Further Mistakes of MS Word or more Plagiarism from Justice Del Castillo?

Holding the UP Law Faculty in Contempt Would Be a Grave Mistake

by Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent

We are writing to lend support to the University of Philippine’s College of Law, which now faces a very serious charge of contempt from the Philippine Supreme Court (PSC). If the members of the College are held in contempt, they face the loss of their bar licenses and with that the loss of their ability to teach and practice law.
Criddle is one of those whose work was plagiarized by del Castillo.

Read the whole article here Opinio Juris

by Harry Roque

In the earlier case of Ang Ladlad, (GR No. 190582, April 8, 2010) Justice Del Castillo appeared to have committed plagiarism as well. Our study is only preliminary but the exigencies of the situation have compelled us to make this public.

In the Ang Ladlad decision allowed a gay rights group to run in the party-list elections, and was released 20 days earlier than the Vinuya decision. The ponente here is also Justice Del Castillo.

The relevant passages are as follows:

Del Castillo ponente (Ang Ladlad), p. 21

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace. Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.

The European Court of Human Rights case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, 1 EHRR 737 para. 49:

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man … it is applicable not only to ‘information’ or ‘ideas’ that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.

Click here for more plagiarism
in “Ang Ladlad” by Harry Roque

October 26, 2010 6:40 pm  Tags: , ,   Posted in: Justice

34 Responses

  1. Ellen - October 26, 2010 6:54 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.”


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

  2. NFA rice - October 26, 2010 6:55 pm

    Ellen, how is this plagiarism?

  3. ricelander - October 26, 2010 8:57 pm

    It should be a lesson and a warning to writers and people who hire writers.

    I do not know how PLDTs Pangilinan speech was found out in that earlier controversy, his writer plagiarizing portions of Oprah’s and Obama’s. Neither is anyone explaining how this latest one is discovered. When Pangilinan’s writer presented it to him, should we expect him to check whether his writer could have lifted entire paragraphs from other people’s speeches, with a few words changed here and there? If he wanted to, how? The same case with Justice Castillo, although much could be said about the propriety of having a decision penned by an assistant researcher. Speeches written by speechwriters are common and accepted–I do not know about SC decisions.

    I discovered this technique while searching for the title and singer of a certain song a good friend requested me to find and download. The bastard could only hum a part,and a few words. It’s one rather old but I could faintly recall two lines from its refrain. I went to google, type-searched for this two lines and it brought me to the exact wording. Following several links, miraculously, I found the title of the song — and the singer. With these info, I found a clear copy of the song requested at Limewire. There you go, miracles of technology.

    Now, try typing an entire paragraph, or copy-pasting an entire work on google search window, if the thing is plagiarized, it will bring you to the original source— without fail…

  4. Mike - October 26, 2010 11:20 pm

    Buti pa si Boss Manny, inaming ang binasa nyang speech ay hango sa original ni Oprah at Barack. Nag sorry at nag resign. Itong mga huwes ng SC, ang kakapal ng mga mukha.

  5. Mike - October 26, 2010 11:22 pm

    Kahit pa na ang may kasalanan ay ang kanayang reasercher at speech writer, minabuti niyang tanggapin na lang ang pagkakamali.

  6. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 27, 2010 12:38 am

    What’s wrong with Ateneo? Can’t they write on their own? They better start cross-enrolling in UP and start from English 1.

  7. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 27, 2010 1:32 am

    BTW, nagwawala yung isang mayabang na babae sa Opinio Juris. Parang may toyo, inilista pa yung kanyang credentials. Kaya naman pala, kapatid ni Miriam. hahaha.

  8. saxnviolins - October 27, 2010 2:03 am

    Her complete given name is Paula Dimpna.

    If I remember right, she hated the Dimpna part.

  9. balweg - October 27, 2010 3:03 am

    RE: Buti pa si Boss Manny, inaming ang binasa nyang speech ay hango sa original ni Oprah at Barack. Nag sorry at nag resign. Itong mga huwes ng SC, ang kakapal ng mga mukha.~

    Matagal na…ang tag-uri sa kanila e “HOODLUMS in UNIFORM!”

  10. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 27, 2010 3:08 am

    sax, correct me if I’m wrong, diba all theses, dissertations, research papers submitted in peyups by students automatically become part or the archives at the Main Libe? Kaya siguro mas aware at careful ang students sa plagiarism dahil merong ebidensiya at yung mga gagamit ng paper mo pwede kang ibuking later on. Kas pag nagresearch ka sa Main ang daming Term Papers na pwede mong inegosyo sa Recto basta may dala kang xerox machine.

