a.m. no. 10-7-17-sc february 8, 2011 del castillo plagiarism

8/13/2019 A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC February 8, 2011 Del Castillo Plagiarism

1/102

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC February 8, 2011

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF PAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST

ASSOCIATE !USTICE MARIANO C. "E CASTIO.

R E S O L U T I O N

PER CURIAM:

Petitioners Isabelita C. inu!a" et al." all #e#bers of the Mala!a Lolas Or$ani%ation" see&

reconsi'eration of the 'ecision of the Court 'ate' October ()" )*(* that 'is#isse' their char$esof pla$iaris#" t+istin$ of cite' #aterials" an' $ross ne$lect a$ainst ,ustice Mariano -el Castilloin connection +ith the 'ecision he +rote for the Court in .R. No. (/))0*" entitle' inu!a 1.Ro#ulo.(

Mainl!" petitioners clai# that the Court has b! its 'ecision le$ali%e' or appro1e' of theco##ission of pla$iaris# in the Philippines. This clai# is absur'. The Court" li&e e1er!one else"con'e#ns pla$iaris# as the +orl' in $eneral un'erstan's an' uses the ter#.

Pla$iaris#" a ter# not 'efine' b! statute" has a popular or co##on 'efinition. To pla$iari%e"sa!s 2ebster" is 3to steal an' pass off as one4s o+n3 the i'eas or +or's of another. Stealin$

i#plies #alicious ta&in$. Blac&4s La+ -ictionar!" the +orl'4s lea'in$ En$lish la+ 'ictionar!5uote' b! the Court in its 'ecision" 'efines pla$iaris# as the 3'eliberate an' &no+in$presentation of another person6s ori$inal i'eas or creati1e e7pressions as one4s o+n.3)Thepresentation of another person4s i'eas as one4s o+n #ust be 'eliberate or pre#e'itate'8a ta&in$+ith ill intent.

There is no co##onl!9use' 'ictionar! in the +orl' that e#braces in the #eanin$ of pla$iaris#errors in attribution b! #ere acci'ent or in $oo' faith.

Certain e'ucational institutions of course assu#e 'ifferent nor#s in its application. :or instance"the Lo!ola Schools Co'e of Aca'e#ic Inte$rit! or'ains that 3pla$iaris# is i'entifie' not throu$h

intent but throu$h the act itself. The ob;ecti1e act of falsel! attributin$ to one4s self +hat is notone4s +or&" +hether intentional or out of ne$lect" is sufficient to conclu'e that pla$iaris# hasoccurre'. Stu'ents +ho plea' i$norance or appeal to lac& of #alice are not e7cuse'.30

But the Court4s 'ecision in the present case 'oes not set asi'e such nor#. The 'ecision #a&esthis clear" thusThis #ust be so since the +ritin$ is inten'e' to earn for the stu'ent an aca'e#ic'e$ree" honor" or 'istinction. ?e earns no cre'it nor 'eser1es it +ho ta&es the research of others"
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1


2/102

copies their 'issertations" an' proclai#s these as his o+n. There shoul' be no 5uestion that acheat 'eser1es neither re+ar' nor s!#path!.

But the polic! a'opte' b! schools of 'isre$ar'in$ the ele#ent of #alicious intent foun' in'ictionaries is e1i'entl! #ore in the nature of establishin$ +hat e1i'ence is sufficient to pro1e

the co##ission of such 'ishonest con'uct than in re+ritin$ the #eanin$ of pla$iaris#. Since it+oul' be eas! enou$h for a stu'ent to plea' i$norance or lac& of #alice e1en as he has copie'the +or& of others" certain schools ha1e a'opte' the polic! of treatin$ the #ere presence of suchcopie' +or& in his paper sufficient ob;ecti1e e1i'ence of pla$iaris#. Surel!" ho+e1er" if on itsface the stu'ent4s +or& sho+s as a +hole that he has but co##itte' an ob1ious #ista&e or aclerical error in one of hun're's of citations in his thesis" the school +ill not be so unreasonableas to cancel his 'iplo#a.

In contrast" 'ecisions of courts are not +ritten to earn #erit" accola'e" or pri%e as an ori$inalpiece of +or& or art. -eci'in$ 'isputes is a ser1ice ren'ere' b! the $o1ern#ent for the public$oo'. ,u'$es issue 'ecisions to resol1e e1er!'a! conflicts in1ol1in$ people of flesh an' bloo'

+ho ache for spee'! ;ustice or ;uri'ical bein$s +hich ha1e ri$hts an' obli$ations in la+ that nee'to be protecte'. The interest of societ! in +ritten 'ecisions is not that the! are ori$inall! crafte'but that the! are fair an' correct in the conte7t of the particular 'isputes in1ol1e'. ,ustice" notori$inalit!" for#" an' st!le" is the ob;ect of e1er! 'ecision of a court of la+.

There is a basic reason for in'i1i'ual ;u'$es of +hate1er le1el of courts" inclu'in$ the Supre#eCourt" not to use ori$inal or uni5ue lan$ua$e +hen reinstatin$ the la+s in1ol1e' in the cases the!'eci'e. Their 'ut! is to appl! the la+s as these are +ritten. But la+s inclu'e" un'er the 'octrineof stare 'ecisis" ;u'icial interpretations of such la+s as are applie' to specific situations. Un'erthis 'octrine" Courts are 3to stan' b! prece'ent an' not to 'isturb settle' point.3 Once the Courthas 3lai' 'o+n a principle of la+ as applicable to a certain state of facts" it +ill a'here to that

principle" an' appl! it to all future cases" +here facts are substantiall! the sa#e@ re$ar'less of+hether the parties or propert! are the sa#e.3/

An' because ;u'icial prece'ents are not al+a!s clearl! 'elineate'" the! are 5uite often entan$le'in apparent inconsistencies or e1en in contra'ictions" pro#ptin$ e7perts in the la+ to buil' upre$ar'in$ such #atters a lar$e bo'! of co##entaries or annotations that" in the#sel1es" oftenbeco#e part of le$al +ritin$s upon +hich la+!ers an' ;u'$es 'ra+ #aterials for their theories orsolutions in particular cases. An'" because of the nee' to be precise an' correct" ;u'$es an'practitioners ali&e" b! practice an' tra'ition" usuall! lift passa$es fro# such prece'ents an'+ritin$s" at ti#es o#ittin$" +ithout #alicious intent" attributions to the ori$inators.

Is this 'ishonest No. -uncan 2ebb" +ritin$ for the International Bar Association puts itsuccinctl!. 2hen practicin$ la+!ers +hich inclu'e ;u'$es +rite about the la+" the! effecti1el!place their i'eas" their lan$ua$e" an' their +or& in the public 'o#ain" to be affir#e'" a'opte'"critici%e'" or re;ecte'. Bein$ in the public 'o#ain" other la+!ers can thus freel! use these+ithout fear of co##ittin$ so#e +ron$ or incurrin$ so#e liabilit!. Thus/9=>D.

((Appro1e' b! the)n *ancon (> No1e#ber )**>.

()

Part I of RA No. )F0" other+ise &no+n as the 3Intellectual Propert! Co'e of thePhilippines.3

(0Section (D/ of RA No. )F0 pro1i'es< 3+or,s of the -o"ernment. No cop!ri$ht shallsubsist in an! +or& of the o1ern#ent of the Philippines. 777.3

(=Canon 0 of the Co'e of ,u'icial Con'uct pro1i'es< 3A ;u'$e shoul' perfor# official'uties honestl!" an' +ith i#partialit! an' 'ili$ence.3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt4chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt5chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt6chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt7chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt8chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt9chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt10chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt11chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt12chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt13chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt14chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt4chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt5chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt6chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt7chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt8chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt9chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt10chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt11chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt12chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt13chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt14c


14/102

(>Rule 0.*( of the Co'e of ,u'icial Con'uct pro1i'es< 3A ;u'$e shall be faithful to thela+ an' #aintain professional co#petence.3

(/Rule 0.*) of the Co'e of ,u'icial Con'uct pro1i'es< 3In e1er! case" a ;u'$e shallen'ea1our 'ili$entl! to ascertain the facts an' the applicable la+" uns+a!e' b! partisan

interests" public opinion or fear of criticis#.3

(DSection (= & of RA No. )F0 pro1i'es< 3%imitations on Copyri'ht. (=.(.Not+ithstan'in$ the pro1isions of Chapter on cop!ri$ht an' econo#ic ri$hts" thefollo+in$ acts shall not constitute infrin$e#ent of cop!ri$ht>th -istrict Court" In$ha# Count!"Michi$an" ac&no+le'$es notice an' receipt of the ,u'icial Tenure Co##ission6s-ecision an' Reco##en'ation for Or'er of -iscipline 'ate' Septe#ber ()" (FF"an' stipulates to the ,u'icial Tenure Co##ission6s fin'in$s as recite' inpara$raphs one ( throu$h si7 / thereof@

Re(o')e'& 3ur&er a33+r*a&+e/y a5'o/e)4e( &e +*ror+e&y o3 +(o')u& a( (e& 3or& +' &e "e+(+o' a') Reo**e')a&+o' 3or Or)er o3

"+(+/+'e, a') ur(ua'& &o MCR ?.221@C, o'(e'&( &o &e Co**+((+o'B(

reo**e')a&+o' &a& e be ub/+/y e'(ure).

