Bautista, Moises Joshua D.

JD 1-C

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC

October 15, 2010

Subject Matter: Plagiarism,

Facts:

Isabelita et al., members of the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed with the court a special civil
action of certiorari with application for preliminary mandatory injunction against the Executive
Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor
General. Petitioners claimed that in destroying villages in the Philippines during World War II, the
Japanese army systematically raped them and a number of other women, seizing them and holding
them in houses or cells where soldiers repeatedly ravished and abused them.

On April 28, 2010, the Court rendered judgment dismissing petitioners’ action. Justice Mariano
C. del Castillo wrote the decision for the Court grounded on two reasons: 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. on July 18, 2010, counsel for petitioners, Atty. Herminio Harry Roque, Jr.,
announced in his online blog that his clients would file a supplemental petition "detailing plagiarism
committed by the court" under the second reason it gave for dismissing the petition and that "these
stolen passages were also twisted to support the court’s erroneous conclusions that the Filipino comfort
women of World War Two have no further legal remedies."

Petitioners seek the reconsideration for their charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials,
and gross neglect against Justice Del Castillo. The articles which were allegedly plagiarized were:

a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Evan J. Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale Journal of
International Law (2009);

b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as an International Crime by Mark Ellis, Case Western Reserve
Journal of International Law (2006); and

c. Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Christian J. Tams, Cambridge University Press (2005).

Issue:

1. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism in his decision in GR No. 162230?
2. Whether or not Justice del Castillo twisted the works of the articles allegedly plagiarized?

Ruling:

No, because one of Justice Del Castillo’s researchers, a court-employed attorney, explained how
she accidentally deleted the attributions, originally planted in the beginning drafts of her report to him,
which report eventually became the working draft of the decision. She said that, for most parts, she did
her research electronically. For international materials, she sourced these mainly from Westlaw, an
online research service for legal and law-related materials to which the Court subscribes. neither Justice
Del Castillo nor his researcher had a motive or reason for omitting attribution for the lifted passages to
Criddle-Descent or to Ellis. The mistake of Justice Del Castillo was done in good faith; Justice del Castillo
did not have any intent of passing the works from the works of the authors plagiarized as his own.

On the second issue, the court ruled that there was no twisting of works on the part of Justice
Del Castillo. This allegation of twisting or misrepresentation remains a mystery to the Court. To twist
means "to distort or pervert the meaning of."19 For example, if one lifts the lyrics of the National
Anthem, uses it in his work, and declares that Jose Palma who wrote it "did not love his country," then
there is "twisting" or misrepresentation of what the anthem’s lyrics said. Here, nothing in the Vinuya
decision said or implied that, based on the lifted passages, authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis
supported the Court’s conclusion that the Philippines is not under any obligation in international law to
espouse Vinuya et al.’s claims.

In Conclusion the petition was dismissed for lack of merit.