    Teka, ang lufet mo talaga sax, pati yung mabantot na pangalan alam mo, hahaha.

  11. balweg - October 27, 2010 3:10 am

    Buti pa mga Intsik sa China…ang galing mangodiko…see, ang unlad ng ekonomiya at advance ang military hardware.

    Sa Pinas, ang pangongodiko e ginagamit sa panggugulang sa kapwa-Pinoy?

  12. perl - October 27, 2010 3:26 am

    Chief Justice Renato C. Corona – October 15, 1948 – 2018
    Justice Antonio T. Carpio – October 26, 1949 – 2019
    Justice Conchita Carpio Morales – June 19, 1941. – 2011
    Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. – August 8, 1948 in Pasay City – 2018
    Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura – on June 13, 1941. – 2011
    Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro – October 8, 1948 – 2018
    Justice Arturo D. Brion - December 29, 1946 – 2016
    Justice Diosdado M. Peralta – March 27, 1952 – 2022
    Justice Lucas P. Bersamin – October 18, 1948 – 2018
    Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo – July 29, 1949 - 2019
    Justice Roberto A. Abad – May 22, 1944 - 2014
    Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. – April 14, 1946 – 2016
    Justice Jose Portugal Perez – December 14, 1946, – 2016
    Justice Jose Catral Mendoza – August 13, 1947 – 2017
    Justice Maria Lourdes Aranal Sereno – July 2, 1960

    sa mga gustong malaman kung gano pa katagal ang pagtitiis sa mga pasaway…

  13. chi - October 27, 2010 4:11 am

    Ellen, pasingit itong balita sa rape case ni Florence.

    Florence rape: NATUTUMBOK NA SI VICE
    Ni Tina Mendoza

    Kinokonsidera na ng Department of Justice (DOJ) na isang suspek sa panggagahasa sa isang volunteer nurse sa Maguindanao si South Upi Vice Mayor Jordan Ibrahim Campang matapos tumanggi ang bise alkalde na sumailalim sa DNA testing. http://www.abante.com.ph

  14. saxnviolins - October 27, 2010 6:30 am

    Thanks to opiniojuris, I got to see the show cause order, and the dissenting opinion.

    It is the first time that I’ve read the phrase “pissed off” employed in a judicial declaration. Justice Carpio-Morales must really be pissed off.

  15. saxnviolins - October 27, 2010 10:24 am

    I was thinking, what would I recommend, if I were working with one of the Justices. Or, as is the fantasy of most lawyers, what if I were appointed amicus curiae (friend of the court)? What resolution would I recommend?

    I wrote the following order. I wanted to post it in my blog, but that is hardly visited by anyone, so I will post it here.

    It is a long one, so skip it if it bores you.

  16. Ellen - October 27, 2010 10:25 am

    Chi, thanks for posting update of Maguindanao rape case. I pray Nanay Tansing’s wish will be granted.

  17. Ellen - October 27, 2010 10:28 am

    Tomorrow is the promulgation of the coup d’etat case against the Magdalo. Let’s pray for the enlightenment of Judge Pimentel.

    One comforting thought, whatever happens, President Aquino has declared amnesty for brave soldiers who dared stood up against Gloria Arroyo.

  18. saxnviolins - October 27, 2010 10:30 am

    Before the Court is the matter of criminal contempt proceedings against members of the UP faculty for a statement issued in connection with the investigation by this Court, of the charges of plagiarism against a Member of the Court.

    On October 19, 2010, the Court issued a show cause order directing the respondent members of the UP Faculty to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the bar. On Page 4 of the show cause order, this Court stated that:

    The publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP College of Law regarding the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the Supreme Court was totally unnecessary, uncalled for and a rash act of misplaced vigilance.

    The Court further stated that:

    The Court could hardly perceive any reasonable purpose for faculty’s less than objective comments except to discredit the April 28, 2010 Decision in the Vinuya case and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity and competence in addressing the motion for reconsideration (Page 5).

    The foregoing statements, concurred in by majority of the Members of the Court, reveal the first impressions of the Members relative to these proceedings, and further reveal that these contempt proceedings are “the cause of the Members”.

