mater’s Law Journal, placed fourth in the bar exams, and earned a master’s degree in international law and human rights from a prestigious university in the United States.

    This was copy-pasted from somewhere in the public domain.

    —–

    The Justice’s researcher was after all competent in the field of assignment given her. She finished law from a leading law school, graduated third in her class, served as Editor-in Chief of her school’s Law Journal, and placed fourth in the bar examinations when she took it. She earned a master’s degree in International Law and Human Rights from a prestigious university in the United States under the Global-Hauser program, which counsel for petitioners concedes to be one of the top post graduate programs on International Law in the world. Justice Del Castillo did not exercise bad judgment in assigning the research work in the Vinuya case to her.

    This was copy-pasted also from somewhere in the public domain.

    —–

    She graduated 3rd in her batch, earned a special commendation for her thesis. She was also Editor-in-Chief of their Law Journal. She went on to place 4th in the Philippine National Bar Examinations, and then, aside from teaching at her alma mater, worked at a leading Philippine law firm.

    Again, this was copy-pasted from somewhere in the public domain. This time there was “cutting” done to somehow look similar from the first two quotations everyone already knows.

    However, all were not plagiarized as no malicious intent was intended.

    Btw, the researcher, “whose name need not be mentioned here” (as what the SC commented in its recent “landmark” decision – A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC), appears similar to a character from Henry Potter…oops, Harry Potter. Nonetheless, her name (along with her photo) is in the public domain long before this brouhaha.

  44. baycas2 - October 25, 2010 6:12 pm

    …oops, damn software…

    “…look similar TO the first two quotations everyone already knows.”

  45. saxnviolins - October 25, 2010 6:17 pm

    I re-read Vinuya, and the decision is also concise, and in fact, could have been written without those plagiarized passages.

    In Vinuya, petitioners sought to compel the executive branch to file claims against Japan. The Court ruled that “it is not within our power to order the Executive Department to take up the petitioners’ cause.” (Del Castillo).

    The Court employed municipal (domestic law) to dispose of the case. That would have been that. But in the last paragraphs, perhaps to deal with Harry Roque’s espousal of developments in international law, the decision made comments on the theory of jus cogens.

    It would have sufficed to say that:

    “Scholars who have tracked developments in international law have opined that although there is a general acceptance of the concept of jus cogens, its substance is still to be developed in decisions to be made by international tribunals. For this reason, we cannot employ the concept for resolution of this case.”

    In the attempt at erudition, however, the articles of the scholars were employed. To further sound scholarly, the writers’ ultimate sources were quoted. That is where this “accident” occurred.

    Too bad. The decision was correct. That will forever be tainted, however, by this incident.

    Too bad, as well, that Del Castillo was doing fine as a magistrate, until the decision to include this, afterthought actually, which has forever tainted his reputation.

  46. saxnviolins - October 25, 2010 6:25 pm

    I agree with the decision, because international relations is the domain of the executive, and decisions in that area are left to the President’s discretion.

    That is the plain and only basis for the decision, and the detour into the murky waters of international law and theory was unnecessary. Unfortunately, this unnecessary move caused the embarrassment of the Court.

  47. saxnviolins - October 25, 2010 7:38 pm

    # 40

    Di ba’t ethics din ang tinuturo ni Camilo Sabio?

    Wala bang nagtuturo ng legal skulduggery? Baka yan ang dapat na ma-appoint. Kung baga, reverse psychology.

  48. thelegallyinclined - October 25, 2010 8:24 pm

    Hi saxnviolins,

    Just wanted to comment on some of your points.

    Re “I was looking for a case similar to Vinuya, where many sources were cited, but there was none in those two months.”
    - The Vinuya case is a landmark case dealing with international law. Might take a little more research through the years for something similar.

    Re “The Court employed municipal (domestic law) to dispose of the case. That would have been that. But in the last paragraphs, perhaps to deal with Harry Roque’s espousal of developments in international law, the decision made cmments on the theory of jus cogens.”
    - The decision had to deal squarely with international law (and go beyond domestic law) because international law principles (jus cogens, obligations erga omnes) form the crux of the petition.

    Re “Too bad. The decision was correct. That will forever be tainted, however, by this incident.”
    - Regardless of the plagiarism, I think it is the Vinuya decision that taints the rights of people (in this case the comfort women) against state-sanctioned slavery, torture and rape. As you know, under international law, there are certain norms (like the prohibition against slavery, torture, genocide, etc.) from which no derogation is allowed and so if a country waives its right to prosecute another country (the way RP did in the Japan peace treaty) for violations of these crimes, the waiver should be deemed void. It is unfortunate that the media have not focused on this landmark decision for the merits involved.