Respon'ent further concurs in the re5uest of the ,u'icial Tenure Co##ission thatan or'er e#bo'!in$ the fore$oin$ 'isciplinar! action be entere' i##e'iatel! b!the Michi$an Supre#e Court. E#phasis supplie'
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt15chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt16chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt17chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt18chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt19chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt20chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt21chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt22chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt23chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt24chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt25chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt15chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt16chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt17chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt18chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt19chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt20chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt21chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt22chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt23chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt24chttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt25c


15/102

The La+phil Pro;ect 9 Arellano La+ :oun'ation

"ISSENTING OPINION

SERENO,J.:

,u'$es nee' not strain the#sel1es to #eet inapplicable stan'ar's of research an' attribution ofsources in their ;u'icial opinions" nor see& to achie1e the scholarl! ri$i'it! or thorou$hnessobser1e' in aca'e#ic +or&. The! nee' to ans+er to onl! t+o stan'ar's 'ili$ence an' honest!.B! honest! here is #eant that $oo' faith atte#pt to attribute to the author his ori$inal +or's an'anal!sis.

E1en if a ;u'$e has to rel! in lar$e part on the 'rafts of his le$al researchers" the +or& of a'ili$ent an' honest ;u'$e +ill ne1er 'ispla! the se1ere pla$iaris# e1i'ent in the /inuya-ecision

publishe' un'er the na#e of ,ustice Mariano C. 'el Castillo. A ;u'$e +ill onl! fin' hi#self inthe sa#e pre'ica#ent as ,ustice 'el Castillo if t+o situations coinci'e< ( the ;u'$e +ittin$l! orun+ittin$l! entrusts a le$al researcher +ith the tas& of 'raftin$ his ;u'icial opinion" an' the le$alresearcher 'eci'es to co##it se1ere pla$iaris#@ an' ) the ;u'$e< a 'oes not rea' an' stu'!the 'raft 'ecision hi#self@ b e1en if he 'oes rea' an' stu'! the sa#e" the 3re' fla$s3 that areself9e1i'ent in the 'raft 'ecision co#pletel! escape hi#@ or c 'espite ha1in$ seen the re' fla$s"he i$nores the#.

2e use the +or's 3se1ere pla$iaris#3 here 'eliberatel! because not onl! +ere three 0 +or&s ofthe four = co#plainin$ authors(pla$iari%e' in /inuya" te7t fro# the follo+in$ cop!ri$hte'+or&s +as copie' +ithout attribution as +ell< essa!s contribute' b! Robert McCor5uo'ale an'

Phoebe O&o+a to the boonternational %aw" e'ite' b! Malcol# E1ans@ an article +ritten b!Mariana Sala%ar Alborno%" entitle' Le$al Nature an' Le$al Conse5uences of -iplo#aticProtection< Conte#porar! Challen$es@ an article +ritten b! Eli%abeth Prochas&a" entitle' Testin$the Li#its of -iplo#atic Protection< ha'r 1. The Pri#e Minister of Cana'a@ a report b! Larr!Ni&sch" entitle' ,apanese Militar!4s Co#fort 2o#en@ an' an article b! ,a#es La'ino" entitle'Ianfu< No Co#fort Get for orean Co#fort 2o#en an' the I#pact of ?ouse Resolution ()(. Ina''ition" incorporate' into /inuya+ere e7cerpts fro# a 'ecision of an international tribunal+ithout an! si$nal $i1en to the rea'er that the +or's +ere not those of ,ustice 'el Castillo of thePhilippine Supre#e Court but the +or's of another tribunal. 2hile there are 1ie+s that a ;u'$ecannot be $uilt! of pla$iaris# for failure to reco$ni%e forei$n 'ecisions as source #aterials inone4s ;u'icial +ritin$ as +hen ,ustice Antonio C. Carpio opines that a ;u'$e cannot be $uilt!

on this score alone it is be!on' 'ebate that there is a 'ut! of care to attribute to these forei$nan' international ;u'icial 'ecisions properl!" an' that one shoul' ne1er present these #aterials asif the! are one4s o+n.

An esti#ate of the e7tent of the pla$iaris# in the inu!a -ecision has been #a'e b! #! office.The best appro7i#ation a1ailable to us" usin$ the 3+or' count3 feature of Microsoft 2or'"re1eals that >).F of the +or's use' in the /inuya-ecision4s 'iscussion on international la+"+hich be$ins in pa$e )= an' continues to the en' )"/F out of >"=(F +or's" are copie' +ithoutattribution fro# other +or&s.

The /inuya-ecision" therefore" because of the se1erit! of the pla$iaris# atten'in$ it" is the

+orst possible conte7t for the Ma;orit! to 'ra+" in its -ecision 'ate' () October )*(* an' in itsResolution 'en!in$ the Motion for Reconsi'eration" the follo+in$ conclusionsD/0HFD"0= Eur. ?.R.Rep. ((" par. /()**))( No1.)**(.

TABLE B< Co#parison of Mar& Ellis4s article entitle' Brea&in$ the Silence< Rape as anInternational Cri#e )**/9)**D an' the Supre#e Court4s ) April )*(* -ecision in inu!a 1.

E7ecuti1e Secretar!.

The Alle$e'l!Copie' 2or&

The -ecision

International Source Bein$Anal!%e' b! Ellis

Mar& Ellis4s articleentitle' Brea&in$ theSilence< Rape as anInternational Cri#e 0Case 2. Res. ,. Int4l. L.))>)**/9)**D.

inu!a 1. E7ecuti1eSecretar!" .R. No.(/))0*" ) April )*(*.

(. A #a;or step in this le$al'e1elop#ent ca#e in(F=F" +hen rape an'se7ual assault +ereinclu'e' in the ene1aCon1entions.... Rape isinclu'e' in the follo+in$acts co##itte' a$ainstpersons protecte' b! the(F=F ene1a

Con1entions< 3+ilful&illin$" torture or inhu#antreat#ent" inclu'in$biolo$ical e7peri#ents@+ilfull! causin$ $reatsufferin$ or serious in;ur!to bo'! or health.3

/> :ourth ene1aCon1ention" supra note)0" art. (=D.

p. )0/ of Ellis

/> VA #a;or step inthis le$al 'e1elop#entca#e in (F=F" +hen rapean' se7ual assault +ereinclu'e' in the ene1aCon1entions. Rape isinclu'e' in the follo+in$acts co##itte' a$ainstpersons protecte' b! the(F=F ene1a

Con1entions< 3+illful&illin$" torture or inhu#antreat#ent" inclu'in$biolo$ical e7peri#ents@+illfull! causin$ $reatsufferin$ or serious in;ur!to bo'! or health.3V Seeene1a Con1ention forthe A#elioration of theCon'ition of the 2oun'e'an' Sic& in Ar#e' :orcesin the :iel'" art. 0(c"D> U.N.T.S. 0(@ ene1aCon1ention for theA#elioration of theCon'ition of 2oun'e'"Sic& an' Ship+rec&e'Me#bers of Ar#e' :orces

Article >*H>(H(=D

ra1e breaches to +hichthe prece'in$ Articlerelates shall be thosein1ol1in$ an! of thefollo+in$ acts" ifco##itte' a$ainstpersonsV protecte' b! theCon1ention< +illful

&illin$" torture or inhu#antreat#ent" inclu'in$biolo$ical e7peri#ents"+ilfull! causin$ $reatsufferin$ or serious in;ur!to bo'! or healthV.

SourceU.N.T.S. >@ ene1aCon1ention III Relati1eto the Treat#ent ofPrisoners of 2ar" D>U.N.T.S. FD0@ ene1aCon1ention I Relati1eto the Protection of

Ci1ilian Persons in Ti#eof 2ar" D> U.N.T.S. )D.

0. Article )D of the :ourthene1a Con1ention"'irecte' at protectin$ci1ilians 'urin$ ti#e of

/> VArticle )D of the:ourth ene1aCon1ention" 'irecte' atprotectin$ ci1ilians 'urin$

Article )D

2o#en shall be especiall!protecte' a$ainst an!


24/102

+ar" states that 3+o#enshall be especiall!protecte' a$ainst an!attac& on their honour" inparticular a$ainst rape"

enforce' prostitution" oran! for# of in'ecentassault.3/D

/D :ourth ene1aCon1ention" supra note)0" art. )D.

pp. )0/ of Ellis

ti#e of +ar" states that3+o#en shall beespeciall! protecte'a$ainst an! attac& on theirhonour" in particular

a$ainst rape" enforce'prostitution" or an! for#of in'ecent assault.3

p. )" footnote /> ofinu!a

attac& on their honour" inparticular a$ainst rape"enforce' prostitution" oran! for# of in'ecent

assault.

