IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PLAGIARISM, ETC.

, AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO

C. DEL CASTILLO (A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC)
10 October 2010; Per Curiam
Digest prepared by Norlegen Bayona
I. Facts
Vinuya Case
1. Isabelita C. Vinuya and about 70 others, all members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed
with the Court a special civil action of certiorari against the Executive Secretary, the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor General.
2. Vinuya group alleged that they have since 1998 been approaching the Executive Department
requesting assistance in filing claims against the Japanese military officers who established
the comfort women stations but that Department declined.
3. Vinuya group wanted the Court to compell the Executive Department to espouse their
claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the ICJ.
4. On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered judgment dismissing Vinuya group’s action.
5. Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, ponente, gave two reasons for the decision: first, the
Executive Department has the exclusive prerogative under the Constitution and the law to
determine whether to espouse petitioners claim against Japan; and, second, the Philippines
is not under any obligation in international law to espouse their claims.
Plagiarism case against J. Del Castillo
6. Vinuya group filed the supplemental MR accusing J. Del Castillo of manifest intellectual theft
and outright plagiarism when he wrote the decision for the Court and of twisting the true
intents of the plagiarized sources to suit the arguments of the assailed Judgment.
7. They charged J. Del Castillo of copying without acknowledgement certain passages from
three foreign articles1 written by Criddle-Descent, Ellis, and Tams.
8. J. Del Castillo circulated a letter to his colleagues stating that when he wrote the decision for
the Court he had the intent to attribute all sources used in it.
9. J. Del Castillo’s counsels requested the Committee for investigation to hear the Justices’
court researcher explain the research work that went into the making of the decision in the
Vinuya case.

1a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent (2009); --- Criddle
expressed concern about the use of their work to support Courts’ conclusion that prohibition
against sexual slavery are not jus cogens (essentially, he’s worried that their work has been
“twisted”)
b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis (2006); --- Ellis had the same
concern as Criddle
c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams (2005). --- Tams thought that the form of
referencing was inappropriate
1/4
 10. The researcher demonstrated by Power Point presentation how the attribution of the lifted
passages to the writings of Criddle-Descent and Ellis, found in the beginning drafts of her
report to J. Del Castillo, were unintentionally deleted.
11. Vinuya group’s counsel insisted that lack of intent is not a defense in plagiarism since all that
is required is for a writer to acknowledge that certain words or language in his work were
taken from anothers work2.
II. Issues
A. WON, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya case, J. Del Castillo plagiarized the
published works of authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis - NO
B. WON J. Del Castillo twisted the works of these authors to make it appear that such works
supported the Courts position in the Vinuya decision - NO

III. Holding
Vinuya group’s petition charging J. Del Castillo of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials, and
gross neglect was dismissed for lack of merit.
IV. Ratio
A. PLAGIARISM DEFINED
1. Plagiarism means the theft of another persons language, thoughts, or ideas.
2. The passing off of the work of another as ones own is thus an indispensable element of
plagiarism.
WAS THERE REALLY NO ATTRIBUTION?
 Passages from Tams [Footnote 69] – case of bad footnoting not plagiarism
3. Tams though that he was given generic reference only in the footnote and in connection
with a citation from another author (Bruno Simma) rather than with respect to the passages
taken from his work.
4. Although Tams himself may have believed that the footnoting in this case was not an
appropriate form of referencing, he and Vinuya cannot deny that the decision did attribute
the source or sources of such passages.
5. J. Del Castillo did not pass off Tams work as his own. The Justice primarily attributed the
ideas embodied in the passages to Bruno Simma, whom Tams himself credited for them.3
 Passages from Ellis and Criddle-Descent [Footnote 65] – accidental deletion in the course of
editing not plagiarism.

2
University of the Philippines Board of Regents v. Court of Appeals and Arokiaswamy William
Margaret Celine --- Atty. Roque argued that standards on plagiarism in the academe should apply
with more force to the judiciary
3
The statement See Tams, Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (2005) in the
Vinuya decision is an attribution no matter if Tams thought that it gave him somewhat less credit
than he deserved
2/4
 6. The lengthy passages in Footnote 65 came almost verbatim from Ellis article and such
passages ought to have been introduced by an acknowledgement that they are from that
article.
7. But, as it happened, the acknowledgment above or a similar introduction was missing from
Footnote 65.
8. Also, the Vinuya decision lifted passages, including their footnotes, from Criddle-Descents
article. Criddle-Descents footnotes were carried into the Vinuya decisions own footnotes but
no attributions were made to the two authors in those footnotes.
9. J. Del Castillo’s researcher showed the Committee the early drafts of her report in the
Vinuya case and these included the passages lifted from the separate articles of Criddle-
Descent and of Ellis with proper attributions to these authors.
10. But, as it happened, in the course of editing and cleaning up her draft, the researcher
accidentally deleted the attributions.
11. The researcher deleted the subject tags and, accidentally, their accompanying footnotes that
served as reminder of the sources of the lifted passages. With 119 sources cited in the
decision, the loss of the 2 of them was not easily detectable.
12. Given the operational properties of the Microsoft program in use by the Court, the
accidental decapitation of attributions to sources of research materials is not remote.
13. Neither J. Del Castillo nor his researcher had a motive or reason for omitting attribution for
the lifted passages to Criddle-Descent or to Ellis.
IS INTENT IMMATERIAL IN COMMITTING PLAGIARISM?
14. Vinuya group’s theory, i.e. intent is immaterial, ignores the fact that plagiarism is essentially
a form of fraud where intent to deceive is inherent.
15. Their theory provides no room for errors in research, an unrealistic position considering that
there is hardly any substantial written work in any field of discipline that is free of any
mistake.
16. Also, the Court said nothing in the case cited by Vinuya that would indicate that an intent to
pass off anothers work as ones own is not required in plagiarism.4
17. While the academic publishing model is based on the originality of the writers thesis, the
judicial system is based on the doctrine ofstare decisis, which encourages courts to cite
historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions.
B. DID THE DECISION TWIST THE PASSAGES FROM THE THREE AUTHORS?
18. Nothing in the Vinuya decision said or implied that, based on the lifted passages, authors

4
The Court merely affirmed the academic freedom of a university to withdraw a masters degree that
a student obtained based on evidence that she misappropriated the work of others, passing them
off as her own
3/4
 Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis supported the Courts conclusion that the Philippines is not
under any obligation in international law to espouse Vinuya et al.s claims.
19. First, since the attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis were accidentally deleted, it is
impossible for any person reading the decision to connect the same to the works of those
authors as to conclude that in writing the decision Justice Del Castillo twisted their intended
messages.
20. Second, the lifted passages provided mere background facts that established the state of
international law at various stages of its development.
WAS J. DEL CASTILLO GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT?
21. No misconduct. Only errors that are tainted with fraud, corruption, or malice are subject of
disciplinary action.
WAS J. DEL CASTILLO GUILTY OF INEXCUSABLE NEGLIGENCE?
22. No inexcusable negligence. J. Del Castillo did not abdicate the writing of the Vinuya
decision to his researcher.
23. As his researcher testified, he set the direction that the research and study were to take by
discussing the issues with her, setting forth his position on those issues, and reviewing and
commenting on the study that she was putting together until he was completely satisfied
with it.

4/4