    Re “Too bad, as well, that Del Castillo was doing fine as a magistrate, until the decision to include this, afterthought actually, which has forever tainted his reputation.”
    - I think the Vinuya plagiarism is just one of several that taint his reputation (he is an Arroyo appointee after all and he has not forgotten it seems based on his voting record). Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct: “A judge should uphold the integrity
    and independence of the judiciary”.

  49. saxnviolins - October 25, 2010 10:24 pm

    By similar to Vinuya, I meant similar in the sense that it is studded with citations. I did not mean similarity in factual antecedents or issues.

    - The decision had to deal squarely with international law (and go beyond domestic law) because international law principles (jus cogens, obligations erga omnes) form the crux of the petition.

    Yeah but you are asking for a writ of mandamus actually. So the decision will have to be measured on the based on standards for mandamus, which is domestic law. The decision (article of one of the scholars) also pointed to a circuit court decision in the US, which applied municipal law.

    We will have to agree to disagree here, because I don’t see any international law dimension. In fact, the articles cite dissenting opinions, not majority opinions of the ICJ.

    The cited Bruno Simma quote, in fact, says that the use of jus cogens is in the realm of ought to, not yet a practice in the ICJ.

    Agree on the last point.

    As I posted earlier in another thread, there is a new President now. I would try to ask the executive to take up the cudgels for the comfort women.

  50. chi - October 25, 2010 10:37 pm

    #42Baycas. Poor researcher, a most convenient scapegoat for plagiarist del Castillo.

  51. Ellen - October 25, 2010 10:51 pm

    As I posted earlier in another thread, there is a new President now. I would try to ask the executive to take up the cudgels for the comfort women.-SnV

    As long as Alberto Romulo is foreign secretary that will never happen because he said pursuing the claim would harm RP-Japan relations. A dumb argument by a dumb foreign secretary.

  52. baycas2 - October 25, 2010 10:56 pm

    “Scapegoat” the ponente didn’t actually say as the legal researcher was not sanctioned for her “wrongdoing.” Besides, the ponente was careful to withhold the researcher’s name.

    Unfortunately, with details the ponente wrote about the researcher, her (the legal researcher) identity didn’t escape Google’s wonderful search capability. One may opt to google the above-copy-pasted third quotation to satisfy one’s curiosity.

  53. 2b1ask1 - October 25, 2010 11:35 pm

    The majority members of this Court, all GMA appointees, are contemptible for making “a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.”

  54. AnnaDeBrux - October 26, 2010 12:52 am

    Re Ellen – October 24, 2010 6:05 am citing Sax’ post and which I posted on FB:

    saxnviolins – October 23, 2010 9:35 pm

    By the way, there was some declaration, or other, earlier, in support of Del Castillo, opining that he did not plagiarise.

    The Court is applying the sub judice rule, that no comment should be made on a pending case, in order not to sway the Court one way or the other, in resolving the case.

    Seems to me that those who came out in support of Del Castillo should also be issued a show cause order why they should not be cited in contempt.

    The issuance of a show cause order on UP, and not the supporters of Del Castillo, indicates that this is plain vindictiveness, because UP is criticizing the Court. It is not an evenhanded application of the sub judice rule, but partisan bullying.

    A lawyer (at least that’s what he’s always said he was) had replied following my FB post:

    Benjamin F. Cardinez
    ‎@de brux, not all comments about a pending case are contempt of court. only those harmful comments that tend to obstruct, hinder, or prevent the court from doing its job, one way or the other.

    btw, alleged violation of the “sub judice”… rule is is not the only basis for the OSC, i think. it’s also whether the respondents have the right to DEMAND justice castillo’s resignation without due process of law, or whether it was proper for them to do so (as members of the bar).

  55. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 3:43 am

    ‎@de brux, not all comments about a pending case are contempt of court. only those harmful comments that tend to obstruct, hinder, or prevent the court from doing its job, one way or the other.

    That is correct. that is the current yardstick in US courts. But in what way is appealing to the conscience of Del Castillo to resign obstructive of the Court’s business?

  56. AnnaDeBrux - October 26, 2010 6:05 am

    :-) :-) :-) I’m off… I shall now go and do my messenger job… Ellenville FB :-)

  57. AnnaDeBrux - October 26, 2010 6:25 am

    Instant reply by sax’s fellow lawyer :-) :-) :-)

    Benjamin F. Cardinez
    the problem, anne, was it was not a mere “appeal to the conscience”. it was, as i said, a presumptuous DEMAND. if justice castillo heeded that demand, sc would not have been able to continue its inquiry. the whole exercise would become moot and academic, wouldn’t it?

