Scribd
Upload
313 views3 pages

Re Restoring Integrity (Digest)

1. The document summarizes an administrative case before the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a statement issued by UP Law professors alleging plagiarism in a Supreme Court decision. 2. The statement criticized the Supreme Court decision and accused a justice of plagiarism. In response, the Supreme Court issued a show cause order requiring the professors to explain why they should not be disciplined for their statements and criticisms of the court. 3. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the professors' statement was an institutional attack that undermined the court, and that their claims of academic freedom and freedom of expression did not excuse their conduct. It determined that the professors failed to sufficiently explain why they should not face discipline for

Uploaded by

HonorioG.BuccatJr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
313 views3 pages

Re Restoring Integrity (Digest)

1. The document summarizes an administrative case before the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a statement issued by UP Law professors alleging plagiarism in a Supreme Court decision. 2. The statement criticized the Supreme Court decision and accused a justice of plagiarism. In response, the Supreme Court issued a show cause order requiring the professors to explain why they should not be disciplined for their statements and criticisms of the court. 3. In its ruling, the Supreme Court found that the professors' statement was an institutional attack that undermined the court, and that their claims of academic freedom and freedom of expression did not excuse their conduct. It determined that the professors failed to sufficiently explain why they should not face discipline for

Uploaded by

HonorioG.BuccatJr.
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity:

A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines


College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and
Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court
A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC
March 8, 2011
Facts:
On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court decided on the case of Vinuya, et al. v.
Executive Secretary, in the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo. On
May 31, 2010, the counsel for Vinuya, et al. (the Malaya Lolas), Attys. H. Harry L.
Roque, Jr. and Romel Regalado Bagares, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the
decision. They again filed for a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on July 19,
2010 raising the charge of plagiarism against the judgment of the court. They
argued that there was extensive plagiarism of at least three sources and the true
intents of these works were twisted by the ponencia to suit the arguments denying
the petition. On the same day, the alleged issue on plagiarism was brought out to
the media. Three days later, Justice Del Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the
Court in reply to the charge of plagiarism. On July 27, 2010, the Court formed the
Ethics Committee and on August 2, 2010, the committee required Attys. Roque and
Bagares to comment on the letter.
On August 9, 2010, the Restoring Integrity statement dated July 27, 2010 was
posted on Newsweeks website and on Atty. Roques blog, was featured in various
online news sites, and was posted at the UP College of Law bulletin board a day
after. On August 11, 2010, Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen of the UP College of Law
submitted a copy of the statement to the Court through Chief Justice Renato C.
Corona, but the copy did not contain the actual signatures of the signatories but
only stated the names of the 37 UP Law professors with the (SGD.) notation beside
their names. The Ethics Committee directed Atty. Roque to present the signed copy
of the written statement and the committee found discrepancies between the
submitted copy of Dean Leonen and the original signed document. The Court
observed that the statement reflected the opinions and dissatisfactions of the
educators on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo and his
explanations and upheld such allegation as truth, and the Court also observed that
the statement attacks and criticizes the Supreme Court and its members and
threatens the independence of the judiciary, contrary to the obligation of the law
professors and officers of the Court to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court,
to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they took as attorneys. The Court
then directed the signatories to show cause why they should not be disciplined as
members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dean Leonen was directed to show cause
for violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 for submitting a dummy of
the statement to the Court. The controversy was docketed as an administrative
matter. 35 of the UP Law professors filed a common compliance, while Prof. Raul T.
Vasquez and Prof. Owen Lynch filed a separate compliance. Generally, they
emphasized their noble intentions, they upheld the fact that Justice Del Castillo
committed plagiarism, they have been singled out, and they exercised freedom of

expression and academic freedom. Prof. Vasquez conceded that the language used
in the statement might have been exacting while Prof. Lynch manifested he is not a
member of the Philippine Bar. Dean Leonen also filed a separate compliance for the
submission of the dummy statement claiming there was an error committed by him
and his clerk and that the statements signatory portion is evolving and dynamic.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of
expression.
2. Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents academic
freedom as law professors.
3. Whether or not the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why
they should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11,
and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
4. Whether or not the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily
explains why he should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under
Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03.
5. Whether or not respondents are entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution
set for hearing and respondents are entitled to require the production or
presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation
issues in the Vinuya case and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo and
to have access to the records and transcripts of, and the witnesses and
evidence presented, or could have been presented in the ethics case.
Ruling:
1. No, the Show Cause Resolution itself recognized respondents freedom of
expression. The purpose of the statement of the faculty was to discredit the
April 28, 2010 decision in the Vinuya case, establish as a fact that Justice Del
Castillo was guilty of plagiarism pending an ongoing investigation, and
undermine the Courts honesty, integrity, and competence in addressing the
motion for reconsideration. The statement was an institutional attack and
insult. The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced
against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary
be protected from due influence or interference.
2. No, there is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon
respondents the subject matter they can teach and the manner of their
instruction. Academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by
respondents in this case. Lawyers when they teach law are considered
engaged in the practice of law. Respondents are bound by their oath to
uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession.
3. No, whether or not respondents views regarding the plagiarism issue on the
Vinuya case had valid basis was wholly immaterial to their liability for
contumacious speech and conduct. No matter how firm a lawyers conviction
in the righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating
the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts and
the legal profession into disrepute.
4. No, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish Dean Leonen for failing to
observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as required
under Canon 10. The Court cannot subscribe to Dean Leonens implied view

that the signatures in the statement are not as significant as its contents. If
Dean Leonen was truly determined to observe candor and truthfulness in his
dealings with the Court, there is no reason why he could not have waited until
all the professors who indicated their desire to sign the statement had in fact
signed before transmitting the statement to the Court as a duly signed
document.
5. No, the request is unmeritorious. It should be clarified that this is not an
indirect contempt proceeding and Rule 71 has no application to this case. As
explicitly ordered in the Show Cause Resolution this case was docketed as an
administrative matter.

You might also like