Source ofinu!a

Article D/.9Protection of

+o#en

(. 2o#en shall be theob;ect of special respectan' shall be protecte' inparticular a$ainst rape"force' prostitution an' an!other for# of in'ecentassault.

Source U.N.T.S. 0.

TABLE C< Co#parison of Robert McCor5uo'ale4s +or&" entitle' The In'i1i'ual an' theInternational Le$al S!ste#"=an' Phoebe O&o+a4s +or&" entitle' Issues of A'#issibilit! an' theLa+ on International Responsibilit!">both of +hich +ere publishe' in Malcol# E1ans4s boo&International La+" an' the Supre#e Court4s -ecision in inu!a 1. E7ecuti1e Secretar!" .R.No. (/))0*" ) April )*(*.

Te A//e4e)/yCo+e) or5

Te "e+(+o'I'&er'a&+o'a/ Soure

#e+'4 A'a/y:e) a')

U(e) byMCoruo)a/e O5oa

Essa!s publishe' inMalcol# E1ans"International La+ e'.")**/.

inu!a 1. E7ecuti1eSecretar!" .R. No.(/))0*" ) April )*(*.

(. Tra'itionall!" the onl!#eans a1ailable for

Vtra'itionall!" the onl!#eans a1ailable for

Note


25/102


26/102

#ean that the! ha1e theabilit! to brin$international clai#s toassert their ri$hts or areable to clai# an i##unit!

to pre1ent theirresponsibilities bein$enforce' ?ohfel'"abo1e. Thus the PCI,'eclare' that it is scarcel!necessar! to point out thatthe capacit! to possessci1il ri$hts 'oes notnecessaril! i#pl! thecapacit! to e7ercise thoseri$hts oneself4.(=

(= Appeal fro# a,u'$#ent of the?un$aroHC%echoslo1a&Mi7e' Arbitral Tribunal",u'$#ent" (F00" PCI," SerAHB" No /(" p )* at p)0(

p. 0(> of E1ans4sInternational La+ boo&"

essa! +ritten b!(cCor=uodale

that the! ha1e the abilit!to brin$ internationalclai#s to assert theirri$hts. Thus" thePer#anent Court of

International ,ustice'eclare' that 3it is scarcel!necessar! to point out thatthe capacit! to possessci1il ri$hts 'oes notnecessaril! i#pl! thecapacit! to e7ercise thoseri$hts oneself.3 Appealfro# a ,u'$#ent of the?un$aroHC%eochoslo1a&Mi7e' Arbitral Tribunal"

,u'$#ent" (F00" PCI,"Ser. AHB No. /(" p. )* at)0(.

p. )=" footnote >> ofinu!a

ri$hts oneself. Noar$u#ent a$ainst theUni1ersit!6s personalit! inla+ can therefore be'e'uce' fro# the fact that

it 'i' not en;o! the free'isposal of the propert! in5uestion....

Source>" 0=F" F* ILR 0/" theer#an :e'eralConstitutional Court

uphel' the e7istence of afe'eral constitutional ri$htto 'iplo#atic protectionbut 'enie' that it +asre5uire' b! custo#ar!international la+. See alsoAbbasi " Sec of Forei'n

E1en 'ecisions of nationalcourts support the thesisthat $eneral internationalla+ as it stan's 'oes not#an'ate an enforceablele$al 'ut! of 'iplo#aticprotection.

p. )/" footnote /0 of/inuya

ote;

In O&o+a4s essa!" thisstate#ent follo+s apara$raph in +hich she'iscussesaundain theconte7t of 'iscretionar!'iplo#atic protection.Thus" for the pertinentpassa$es ofaundaplease see entr! > of thistable.


27/102


28/102

the South Africanconstitution" but +ent onto hol' that the nature an'e7tent of his obli$ation+as an aspect of forei$n

polic! +ithin the'iscretion of thee7ecuti1e.

(/aunda and others "$resident of the Republic

of South Africa and others"Case CCCT)0H*=.

p. == of E1ans4sInternational La+ boo&"

essa! +ritten b! O&o+a

protection as enshrine' inthe South AfricanConstitution" but +ent onto hol' that the nature an'e7tent of this obli$ation

+as an aspect of forei$npolic! +ithin the'iscretion of thee7ecuti1e.

p. )D" footnote /0 ofinu!a

/F There #a! thus be a'ut! on $o1ern#ent"consistent +ith itsobli$ations un'er

international la+" to ta&eaction to protect one of itsciti%ens a$ainst a $rossabuse of internationalhu#an ri$hts nor#s....

V

D0 A court cannot tellthe $o1ern#ent ho+ to#a&e 'iplo#atic

inter1entions for theprotection of itsnationalsV.

V

DD A 'ecision as to+hether" an' if so" +hatprotection shoul' be$i1en" is an aspect offorei$n polic! +hich is

essentiall! the function ofthe e7ecuti1e. The ti#in$of representations if the!are to be #a'e" thelan$ua$e in +hich the!shoul' be couche'" an'the sanctions if an!+hich shoul' follo+ ifsuch representations arere;ecte' are #atters +ith+hich courts are ill

e5uippe' to 'ealV.

Source9DD )**> C. Ct.S. Afr..

TABLE -< Co#parison of Mariana Sala%ar Alborno%4s article" Le$al Nature an' Le$alConse5uences of -iplo#atic Protection< Conte#porar! Challen$es" an' the Supre#e Court4s-ecision in inu!a et. al. 1. E7ecuti1e Secretar!" .R. No. (/))0*" ) April )*(*.

Te A//e4e)/yCo+e) or5

Te "e+(+o' The Purporte' 3Ori$inal3Source Cite' b! the


29/102

Concerne' Authors an' inthe inu!a -ecision

Mariana Sala%ar Alborno%"Le$al Nature an' Le$alConse5uences of-iplo#atic Protection

> Ma1ro##atisPalestine Concessionscase" supra note F" p. ().The e#phasis is ours. Thistra'itional 1ie+ +as

repeate' b! the PCI, in thePane1e%!s9Sal'utis&isRail+a! Case" the CaseConcernin$ the Pa!#entof arious Serbian Loansissue' in :rance",u'$#ent of ,ul! ()"

No+here is this position#ore clearl! reflecte' thanin the 'ictu# of thePer#anent Court ofInternational ,usticePCI, in the (F)=Ma1ro##atis Palestine

Concessions Case>< IC, Reports(F>>" p. = at p. )=@ the

Interhan'el Case,u'$#ent of March )(st"(F>F< IC, Reports (F>F" p./ at p. )D an' theBarcelona Traction Li$htan' Po+er Co#pan!"Li#ite' case" Bel$. .Spain" (FD* I.C.,. 0" 0):eb. >.

p. )= Bo'! of inu!a

). Un'er this 1ie+" theconsi'erations un'erl!in$the 'ecision to e7ercise or

not 'iplo#atic protection#a! 1ar! 'epen'in$ oneach case an' #a! rel!entirel! on polic!consi'erations re$ar'lessof the interests of the'irectl!9in;ure' in'i1i'ual"an' the State is notre5uire' to pro1i'e;ustification for its'ecision.F*

F* See in this sense"Borchar' E." -iplo#aticProtection of Citi%ensAbroa'" Ne+ Gor&" TheBan&s La+ Publishin$Co." (F(>" at I. Also< .

>D See Borchar'" E."-iplo#atic Protection ofCiti%ens Abroa' at I

(F(>. Un'er this 1ie+"the consi'erationsun'erl!in$ the 'ecision toe7ercise or not 'iplo#aticprotection #a! 1ar!'epen'in$ on each casean' #a! rel! entirel! onpolic! consi'erationsre$ar'less of the interestsof the 'irectl!9in;ure'in'i1i'ual" an' the State is

not re5uire' to pro1i'e;ustification for its'ecision.

p. )>" footnote >D ofinu!a

VThe citi%en abroa' hasno le$al ri$ht to re5uirethe 'iplo#atic protection

of his national$o1ern#ent. Resort tothis re#e'! of 'iplo#aticprotection is solel! a ri$htof the $o1ern#ent" the;ustification an'e7pe'ienc! of itse#plo!#ent bein$ a#atter for the$o1ern#ent4s unrestricte''iscretion. This protection

is sub;ect in its $rant tosuch rules of #unicipala'#inistrati1e la+ as thestate #a! a'opt" an' in itse7ercise internationall! tocertain rules +hich


31/102


32/102

-raft Articles on-iplo#atic Protection"supra note )" co##entar!to -raft Article )" par. ).

p. =** of Alborno%

p. )>9)/ Bo'! of inu!a AH>FH(* at ))9)" par. /*@AOR" >Fth Sess." Supp.(* )**=.