  58. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 7:20 am

    Here is a case that is instructive, on citations for contempt. It was decided by the Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc, and penned by Judge Michael A Wolff.

    courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=38713 (Please supply the three w’s)

    There are two types of contempt – criminal and civil.

    “Criminal contempt is punitive in nature and acts to protect, preserve, and vindicate the authority and dignity of the judicial system and to deter future defiance. Civil contempt is intended to benefit a party for whom relief has been granted by coercing compliance with the relief granted.” Page 8 and 9

    An example of a civil contempt is the incarceration of a New Jersey resident, originally from mainland Africa. He divorced his wife, and while battling for custody of the son, he took the son back to his country (Kenya, I believe) without telling the wife. The NJ court awarded custody to the wife, and ordered the man to tell her and the court where to find the son. Man refused, and he was incarcerated until he agreed to obey. How long did he stay in jail? Two years – that is the time it took him to finally obey the court.

    Now the Supreme Court here, is not requiring the UP faculty to do anything for any party litigant’s benefit. So, clearly, this is a criminal (punitive) contempt.

    In the case of criminal contempt, the Supreme Court of Missouri, citing the US Supreme Court in Gentile v US, held that First Amendment rights (freedom of speech) trumps restrictions on lawyers’ speech. Page 11.

    The Missouri Supreme Court further held, citing Gentile v US, that lawyers may be sanctioned if their extrajudicial statements provide “substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.” Page 16.

    Now in what way does an exhortation to a justice to resign, produce a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding?

    A justice, like Caesar’s wife, must not only be factually beyond reproach, but must appear to be beyond reproach. The plagiarism, whether inadvertent or purposely made, embarrassed the Court, and one way to eliminate the embarrassment is to eliminate its source. That is why resignation was being urged.

    We may debate the wisdom of the exhortation of the UP faculty, but the move was actually done in an effort to restore confidence in the Court. That, in fact, indicates respect for the institution.

  59. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 7:30 am

    In the case cited above, the lawyer called the judge a crook. But criminal contempt was not declared.

    In Holt v. Virginia 381 U.S. 131, the lawyer accused the judge, in a motion filed before the same judge, of intimidating and harassing the lawyer who filed the motion. Contempt was declared, but annulled by the Supreme Court.

    In In re Snyder 472 U.S. 634 the lawyer wrote this letter to the District Judge’s Secretary:

    “In the first place, I am appalled by the amount of money which the federal court pays for indigent criminal defense work. The reason that so few attorneys in Bismarck accept this work is for that exact reason. We have, up to this point, still accepted the indigent appointments, because of a duty to our profession, and the fact that nobody else will do it.”

    “Now, however, not only are we paid an amount of money which does not even cover our overhead, but we have to go through extreme gymnastics even to receive the puny amounts which the federal courts authorize for this work. We have sent you everything we have concerning our representation, and I am not sending you anything else. You can take it or leave it.”

    “Further, I am extremely disgusted by the treatment of us by the Eighth Circuit in this case, and you are instructed to remove my name from the list of attorneys who will accept criminal indigent defense work. I have simply had it.”

    “Thank you for your time and attention.”

    The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found the letter disrespectful and contumacious, the Supreme Court held:

    “a single incident of rudeness or lack of professional courtesy — in this context — does not support a finding of contemptuous or contumacious conduct..”

  60. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 7:42 am

    Nothing hurts more than the truth; especially truth about ourselves that we find difficult to accept and would rather people did not notice. Truths like “Hoy tumataba ka na.” Hoy kulubut ka na (to a lady). And the most pikon are those who actually are losing the battle of the bulge, or whose skins are becoming more obedient to the law of gravity.

    The truth, that the Supremes have one in their ranks who plagiarized (inadvertently), and got them not to notice the inadvertence, rankles, because they would rather that nobody noticed it. But Harry Roque’s motion, and Madam Justice Aranal-Sereno’s dissent are like mirrors stuck to their faces. Kulubut na nga ako dammit.

    Nothing is more insolent than the boy who blurts out that the Emperor is not wearing anything. So off with their heads.

    Similarly, nothing is more forgiveness inspiring than a ready acceptance and apology, and a contrite resolve that it will never happen again. Just ask any parent whose child has genuinely asked for forgiveness.