    We are not unmindful of the maxim that “no man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause; because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.” (Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co; Supreme Court of the United States, No. 08-22 June 8, 2009, . citing The Federalist No. 10, p. 59)

    Nor have we lost sight of the observation that “Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused, denies the latter due process of law.” (Caperton, citing Tumey v. Ohio 273 US 510)

    We are equally aware, that in view of the above observations, it has been held “that by reason of the Due Process Clause, a defendant in criminal contempt proceedings should be given a public trial before a judge other than the one reviled by the contemnor.” [Caperton citing Mayberry v. Pennsylvania 400 US 455, 466 (1971)]

    In light of the foregoing, this Court hereby creates, and refers this matter to a Disciplinary Commission, comprised of Retired Justice Isagani Cruz as Chairman, with Retired Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Retired Judge Harriet Demetriou as members.

    The Disciplinary Commission shall evaluate the statement of the UP Faculty, and its response to the show cause order, and submit its recommendations to the Special Disciplinary Division of the Court of Appeals.

    A Special Disciplinary Division of the Court of Appeals is hereby constituted, to be composed of Justice Portia Aliño-Hormachuelos as Chairman, and members Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Justice Noel G. Tijam.. The Special Disciplinary Division shall consider the recommendations of the Disciplinary Commission, and issue an order as it deems appropriate, in resolving these contempt proceedings.

    The decision/order of the Special Disciplinary Division of the Court of Appeals shall be final.

  19. saxnviolins - October 27, 2010 10:31 am

    Note walang UP or Atenista sa mga recommended members.

  20. I_Support_the_UP_Faculty - October 27, 2010 11:32 am

    Take a look at the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Corona (back then he was still Associate Justice Corona).

    It looks like he copies from the book of Justice Isagani Cruz and Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans!

    Chief Justice Corona’s dissent

    The party-list system is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution. It is essentially a tool for the advancement of social justice with the fundamental purpose of affording opportunity to marginalized and underrepresented sectors to participate in the shaping of public policy and the crafting of national laws.

    Original Source

    “The party-list system is an innovation of the 1987 Constitution and has yet to be tested for wisdom and efficacy,”

    Source: Isagani Cruz, Philippine Political Law (1989)

    Chief Justice Corona’s dissent

    If we effectively and unduly expand such congressional determination, we will be dabbling in policy-making, an act of political will and not of judicial judgment.

    Accordingly, I respectfully vote to dismiss the petition.

    Original Source

    Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will. I dissent.

    Source: Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in Romer v. Evans, 517 US 620 (1996)

  21. renaldo - October 27, 2010 1:12 pm

    Grabee!!! na ito.
    While I agree that that justices needs legal researchers para sa mga decisions na inilalabas, kapag ganito naman yung output ng decisions na nailalabas nila it becomes a big question mark if they can come out with an unsullied decision paper.
    Maybe this second finding of Harry Roque is not the last for Del Castillo. What pa kaya of the other justices who seemed to be looking for nice to hear and read legal statements na hindi naman pala galing sa kanilang heart and mind!!!
    I guess there is no way to go but resign, resign and resign!!!

  22. Ellen - October 27, 2010 4:02 pm

    Breaking news:

    MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Makati City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Oscar Pimentel has given due notice of the amnesty order issued by Malacañang for soldiers linked to the uprisings against the Arroyo administration.

    In a text message, lawyer Reynaldo Robles said “our office just received Judge Pimentel’s order. Our motion was granted. Promulgation is reset to December 16, 2010.”

    Robles is chief of staff of detained Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who is also covered by the amnesty.

    In a separate interview with ANC, Robles said “the judge [also] extended judicial courtesy” to Congress.

    Pimentel, who is handling the coup d’etat case filed against the soldiers linked to the 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, was to release his decision on October 28 until Malacañang released Proclamation 50.


  23. Ellen - October 27, 2010 6:23 pm

    From Paul Javier:

    These justices really don’t care about their business. The only business they have in mind is to protect the one who appointed them. Never mind if they make themselves fools in the eyes of everybody. Shameless fools.

  24. TonGuE-tWisTeD - October 28, 2010 12:28 am

    Hahaha. Playing safe si Judge Pimentel. Bahala na yung ibang alipores ni Putot ang humarang sa congressional concurrence.

    BTW. Thank you perl sa listahan ng jueteng lords. Ay, ano ba yan? SC justices pala. Tapos na ang termino ni Noynoy, lima pa lang ang mapapalitan niya.