=. VSpecial Rapporteur-u$ar' propose' that theILC a'opt in its -raftArticles a pro1ision un'er+hich States +oul' beinternationall! obli$e' toe7ercise 'iplo#aticprotection in fa1our of

their nationals in;ure'abroa' b! $ra1e breachesto their ;us co$ens nor#s"if the national so re5ueste'an' if heHshe +as notaffor'e' 'irect access toan international tribunal.((/

((/ The propose' articlerea' as follo+s< 3Article

= (. Unless the in;ure'person is able to brin$ aclai# for such in;ur!before a co#petentinternational court ortribunal" the State ofhisHher nationalit! has ale$al 'ut! to e7ercise'iplo#atic protection onbehalf of the in;ure'person upon re5uest" if the

in;ur! results fro# a $ra1ebreach of a ;us co$ensnor# attributable toanother State. ). The stateof nationalit! is relie1e'of this obli$ation if< aThe e7ercise of 'iplo#aticprotection +oul' seriousl!en'an$er the o1erri'in$interests of the Statean'Hor its people @ b

Another State e7ercises'iplo#atic protection onbehalf of the in;ure'person@ c The in;ure'person 'oes not ha1e theeffecti1e an' 'o#inantnationalit! of the State.

/) VSpecial Rapporteur-u$ar' propose' that theILC a'opt in its -raftArticles a pro1ision un'er+hich States +oul' beinternationall! obli$e' toe7ercise 'iplo#aticprotection in fa1or of their

nationals in;ure' abroa'b! $ra1e breaches to ;usco$ens nor#s" if thenational so re5ueste' an'if heHshe +as not affor'e''irect access to aninternational tribunal. Thepropose' article rea's asfollo+s>H(* at D9DF"par. =>/@ AOR" >>thSess." Supp. (* )***.

/. ...so#e States ha1e"in'ee'" incorporate' intheir #unicipal la+ a 'ut!

to e7ercise 'iplo#aticprotection in fa1or of theirnationalsV. arious otherStates ha1e also inclu'e'such a 3'ut! to e7ercise'iplo#atic protection3un'er their 'o#estic la+s"(0* but theirenforceabilit! is also" tosa! the least" 5uestionablein #an! cases there are

not e1en courts co#petentto re1ie+ the 'ecision.

(0* -u$ar' i'entifiesthis 3obli$ation to e7ist inthe Constitutions ofAlbania" Belarus" Bosniaan' ?er%e$o1ina"Bul$aria" Ca#bo'ia"China" Croatia" Estonia"eor$ia" u!ana"

?un$ar!" Ital!"a%a&hstan" Lao People4s-e#ocratic Republic"Lat1ia" Lithuania" Polan'"Portu$al" Republic oforea" Ro#ania" Russian:e'eration" Spain" thefor#er Gu$osla1 Republicof Mace'onia" Tur&e!"U&raine" iet Na# an'Gu$osla1ia" albeit +ith

'ifferent reaches. ,.-u$ar'" :irst Report on'iplo#atic protection"supra note (0" par. *.

p. =*/ of Alborno%

/) Vso#e States ha1e"in'ee'" incorporate' intheir #unicipal la+ a 'ut!

to e7ercise 'iplo#aticprotection in fa1or of theirnationals. -u$ar'i'entifies this 3obli$ationto e7ist in theConstitutions of Albania"Belarus" Bosnia an'?er%e$o1ina" Bul$aria"Ca#bo'ia" China" Croatia"Estonia" eor$ia" u!ana"?un$ar!" Ital!"

a%a&hstan" Lao People4s-e#ocratic Republic"Lat1ia" Lithuania" Polan'"Portu$al" Republic oforea" Ro#ania" Russian:e'eration" Spain" thefor#er Gu$osla1 Republicof Mace'onia" Tur&e!"U&raine" iet Na# an'Gu$osla1ia" albeit +ith'ifferent reaches. ,.

-u$ar'" :irst Report on'iplo#atic protection"supra note (0" par. *.

p. )/" footnote /) ofinu!a

*. VConstitutionalpro1isions in a nu#ber ofStatesV reco$ni%e the

ri$ht of the in'i1i'ual torecei1e 'iplo#aticprotection for in;uriessuffere' abroa'. Theseinclu'e< Albania" Belarus"Bosnia an' ?er%e$o1ina"Bul$aria" Ca#bo'ia"China"

Croatia" Estonia" eor$ia"u!ana" ?un$ar!" Ital!"

a%a&hstan" Lao People4s

-e#ocratic Republic"Lat1ia" Lithuania" Polan'"Portu$al" Republic oforea"

Ro#ania" Russian:e'eration" Spain" thefor#er Gu$osla1Republic of Mace'onia"

Tur&e!" U&raine" ietNa# an' Gu$osla1iaV.

Source A#. ,. Int4l. L.00> )**(

(*) iolence A$ainst2o#en in 2ar9Net+or&,apan" 2hat is the 2o#en4sTribunalhttp.HH+++(.;ca.apc.or$H1a++9net9;apanHEn$lishH+o#enstribunal)** *H+hatstribunal.ht#llast 1isite' Oct. (/" )**.

p. 0=> of La'ino

The 2o#en6s International2ar Cri#es Tribunal2I2CT +as a 3people6stribunal3 establishe' b! anu#ber of Asian +o#en an'hu#an ri$hts or$ani%ations"supporte' b! an internationalcoalition of non9$o1ern#ental or$ani%ations.

0( :irst propose' in (FF"the 2I2CT con1ene' inTo&!o in )*** in or'er to3a';u'icate ,apan6s #ilitar!se7ual 1iolence" in particularthe ensla1e#ent of co#fort+o#en" to brin$ thoseresponsible for it to ;ustice"an' to en' the on$oin$ c!cleof i#punit! for +arti#ese7ual 1iolence a$ainst

+o#en.3

0( Chin&in" 2o#en4sInternational Tribunal on,apanese Se7ual Sla1er!" F>A#. ,. Int4l. L. 00> )**(.

p. ()" Bo'! of inu!a

:ro# -ece#ber to ()" )***"a peoples6 tribunal" the2o#en6s International 2arCri#es Tribunal )***" sat inTo&!o" ,apan. It +asestablishe' to consi'er thecri#inal liabilit! of lea'in$hi$h9ran&in$ ,apanese #ilitar!an' political officials an' the

separate responsibilit! of thestate of ,apan for rape an'se7ual sla1er! as cri#esa$ainst hu#anit! arisin$ out of,apanese #ilitar! acti1it! inthe Asia Pacific re$ion in the(F0*s an' (F=*s.

...

VThe tribunal arose out of the

+or& of 1arious +o#en6snon$o1ern#entalor$ani%ations NOs acrossAsiaV.

SourceA#. ,. Int4l. L. 00> )**(.

0. A lar$e a#ount of e1i'ence+as presente' to the tribunalfor e7a#ination. Si7t!9fourfor#er co#fort +o#en fro#orea an' other surroun'in$territories in the Asia9Pacific

0) A lar$e a#ount ofe1i'ence +as presente' to thetribunal for e7a#ination.Si7t!9four for#er co#fort+o#en fro# orea an' othersurroun'in$ territories in the

VProsecution tea#s fro# tencountries presente'in'ict#ents./ North an'South orea" China" ,apan" thePhilippines" In'onesia"Tai+an" Mala!sia" East Ti#or"


40/102

re$ion testifie' before thecourt.(*= Testi#on! +asalso presente' b! historicalscholars" international la+scholars" an' t+o for#er

,apanese sol'iers.(*>A''itional e1i'ence +assub#itte' b! the prosecutiontea#s of ten 'ifferentcountries" inclu'in$< Northan' South orea" China",apan" the Philippines"In'onesia" Tai+an" Mala!sia"East Ti#or" an' theNetherlan's.(*/

(*= I'. iolence A$ainst2o#en in 2ar9Net+or&,apan" 2hat is the 2o#en6sTribunal"http of La'ino

Asia9Pacific re$ion testifie'before the court. Testi#on!+as also presente' b!historical scholars"international la+ scholars"

an' t+o for#er ,apanesesol'iers. A''itional e1i'ence+as sub#itte' b! theprosecution tea#s of ten'ifferent countries" inclu'in$ of La'ino

concern to seriousinternational la+!ers

SourceA#. ,. Int4l. L. 00> )**(.

=. On ,anuar! 0(" )**D" Unite'States Representati1eMichael ?on'a of California"alon$ +ith si7 co9sponsorrepresentati1es" intro'uce'

?ouse Resolution ()(. Theresolution calle' for ,apaneseaction in li$ht of the on$oin$stru$$le for closure b! for#erco#fort +o#en. The ?ouseof Representati1es for#all!passe' the resolution on ,ul!0*" )**D.((* The resolutionalso #a&es four 'istinct'e#an'sF Stat. (>==" ) U.N.T.S. )DF.

This is ori$inall! Ellis4s citation" use' to support his obser1ation that there +as no e7press#ention of 3rape3 in the Nure#ber$ Charter. It +as enclose' in parentheses an' rele$ate' to the

en' of the para$raph in inu!a.