  61. masha - October 26, 2010 8:18 am

    “Similarly, nothing is more forgiveness inspiring than a ready acceptance and apology, and a contrite resolve that it will never happen again. Just ask any parent whose child has genuinely asked for forgiveness.” -saxnviolins

    would for j. castillo if the consequence could be limited to just that. but plagiarism in the highest court of the land is unacceptable and should always be so, forgiveness on a personal level nothwithstanding. a child who is still constructing his/her own standards as he/she goes through life cannot be compared to a magistrate whose professionalism and adherence to the law which he is supposed to wield are/should be prerequisites of the position he holds.

  62. masha - October 26, 2010 8:20 am

    a finding or an admission of plagiarism should have the necessary consequence of losing your seat in the s.c. whether by resignation or impeachment.

  63. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 8:28 am

    # 61

    I meant forgiveness by the people. I still think, though, that it would be better for him to leave, if he truly values the institution over himself.

    I cannot imagine JBL, or Alejo Labrador staying on, even if the plagiarism was by inadvertence of his researcher which he did not catch. They would have resigned, because not catching the mistake is ineptitude itself.

    In fact, I cannot imagine the old guard letting the researchers do majority of the writing. This calls to mind Justice David Souter, writing his opinions by longhand, with a fountain pen. Yes, this is the guy who does not use a TV, nor a cellphone, nor a computer. But he penned the decision in the Grokster case; one heralded by geekdom as truly understanding of the technology.

  64. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 9:11 am

    $ 57

    if justice castillo heeded that demand, sc would not have been able to continue its inquiry. the whole exercise would become moot and academic, wouldn’t it?

    What is so contumacious about rendering a case moot and academic? Macoy did that all the time. When he sensed that his PD would be declared unconstitutional, he withdrew it.

    It is never contumacious to unclog the Court’s dockets. Appeals are withdrawn all the time, and cases settled outside the courts. Pidal himself sought to withdraw the libel case against the journalists, including Ellen, because he had forgiven them. Ang kapal. Siya pa ang nagpatawad. Siya pa ang aggrieved.

    So is Noynoy’s amnesty also contumacious of Oscar Pimentel’s RTC? Because it would render the Trillanes rebellion case moot? Similarly, was the amnesty of Joma, and Gringo also contumacious, because it rendered the cases moot?

    Ah but Noynoy has the prerogative as President right? Well, the UP faculty also have the prerogatives granted under the Bill of Rights, to speak out and demand a resignation. To punish for content of the speech, not its manner of delivery, is to curtail it. That is unconstitutional.

    Note, the demand was made on Castillo, not the Court. Would it have mattered if the UP faculty did it personally? Saying hoy, companero, mag-resign ka na. Don’t friends and family do that all the time? Saying pare iatras mo na ang kaso mo. Is that obstructive of Court business? Or helpful in reducing Court business? Where is the disrespect?

  65. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 10:07 am

    O. Basahin ang Ang Ladlad case. This website points out some “coincidental phrases” again.

    pinoymoneytalk.com/supreme-court-justice-plagiarism/

    European decision naman ngayon ang “inspiration”, as well as a US Supreme Court decision, and a Canadian decision.

    Judge for yourself.

  66. baycas2 - October 26, 2010 11:19 am

    Another handiwork of the Atenean legal researcher? Human Rights is her expertise care of scholarship from NYU.

    Problem is she has dragged J. del Castillo down and so is the rest of the SC. The Vinuya case is an en banc decision.

  67. thelegallyinclined - October 26, 2010 11:44 am

    thanks for the link saxnviolins.

    baycas2, justices are supposed to write their own decisions, researchers should only research. j. del castillo is to blame for the plagiarism. the sc, while not to blame for the plagiarism, is to blame for protecting the plagiarist/s based on their decision on the plagiarism case not on the vinuya decision.

    this is off-topic but for those interested in a maybe-easier-to-read narrative of the case, here’s a link to Harry Roque and Diane Desierto’s paper “Redress for Victims of War Crimes: The Filipino Comfort Women’s Continuing Search for Legal Remedies” based on their Petition which lead to the Vinuya decision. See pages 91-99. http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/ifhv/documents/huvi/huv_2006/3_2006.pdf

  68. masha - October 26, 2010 11:51 am

    #63

    yes, j. souter who uses natural light and moves accordingly as it shifts during the day. eccentric. but you dont have to be eccentric to follow basic norms of decency. i guess doing the right thing has attained heroic levels in these times where cheating and responsibility-shirking have become the norm.