    Supreme Court pa rin ni Putot.

    Mukhang sasama na ako sa panukala ni Juggernaut na mas drastic measures ang kailangan para masimot yung mga kawatan sa gobyerno.

  25. perl - October 28, 2010 3:29 am

    Walang anuman TonGue.

    mukhang prinsipyo ni Gloria pinapairal ng mga magdadabarkads na yan sa korte suprema… one for all.. all for one.. walang iwananan… di bale ng maharap sa kahihiyan… kaya hindi papayag mga yan na mabawasan at bumaba ang bilang sa walo until 2016 or beyond!

    hindi dapat tantanan yan si Castillo, halukayin lahat ng pinirmahang desisyon… hanggang sa gumuho…

  26. parasabayan - October 28, 2010 4:40 am

    Kasing kapal ng mukha ni pandak ang mga pinaupo niyang justices. Siempre hindi aalis ang mga yan dahil binabantayan nila ang mga kaso ng “toothless” commission. Ganun din si chedeng ng ombudsman. With these appointees of the putot, uphill battle ang mapaparatangan ng kaukulang parusa si pandak kahit na siguro ga-bundok ang dami ng kanyang mga kasalanan.

  27. parasabayan - October 28, 2010 4:41 am

    Mukhang matatagalan pa sa puwesto itong si Castillo.

  28. renaldo - October 28, 2010 9:45 am

    Dapat mag esep-esep na si Del Castillo kung gusto ba niyang masira yung natitirang reputation ng Supreme Court o kunin na niya yung retirement pay niya.

  29. saxnviolins - October 28, 2010 11:03 am

    For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
    For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
    For want of a horse the rider was lost.
    For want of a rider the battle was lost.
    For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
    A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.
    [Proverb plus Shakespeare (last line)]

    For want of a quotation mark, an attribution was lost
    For want of an attribution, originality was lost
    For want of originality, trust was lost
    For want of trust, respect was lost
    For want of respect, a reputation was lost
    A quote, a quote, my reputation for a quote.

  30. masha - October 28, 2010 2:46 pm

    ang tanong na bumabagabag sa akin ay: what is cynthia doing with an intellectual lightweight like mariano?

    yan kasi, dapat u.p. lang kinukuha niyong justice…kidding…a little.

  31. Ellen - October 28, 2010 9:20 pm

    Galing, SnV.

  32. saxnviolins - October 30, 2010 3:47 am

    The justification of Del Castillo is that the footnotes to indicate the attribution to Criddle et al were accidentally deleted. I argued in an earlier post that the practice of the Supreme Court is to cite both the author and the ultimate source, as in:

    “Tolentino citing Manresa p. xxx”

    The decision following indicates that this is also the practice of Del Castillo. Footnote 27 says “Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines Vol. IV (1973 edition), 354 citing Manresa 409-410.” So it makes you wonder why the practice was abandoned, and he did not say, Criddle, citing Hugo Grotius et al. All that the researcher needed to have done was add two words – “Criddle citing” and the footnote would have remained the same.

    One cannot feign inadvertence here, because the decision to abandon usual practice is a deliberate choice.


    Curiously, footnote 25 says: “Sentence Spanish Supr. Trib. March 21, 1898, 83 Jur. Civ. 679.”

    Did Del Castillo read the original Spanish decision?

    And in the following case, Del Castillo was reviewing a resolution penned by Justice Sabio, to which Del Castillo concurred as member of the Court of Appeals division. In effect, he was reviewing his own panel’s resolution.


  33. 2b1ask1 - November 1, 2010 2:35 am

    One can give all excuses after committing a mistake or crime. How can we buy the excuse that the footnotes were accidentally deleted?

  34. Ellen - November 1, 2010 8:04 am

    Statement of Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law:

    Plagiarism is a form if dishonesty. The basic definition of plagiarism is the copying and owning of someone else’s work and claiming it as one’s own…

    What now will lawyers who teach tell their students? That it is all right to copy another person’s work WITHOUT PROPER ATTRIBUTION as long as there is no “malicious intent?”

    The reach of the Supreme Court’s unfortunate decision will affect not just the legal and judicial professions, but also all fields where ownership of creative work is cherished and protected as sacrosanct.

    Click here for the full statement:Lyceum of the Philippines University College of Law Faculty Statement on Plagiarism

Comments are closed for this entry.