F. Se'&e'e 1;Article /c of the Charter establishe' cri#es a$ainst hu#anit! as the follo+in$ alone.

5. Research steps purporte#ly follo$e# in the #rafting of $+'uyacast #oubt on ina#"ertence.

The follo+in$ is a recreation of the step9b!9step research proce'ure follo+e' b! #an! offices inthe research an' craftin$ of ;u'icial 'ecisions. It is base' on the account $i1en b! the researcherof the /inuya-ecision of her o+n e7periences +hile +or&in$ on the case. This 'etaile'brea&'o+n is #a'e in or'er to sho+ the e7act nu#ber of actions +hich #ust be #a'e in or'er toinput a citation" if in'ee' it +as intentionall! inputte'. A recreation of the steps necessar! to'elete a citation is also #a'e to sho+ that the a$$re$ate nu#ber of actions nee'e' to erase eachan' e1er! citation #issin$ in /inuyais so hi$h that the un'erl!in$ cause coul' not ha1e been#ere ina'1ertence.

Step ( +hen the rele1ant A-BOutloo& Report ca#e out. The authors of the En$lish9lan$ua$e +or&s are all scholars on ;u'icialrefor#" an' the! cite our +or& as one of the pioneerin$ ones in ter#s of #easurin$ therelationship bet+een '!sfunctions in the ;u'icial s!ste# an' the cost to 'oin$ business of such'!sfunctions. It +oul' ha1e then struc& an! researcher that in all probabilit!" the alle$e'pla$iari%e' sentences ori$inate' fro# #! co9authors an' #e.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt28shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt28shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt28s


61/102


62/102

This is therefore a #eanin$less char$e.

Assu#in$ that ,ustice Aba' &no+s that the abo1e treat! titles are interchan$eable" then hischar$e is a&in to co#plainin$ of #! suppose' failure for ha1in$ si#pl! +ritten thus< 3Thefollo+in$ are the re5uire#ents for filin$ a co#plaint un'er the Rules of Court3 an' then for

ha1in$ i##e'iatel! 'iscusse' the re5uire#ents un'er the Rules of Court +ithout 5uotation#ar&s in reference to each specific rule an' section. If this is the case" then it appears that in,ustice Aba'4s 1ie+ I shoul' ha1e +ritten< 3the follo+in$ are the re5uire#ents pro1i'e' forun'er the (FFD Rules of Ci1il Proce'ure Bar Matter No. *0 for filin$ a co#plaint3 an' thenuse' 5uotation #ar&s e1er! ti#e reference to the la+ is #a'e. Nothin$ can be #ore a+&+ar'than re5uirin$ such a te'ious +a! of e7plainin$ the Rules of Court re5uire#ents. I ha1e #a'e nosuch co#parable char$e of 1iolation a$ainst ,ustice 'el Castillo in the -issent to the #ain-ecision an' I a# not #a&in$ an! such clai# of 1iolation in #! -issent to the Resolution'en!in$ the Motion for Reconsi'eration" because that +oul' be a #eanin$less point.

Re$ar'in$ the phrase alle$e'l! co#in$ fro# Professor Oppenhei# on $oo' offices an'

#e'iation" this is a trite" co##on" stan'ar' state#ent +ith nothin$ ori$inal at all about it thatcan be foun' in an! international 'ispute settle#ent reference boo&" inclu'in$ those that 'iscuss2TO 'ispute settle#ent s!ste#s. The phrase is a necessar!" cut9an'9'rie' state#ent on the useof $oo' offices an' #e'iation" +hich ta&e place alon$si'e the for#al 'ispute settle#ent s!ste#in #a;or international 'ispute settle#ent s!ste#s. The s!ste# is pro1i'e' for e7pressl! in Article>.> an' >./ of the -SU. A 5uic& 1ie+ of the 2TO +ebsite #a&es this point 1er! apparent.0(

5 &he supposed non2attribution of a phrase from *a,er " Carr

TABLE I< Co#parison of ,ustice Aba'4s alle$ations" the le$al #e#oran'u# in Pro1ince ofNorth Cotabato 1. Peace Panel" an' the 'ecision of the U.S. Supre#e Court in Ba&er 1. Carr"

cite' in the le$al #e#oran'u#.

Rero)u&+o' o3

!. Aba)


63/102

(/

'iscretion has been pri#afacie establishe'" as in thisinstance.

0.> In this case"

Respon'ents cannot hi'eun'er the political5uestion 'octrine" for t+oco#pellin$ reasons.

0./ :irst" there is noresolute te7tualco##it#ent in theConstitution that accor'sthe Presi'ent the po+er tone$otiate +ith the

MIL:V.

V

0.(0 Secon'" there is nolac& of a ;u'iciall!'isco1erable an'#ana$eable stan'ar' forresol1in$ the 5uestion" nori#possibilit! of 'eci'in$the 5uestion +ithout an

initial polic!'eter#ination of a &in'clearl! for non9;u'icial'iscretion. On thecontrar!" the ne$otiatin$histor! +ith Musli#secessionist $roups easil!contra'ict an! pretensethat this Court cannot set'o+n the stan'ar's for+hat the $o1ern#ent

cannot 'o in this case.

pp. =D9>* of theMe#oran'u#

Source cite')).

(D,o!ce C. eor$e" ,u'icial Pla$iaris#" ,u'icial Opinion 2ritin$ ?an'boo&" accesse' at]http


75/102

)>See< In re 2i''ison" >0F N.2.)' /D( S.-. (FF> at /> as cite' in ,ai#e S. -ursht",u'icial Pla$iaris#< It Ma! Be :air Use but Is It Ethical" ( Car'o%o L. Re1. ()>0@Rebecca Moore ?o+ar'" Pla$iaris#s" Authorships" an' the Aca'e#ic -eath Penalt!" >DColle$e En$lish D No1." (FF>" at D9*/" as cite' in the ,STOR"http" ( as cite' in pa$e ) an' footnotes )=" )>" )D to )F of #! () October )*(* -issent.

)/I'. at )/.

)D-iscussion Paper No. *D*((" October )**D" UP School of Econo#ics.

)

2orl' Ban&" Pro;ect Appraisal -ocu#ent on a Propose' Loan in the A#ount ofUSY)(.F Million to the Republic of the Philippines for a ,u'icial Refor# Support Pro;ectReport No< )>>*= )**0" a1ailable at http" )*((.

0(2orl' Tra'e Or$ani%ation" -ispute Settle#ent S!ste# Trainin$ Mo'ule< Chapter -ispute Settle#ent 2ithout Recourse to Panels an' the Appellate Bo'!" a1ailable athttp Septe#ber (FF" too& effect )* October (FF.

0/Supra note 00 at )=*9)=(.

0DA'#inistrati1e Or'er No. (/).

0In Re Letter of ,u'$e Au$ustus C. -ia%" A.M. No. *D9D9(D9SC" (F Septe#ber )**D.

0FA.M. No. RT,9F*9==D" (FF SCRA D>" () ,ul! (FF(" 09=.

=*,unio 1. Ri1era" A.M. No. MT,9F(9>/>. Au$ust 0*" (FF0.

=(Castillo " Calano'. Jr" A.M. No. RT,9F*9==D" (/ -ece#ber (FF=" )0F SCRA )/
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt25shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt26shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt27shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt28shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt29shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt30shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt31shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt32shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt33shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt34shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt35shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt36shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt37shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt38shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt39shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt40shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt41shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt25shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt26shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt27shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt28shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt29shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt30shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt31shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt32shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt33shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt34shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt35shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt36shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt37shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt38shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt39shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt40shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt41s


76/102

=)Teban ?ar'+are an' Auto Suppl! Co. 1. Tapucar" A.M. No. (D)*" 0( ,anuar! (F("(*) SCRA =F)" >*=.

=0) $arte *rown.(// In'. >F0" D N.E. >>0 (F*/.

==

Supra note 00 at )).

=>:ore+or' of ,ustice A#eurfina A. Melencio ?errera" 3:un'a#entals of -ecision2ritin$ for ,u'$es"3 )**F.

=/-aniel :arber" Missin$ the Pla! of Intelli$ence" / 2#. J Mar! L. Re1. (=D" (FF=.

=DI'. at (D*.

=I'. at footnote =*.

=F

-a1i' Mco+an" ,u'icial 2ritin$ an' the Ethics of the ,u'icial Office" (= eo. ,.Le$al Ethics >*F" >*F. )**(.

>*Paul A. :reun'" 3The Supre#e Court3 in Tal&s on A#erican La+ (9F= re1. e'."(FD).


SEPARATE "ISSENTING OPINION

CARPIO MORAES,J.;

I ;oin ,ustice Antonio T. Carpio4s thesis in his -issentin$ Opinion on the co##ission ofpla$iaris# or 1iolation of intellectual propert! ri$hts in the inu!a 'ecision. I ;oin hi# too on hisother thesis that this Court has no ;uris'iction to 'eci'e an a'#inistrati1e case +here a sittin$,ustice of this Court has co##itte' #iscon'uct in office" +ith 5ualification.