  69. masha - October 26, 2010 11:58 am

    baycas2 @ #66

    there is no dragging of j castillo or the rest of the sc down”. any decision promulgated by the supreme court is the responsibility of the court, especially the justice who penned it. he should read it and re-read it, send it to his proofreader and read it and re-read it again. churning out decisions is not, or should i say, should not be treated in a cavalier manner. they essentially making laws and crafting policies and they should take that to heart and devise the appropriate protocols to avoid even a typographical error.

  70. baycas2 - October 26, 2010 1:56 pm

    At least my boss entrusts me his very busy life and vital post for my research. Never doubted if JDC did the same for his “competent” researcher.

    Well, she was in tears — possibly owning up to her fault. Problem was her boss wasn’t…

    Now the concerned public are in “tears” because the SC absolved JDC of any wrongdoing.

    Sadly too because it appears that the SC is “persecuting” the law profs.

  71. Ellen - October 26, 2010 3:19 pm

    Brilliant, brilliant, SnV. We are learning a lot from you.

  72. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 5:52 pm

    Ellen:

    Harry Roque cited only one instance in the link I posted. Tatlo yan. Just scroll down past the commercials. The website owner has to make money you know.

    The first one is by the European Court. The second one is Boy Scouts of America v Dale, by the US SC.

    The third is by the Canadian Supreme Court, Chamberlain v Surrey.

    Duda nga ako, because Ang Ladlad had poetic passages. The decisions I read from Castillo, which I characterized as crisp and concise did not have poetic passages. They employed carpenter’s English (di ba’t yan ang analogy ng SC?)

    Hats off to the sleuth.

  73. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 6:03 pm

    # 39

    Bwahaha.

    …and do the supreme court justices really want to butt heads with merlin magallona? good luck sa kanila. pag di ba naman sumakit ang ulo nila trying to make heads or tails of what merlin says…

    Ngayon ko lang nakita ito. Brings back memories.

    Yes, I believe Magallona is the best weapon against Marxism. You hear him, you get turned off. If Palparan had employed Magallona, he need not have been a butcher.

  74. Ellen - October 26, 2010 6:16 pm

    From the column of Malaya Publisher Amado Macasaet:

    “It is not exactly immaterial or irrelevant to point out here that the “plagiarized” portion of Justice Del Castillo’s ruling in the case of comfort women was written or researched by lawyer Michelle Juan.

    “Michelle Juan was a lawyer of the Romulo Mabanta Law Office who joined Justice Del Castillo. She taught legal research at the Ateneo Law School. She was editor of the Ateneo Law Journal. She was third in her 2002 law class.

    “She placed fourth in the 2002 bar examinations. She went to New York University to earn a master’s degree in International Legal Studies.

    “She was with the wife of Justice Castillo in the Romulo Mabanta Law Office.

    “A witness during the first hearing of the ethics committee where media was banned told us that Michelle Juan became hysterical when she was testifying. She admitted having made the mistake.

    “The decision said Michelle Juan apologized. I am sure she did.

    http://www.malaya.com.ph/10262010/edmacasaet.html

    Additional info: she is the niece of Justice Castillo’s wife.

  75. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 6:17 pm

    Here is an old joke.

    Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not get caught.

    If caught, obey the Twelfth Commandment – Thou shalt blame somebody else.

    If Twelfth Commandment does not work, follow the Golden Rule:

    Do unto others before they do unto you.

    So discipline the UP faculty before you are hauled to the House for impeachment.

  76. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 6:21 pm

    Nakita ko na ang picture Ellen. I prefer not to post a link. I’m sure in due time the media will stake out her residence for interviews.

  77. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 26, 2010 6:23 pm

    Harry Roque has the full 8 (minimum) instances of plagiarism in the Ang Ladlad decision”. Posted just this morning.

  78. saxnviolins - October 26, 2010 7:47 pm

    In the cases cited above, In re Snyder, the Supreme Court of Missouri case, and Holt v. Virginia, the alleged contumacious conduct consisted in statements made to the court in pleadings submitted to the court. That was the basis for the contempt citation ultimately struck down.

    But in this case, the demand for resignation was made in media. How different is this from the UP faculty going to Plaza Miranda with a bullhorn and shouting mag-resign ka na? Clearly, this was street speech, for want of a better term, not a statement that could have undermined court business.

  79. baycas2 - October 26, 2010 9:01 pm

    That’s what you call a “ghost ponente,” Mr. Macasaet.

    Exactly a pre-halloween treat!

Comments are closed for this entry.