I sub#it that the Court #a! +iel' its a'#inistrati1e po+er a$ainst its incu#bent #e#bers on$roun'sother thanculpable 1iolation of the Constitution" treason" briber!" $raft an' corruption"other hi$h cri#es" or betra!al of public trust" AN" ro+)e)the offense or #isbeha1ior 'oes not

carr! +ith it a penalt!" the ser1ice of +hich +oul' a#ount to re#o1al fro# office either on aper#anent or te#porar! basis such as suspension.

The Presi'ent" the ice Presi'ent" the #e#bers of the Supre#e Court" the Me#bers of theConstitutional Co##issions" an' the O#bu's#an #a! be re#o1e' fro# office" on i#peach#entfor" an' con1iction of" culpable 1iolation of the Constitution" treason" briber!" $raft an'corruption" other hi$h cri#es" or betra!al of public trust. All other public officers an' e#plo!ees#a! be re#o1e' fro# office as pro1i'e' b! la+" but not b! i#peach#ent.(un'erscorin$supplie'

In (F" the Court 'is#isse' the co#plaint for 'isbar#ent a$ainst ,ustice Marcelo :ernan for

lac& of #erit. Asi'e fro# fin'in$ the accusations totall! baseless" the Court" b!per curiamResolution")also state' that to $rant a co#plaint for 'isbar#ent of a #e#ber of the Court 'urin$the #e#ber4s incu#benc! +oul' in effect be to circu#1ent an' hence to run afoul of theconstitutional #an'ate that #e#bers of the Court #a! be re#o1e' fro# office onl! b!i#peach#ent.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt42shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt43shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt44shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt45shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt46shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt47shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt48shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt49shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt50shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt42shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt43shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt44shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt45shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt46shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt47shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt48shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt49shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt50shttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2cm


77/102

In the subse5uent case of In Re Raul M. on%ales"0this principle of constitutional la+ +assuccinctl! for#ulate' in the follo+in$ ter#s +hich la! 'o+n a bar to the institution of certainactions a$ainst an i#peachable officer 'urin$ his or her incu#benc!.

7 7 7 A public officer +ho un'er the Constitution is re5uire' to be a Me#ber of the Philippine

Bar as a 5ualification for the office hel' b! hi# an' +ho #a! be re#o1e' fro# office onl! b!i#peach#ent" cannot be char$e' +ith 'isbar#ent 'urin$ the incu#benc! of such public officer.:urther" such public officer" 'urin$ his incu#benc!" cannot be char$e' cri#inall! before theSandi'anbayan or an! other court +ith an! offense +hich carries +ith it the penalt! of re#o1alfro# office" or a'y e'a/&y (er+e o3 + ou/) a*ou'& &o re*oa/ 3ro* o33+e.=e#phasis an' un'erscorin$ supplie'@ italics in the ori$inal

The Court clarifie'" ho+e1er" that it is not sa!in$ that its #e#bers are entitle' to i##unit! fro#liabilit! for possible cri#inal acts or for alle$e' 1iolations of the canons of ;u'icial ethics orco'es of ;u'icial con'uct. It stresse' that there is a fun'a#ental proce'ural re5uire#ent that #ustbe obser1e' before such liabilit! #a! be 'eter#ine' an' enforce'.

7 7 7 A Me#ber of the Supre#e Court #ust first be re#o1e' fro# office 1ia the constitutionalroute of i#peach#ent un'er Sections ) an' 0 of Article KI of the (FD Constitution. Shoul' thetenure of the Supre#e Court ,ustice be thus ter#inate' b! i#peach#ent" he #a! then be hel' toans+er either cri#inall! or a'#inistrati1el! b! 'isbar#ent procee'in$s for an! +ron$ or#isbeha1iour that #a! be pro1en a$ainst hi# in appropriate procee'in$s.>un'erscorin$supplie'

The Court 'eclare' the sa#e principle inJar=ue " Desierto/b! Resolution of -ece#ber >"(FF>.

The rule that an i#peachable officer cannot be cri#inall! prosecute' for the sa#e offenses+hich constitute $roun's for i#peach#ent presupposes his continuance in office. ?ence" the#o#ent he is no lon$er in office because of his re#o1al" resi$nation" or per#anent 'isabilit!"there can be no bar to his cri#inal prosecution in the courts.

Nor 'oes retire#ent bar an a'#inistrati1e in1esti$ation fro# procee'in$ a$ainst the pri1aterespon'ent" $i1en that" as pointe' out b! the petitioner" the for#er4s retire#ent benefits ha1ebeen place' on hol' in 1ie+ of the pro1isions of Sections () an' (0 of the Anti9raft an'Corrupt Practices Act.Dun'erscorin$ supplie'

The i##e'iatel!95uote' pronounce#ent i#plies that the administrati"ein1esti$ation #ust be

initiate' 'urin$ the incu#benc! of the respon'ent.

That the Supre#e Court has o1erall a'#inistrati1e po+er o1er its #e#bers an' o1er all #e#bersof the ;u'iciar! has been reco$ni%e'.Moreo1er" the Internal Rules of the Supre#e Court )*(* F

e7pressl! inclu'e'" for the first ti#e" 3cases in1ol1in$ the 'iscipline of a Me#ber of the Court3 (*as a#on$ those en banc#atters an' cases. Eluci'atin$ on the proce'ure" Section (0" Rule ) ofthe Court4s Internal Rules pro1i'es" (F (/* SCRA DD +here the co#plainant +as se1erel!repri#an'e' an' +arne'.

0A.M. No. 9=9>=00" April (>" (F" (/* SCRA DD(.

=I'. at DD=.

>I'. at DD/9DDD.

/

A.C. No. =>*F" -ece#ber >" (FF>" )>* SCRA 7i.DBffice of the Bmbudsman " Court of Appeals" .R. No. (=/=/" March =" )**>" =>)SCRA D(=" D0=9D0>.

In 'iscussin$ the +or' 3incapacitate'"3 Bernas sai' that the po+er to 'eter#ineincapacit! is part of the o1erall a'#inistrati1e po+er +hich the Supre#e Court has o1erits #e#bers an' o1er all #e#bers of the ;u'iciar! Bernas" The (FD Constitution of theRepublic of the Philippines< A Co##entar! )**0" p. F.

FA.M. No. (*9=9)*9SC Ma! =" )*(*.

(*I'." Rule )" Sec. 0" par. h.

((This fra#e+or& of constitutional la+ li&e+ise e7plains +h! incu#bent ,ustices of theSupre#e Court" b! 1irtue of their bein$ i#peachable officers" are 'o& +'/u)e)fro# theoperation of A.M. No. *)9F9*)9SC on the 3Auto#atic Con1ersion of So#eA'#inistrati1e Cases A$ainst ,ustices of the Court of Appeals an' the San'i$anba!an",u'$es of Re$ular an' Special Courts" an' Court Officials 2ho Are La+!ers as
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt1cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt2cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt3cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt4cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt5cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt6cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt7cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt8cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt9cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt10cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt11cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt1cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt2cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt3cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt4cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt5cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt6cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt7cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt8cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt9cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt10cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt11cm


82/102

-isciplinar! Procee'in$s A$ainst The# Both as Officials an' as Me#bers of thePhilippine Bar3 Septe#ber (D" )**). The rule pro1i'es that +hen the sai'a'#inistrati1e case is base' on $roun's +hich are li&e+ise $roun's for a 'isciplinar!action of #e#bers of the Bar" the a'#inistrati1e case shall also be consi'ere' a'isciplinar! action a$ainst the respon'ent ;ustice" ;u'$e or court official concerne' as a

#e#ber of the Bar as applie' inA"ancena " %iwana'" A.M. No. MT,9*(9(00" March>" )**0" 0F SCRA >=( an' ,ul! (D" )**0" =*/ SCRA 0** +here the ;u'$e +as'is#isse' fro# ser1ice an' 'isbarre' fro# the practice of la+. See alsoJuan de la Cru>Concerned Citi>en of %e'a>pi City: " Carretas" A.M. No. RT,9*D9)*=0" Septe#ber >")**D" >0) SCRA )(@ Caa'a 1. Suerte" A.M. No. RT,9*=9(=" :ebruar! ))" )**" >=/SCRA =(=. Its application to a particular a'#inistrati1e action is not 'epen'ent on the'ate of co##ission of the offense but on the 'ate of filin$ of the case. There is noauto#atic con1ersion +hen the a'#inistrati1e case +as file' before October (" )**) orprior to the 'ate of effecti1it! of A.M. No. *)9F9*)9SC "ideOffice of the CourtA'#inistrator 1. Morante" A.M. No. P9*)9(>>>" April (/" )**=" =) SCRA (" 0>90/@ Jin' and Sons Company. #nc. " ontanosas. Jr" A.M. No. RT,9*09(*)" :ebruar! )"

)**/ Resolution an' the respon'ent has alrea'! been re5uire' to co##ent on theco#plaint ec, " Santos" A.M. No. RT,9*(9(/>D" )0 :ebruar! )**=" =)0 SCRA 0)F"0=(.

()A.M. No. *F9)9(F9SC" :ebruar! )=" )**F" >* SCRA (*/.

(0I'. at (/=.

(=I'. The Court e7plaine'"***" respecti1el!" ;ust an' reasonable. #dat (/(9(/0@ e#phasis"italics an' un'erscorin$ in the ori$inal.

(>$eople " Cabal=uinto" .R. No. (/D/F0" Septe#ber (F" )**/" >*) SCRA =(F.

(//ideRepublic Act No. D/(* Special Protection of Chil'ren a$ainst Chil' Abuse"E7ploitation an' -iscri#ination Act@ Republic Act No. F)/) Anti9iolence A$ainst2o#en an' Their Chil'ren Act of )**=@ A.M. No. *=9(*9((9SC of No1e#ber (=" )**=Rule on iolence a$ainst 2o#en an' their Chil'ren@ an' A.M. No. FF9D9*/9SC" #n Re#nternet +eb pa'e of the Supreme Court. Resolution of :ebruar! (=" )**/.

(D#n Re; @ndated %etter of (r %ouis *irao'o" supra at (/)" citin$Ri"era " *uena" A.M.No. P9*D9)0F=" :ebruar! (F" )**" >=/ SCRA ))).


SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

#RION,J.:

Bac&$roun' :acts

The present a'#inistrati1e 'isciplinar! case a$ainst Supre#e Court Associate ,ustice Mariano C.'el Castillo ste##e' fro# the 'ecision he penne' for the Court in .R. No. (/))0*" entitle'#sabelita C inu!a" et al. 1. E7ecuti1e Secretar!. The inu!a -ecision +as pro#ul$ate' onApril )" )*(* +ith (0 ;ustices of this Court concurrin$ +ith the rulin$ to 'is#iss the case.

On ,ul! (F" )*(*" Att!s. ?arr! Ro5ue an' Ro##el Ba$ares" counsels for petitioners inu!a" etal." file' a Supple#ental Motion for Reconsi'eration raisin$" a#on$ others" the pla$iaris#alle$e'l! co##itte' b! ,ustice 'el Castillo for usin$ the +or&s of three forei$n le$al authors in

his ponencia. The! alle$e' that the use +as +ithout proper attribution an' that ,ustice 'elCastillo t+iste' the forei$n authors4 +or&s to support the -ecision. The! consi'ere' it 3hi$hl!i#proper for 7 7 7 the Court 7 7 7 to +holl! lift" +ithout proper attribution" fro# at least threesources an article publishe' in )**F in the Gale La+ ,ournal of International La+"(a boo&publishe' b! the Ca#bri'$e Uni1ersit! Press in )**>")an' an article publishe' in the Case2estern Reser1e ,ournal of International La+0 an' to #a&e it appear that these sources supportthe assaile' ,u'$#ent4s ar$u#ents for 'is#issin$ their petition" +hen in truth" the pla$iari%e'sources e1en #a&e a stron$ case for the Petition4s clai#s.3=
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt15cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt16cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt17cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt3bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt4bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt15cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt16cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt17cmhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt3bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt4b


84/102

In repl! to the accusation" ,ustice 'el Castillo +rote an' circulate' a letter 'ate' ,ul! ))" )*(* tothe #e#bers of this Court. On ,ul! )D" )*(*" the Court 'eci'e' to refer the letter to the Ethicsan' Ethical Stan'ar's Co##ittee the 3Ethics Co##ittee3 or 3co##ittee3 +hich 'oc&ete' it asan a'#inistrati1e #atter. The co##ittee re5uire' Att!s. Ro5ue an' Ba$ares to co##ent on,ustice 'el Castillo4s letter" after +hich it hear' the parties. After the parties4 #e#oran'a" the

co##ittee sub#itte' its fin'in$s an' reco##en'ations to the Court.

The Court4s -ecision on the Pla$iaris# Char$e a$ainst ,ustice 'el Castillo

In a -ecision 'ate' October ()" )*(*" the Court resol1e' to 'is#iss the pla$iaris# char$esa$ainst ,ustice 'el Castillo. It reco$ni%e' that in'ee' certain passa$es of the forei$n le$al article+ere lifte' an' use' in the inu!a -ecision an' that 3no attributions +ere #a'e to the 7 7 7authors in its footnotes.3>?o+e1er" the Court conclu'e' that the failure to attribute 'i' nota#ount to pla$iaris# because no #alicious intent atten'e' the failure@ the attributions present in,ustice 'el Castillo4s ori$inal 'rafts +ere si#pl! acci'entall! 'elete' in the course of the'raftin$ process. Malicious intent +as 'ee#e' an essential ele#ent" as 3pla$iaris# is essentiall!

a for# of frau' +here intent to 'ecei1e is inherent.3 Citin$ Blac&4s La+ -ictionar!4s 'efinitionof pla$iaris# the 'eliberate an' &no+in$ presentation of another person4s ori$inal i'eas orcreati1e e7pressions as one4s o+n the Court 'eclare' that 3pla$iaris# presupposes intent an' a'eliberate" conscious effort to steal another4s +or& an' pass it off as one4s o+n.3 In fact" theCourt foun' that b! citin$ the forei$n author4s ori$inal sources" ,ustice 'el Castillo ne1er create'the i#pression that he +as the ori$inal author of the passa$es clai#e' to ha1e been lifte' fro#the forei$n la+ articles" )*(*" Att!s. Ro5ue an' Ba$ares file' a #otion for reconsi'eration of theCourt4s October ()" )*(* -ecision. This #otion +as the sub;ect of the ReportHResolutionsub#itte' to the Court for consi'eration. Inci'entall!" the sa#e counsels file' an i#peach#entco#plaint for betra!al of public trust a$ainst ,ustice 'el Castillo +ith the ?ouse ofRepresentati1es on -ece#ber (=" )*(*.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt5bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt5b


85/102

The Court4s Action on theMotion for Reconsi'eration

The Court referre' the #otion for reconsi'eration to the Ethics Co##ittee an' its Reportreco##en'e' the 'is#issal of the #otion for reconsi'eration. The Report 'ifferentiate'

aca'e#ic +ritin$ fro# ;u'icial +ritin$" 'eclarin$ that ori$inalit! of i'eas is not re5uire' of a;u'$e +ritin$ 'ecisions an' resol1in$ conflicts because he is boun' b! the 'octrine of stare'ecisis the le$al principle of 'eter#inin$ points in liti$ation accor'in$ to prece'ents.

The Report li&e+ise 'eclare' that the forei$n authors" +hose +or&s +ere clai#e' to ha1e beenpla$iari%e'" +ere not the#sel1es the ori$inators of the i'eas cite' in the inu!a -ecision. 2hilethe inu!a -ecision 'i' not #ention their na#es" it 'i' attribute the passa$es to the ori$inalauthors fro# +ho# these forei$n authors borro+e' the i'eas. There +as" thus" no intent on thepart of ,ustice 'el Castillo to appropriate the i'eas or to clai# that these i'eas ori$inate' fro#hi#@ in short" he 'i' not pass the# off as his o+n.

,ustice Antonio T. Carpio 'issente' fro# the Report" base' on t+o $roun's) :.R.-. )/>" at ];u'icial9'iscipline9refor#.or$H;u'icial9co#plaintsH(FF09Report9Re#o1al.p'f^" last 1isite' on :ebruar! F" )*((.

(FC!nthia ra!" supra note (0" citin$ In re Lo+er!" FFF S.2.)' /0F" //( Special Courtof Re1ie+ Appointe' b! Te7as Supre#e Court" (FF.

)*CONSTITUTION" Article KI" Section (.

)(Brent -. 2ar'" Can the :e'eral Courts eep Or'er in Their O+n ?ouse AppellateSuper1ision throu$h Man'a#us an' Or'ers of ,u'icial Councils" )00 Brin$ha# Goun$Uni1ersit! La+ Re1ie+ )00" )0D an' )>0 (F*" at ]heinonline.or$H?OLHLan'in$Pa$ecollection;ournalsJhan'le

hein.;ournalsHb!ulr(F*J'i1(DDI-Jpa$e^" last 1isite' on :ebruar! F" )*((.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt5bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt6bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt7bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt8bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt9bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt10bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt11bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt12bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt13bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt14bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt15bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt16bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt17bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt18bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt19bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt20bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt21bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt5bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt6bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt7bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt8bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt9bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt10bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt11bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt12bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt13bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt14bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt15bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt16bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt17bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt18bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt19bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt20bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt21b


93/102

))Robert 2. asten#eier" supra note (.

)0Ibi'.

)=Michael ,. erhar't" The Constitutional Li#its to I#peach#ent an' Its Alternati1es" /

Te7as La+ Re1ie+ (" D09D= No1e#ber (FF.

)>Robert 2. asten#eier" supra note (.

)/)/= :.0' >) )**(.

)DCru% 1. Iturral'e" A.M. RT, No. *09(DD>" April 0*" )**0" =*) SCRA />.

)eor$e" ,o!ce ,. 3,u'icial Opinion 2ritin$ ?an'boo&.3 >th e'ition. 2illia# S. ?ein JCo." Inc." )**D" pa$e D(>" 'efines pla$iaris# as 3the intentional representation of anotherperson4s +or's" thou$hts or i'eas as one4s o+n +ithout $i1in$ attribution.3

)FAN ACT PRESCRIBIN T?E INTELLECTUAL PROPERTG CO-E AN-ESTABLIS?IN T?E INTELLECTUAL PROPERTG O::ICE" PROI-IN :ORITS PO2ERS AN- :UNCTIONS" AN- :OR OT?ER PURPOSES

0*Stearns" Laurie. 3Cop! 2ron$< Pla$iaris#" Process" Propert! an' the La+.3$erspecti"es on $la'iarism and #ntellectual $roperty in a $ostmodern +orld. E'. LiseBuranen an' Alice M. Ro!. Alban!" Ne+ Gor& State Uni1ersit! of Ne+ Gor& Press.(FFF. >9/.

0(-issentin$ Opinion of ,ustice Sereno in the Pla$iaris# 'ecision.

0)Icasiano 1. San'i$anba!an" .R. No. F>/=)" Ma! )" (FF)" )*F SCRA 0DD.

00See< Rule =" Internal Rules of the Supre#e Court" in relation +ith Section =" Rule / on-oc&et Nu#ber an' Entr! in Lo$boo&. A'#inistrati1e cases are not liste' as .R.eneral Re$ister cases as the! are not acte' upon in the e7ercise of the Court4s ;u'icialfunction.


SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

A#A",J.:

I full! concur in the #a;orit! opinion an' +oul' li&e to react to the separate 'issentin$ opinionsof ,ustices Antonio T. Carpio an' Maria Lour'es P.A. Sereno.

,ustice Carpio has a$ain $race' the Court4s rulin$s in this case +ith his t!picall! incisi1e'issentin$ opinion. Still" I cannot a$ree +ith his 1ie+s. ?e asserts that the sole 'isciplinin$authorit! of all i#peachable officers" inclu'in$ the ,ustices of this Court" lies in Con$ress. This

is 5uite true but onl! +ith respect to i#peachable offenses that consist in 3culpable 1iolation ofthe Constitution" treason" briber!" $raft an' corruption" other hi$h cri#es" or betra!al of publictrust"3(all offenses that +arrant the re#o1al of such officers an' 'is5ualification for hol'in$ an!office in the $o1ern#ent.)The Supre#e Court has no intention of e7ercisin$ the po+er ofi#peach#ent that belon$s to Con$ress alone.

Certainl!" ho+e1er" the Supre#e Court has the a'#inistrati1e authorit! to in1esti$ate an''iscipline its #e#bers for official infractions that 'o not constitute i#peachable offenses. This is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt22bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt23bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt24bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt25bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt26bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt27bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt28bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt29bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt30bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt31bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt32bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt33bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt22bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt23bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt24bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt25bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt26bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt27bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt28bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt29bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt30bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt31bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt32bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#rnt33bhttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt1ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt2a


94/102

a conse5uence of the Court4s Constitutional po+er of 3a'#inistrati1e super1ision o1er all courtsan' the personnel thereof.302hen the Court 'eci'e' earlier the pla$iaris# char$e file' a$ainst,ustice Mariano -el Castillo b! the petitioners in inu!a" it +as un'er a belief that 3pla$iaris#"3+hich is not e1en a statutor! offense" is an a'#inistrati1e infraction. The petitioners in that case'i' not the#sel1es ob;ect to the procee'in$s con'ucte' b! the Court4s Ethics Co##ittee.

Subse5uentl!" a co#plaint for i#peach#ent +as file' a$ainst ,ustice -el Castillo before the?ouse of Representati1es base' on the sa#e char$e of pla$iaris#. The Court cannot 'o an!thin$about that but it is not the Court" 'en!in$ the #otion for reconsi'eration file' in the present case"+hich +ill pro1o&e a constitutional crisis@ if e1er" it is the ?ouse of Representati1es that +ill 'oso" seein$ that the Court has alrea'! acte' on such a char$e un'er an honest belief thatpla$iaris# is an a'#inistrati1e rather than an i#peachable offense.

2hether pla$iaris# is an a'#inistrati1e or an i#peachable offense nee' not be 'eci'e' b! theCourt in this case since no actual 'ispute has arisen bet+een Con$ress an' the Court re$ar'in$ it.

As for the alle$e' 1iolation of the cop!ri$ht la+ in this case" it shoul' be sufficient to point outthat no such char$e has been lo'$e' a$ainst ,ustice -el Castillo. 2hat is #ore" the Court has noori$inal ;uris'iction o1er cop!ri$ht la+ 1iolations. I reser1e in the appropriate case #! 1ie+ on+hether or not liftin$ fro# cop!ri$hte' articles" +ithout attribution" solel! for the purpose ofren'erin$ a 'ecision" constitutes 1iolation of the cop!ri$ht la+.

,ustice Sereno casti$ates the #a;orit! in the Court for lo+erin$ the stan'ar's for ;u'icialscholarship" ne$atin$ the e'ucati1e an' #oral 'irectional 1alue in the +ritin$ an' publishin$ of'ecisions" ben'in$ o1er bac&+ar's to 'en! the ob;ecti1e e7istence of $ross pla$iaris#" an'con'onin$ 'ishonest! in the e7ercise of a function central to the role of the courts.

But our courts are in the business" not of 3;u'icial scholarship"3 but of 'eci'in$ fairl! an'honestl! the 'isputes before the#" usin$ prece'ents an' le$al literature that" accor'in$ toA#erican scholars" belon$ to the public 'o#ain. If this is not honest +or& for a ;u'$e" I 'o not&no+ +hat is.

An' ,ustice Sereno has no ri$ht to preach at the e7pense of the #a;orit! about 3e'ucati1e an'#oral 'irectional 1alue3 in +ritin$ publishe' articles. :or one thin$" her stan'ar's are ob1iousl!for +or& 'one in the aca'e#e" not for the ;u'$e plo''in$ at his 'es& to perfor# $o1ern#ent+or&. :or another" I note that on occasions she has breache' those 1er! stan'ar's" liftin$ fro#+or&s of others +ithout proper attribution.

Ta&e ,ustice Sereno4s article" To+ar' the :or#ulation of a Philippine Position in Resol1in$Tra'e an' In1est#ent -isputes in APEC.3=Un'er the section subtitle' 3The 2TO -isputeSettle#ent Mechanis#"3 she sai' in the footnote that 3this section is 'ra+n fro# Article KKan' KKIII of the ATT (FF=" Un'erstan'in$ on -ispute Settle#ent" an' 2or&in$ Proce'ures.3To #e" this #eans that in +ritin$ the section" she 're+ i'eas fro# these four ATT issuances.

I a# repro'ucin$ belo+ the be$innin$ portions of ,ustice Sereno4s +or& that are rele1ant to this'iscussion. I un'erline +hat she copie' 1erbati# fro# Anne7 ) of the eneral A$ree#ent onTariffs an' Tra'e ATT (FF=" entitle' 3Un'erstan'in$ on Rules an' Proce'ures o1ernin$the Settle#ent of -isputes"3 or 3Un'erstan'in$ on -ispute Settle#ent3 for short.

The 2TO -ispute Settle#ent Mechanis#

-ispute settle#ent un'er the 2TO #echanis# is the pro#pt settle#ent of situations in +hich a#e#ber consi'ers that an! benefit accruin$ to it 'irectl! or in'irectl! un'er the 2TO A$ree#entis bein$ i#paire' b! #easures ta&en b! another #e#ber. A 'ispute settle#ent #echanis# ai#sto secure a positi1e solution to a 'ispute. Thus" a solution #utuall! acceptable to the parties to a'ispute is preferre'. ?o+e1er" in the absence of a #utuall! a$ree' solution" the first ob;ecti1e is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt3ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt4ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt3ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt4a


95/102


96/102

copie' fro# it an'" further" in'icate' a clear intent to 'o further cop!in$ 'o+n the line. But she'i' not. Properl!" she coul' ha1e +ritten.)" ATT Anne7 )

2hen a panel or the AB conclu'es that a#easure is inconsistent +ith a co1ere'a$ree#ent" it shall reco##en' that the#e#ber concerne' brin$ the #easure into

confor#it! +ith that a$ree#ent. Ina''ition to its reco##en'ations" the panelor AB #a! su$$est +a!s b! +hich the#e#ber concerne' coul' i#ple#ent thereco##en'ations. pa$e

2here a panel or the Appellate Bo'!conclu'es that a #easure is inconsistent+ith a co1ere' a$ree#ent" it shallreco##en' that the Me#ber concerne'

brin$ the #easure into confor#it! +iththat a$ree#ent. In a''ition to itsreco##en'ations" the panel or AppellateBo'! #a! su$$est +a!s in +hich theMe#ber concerne' coul' i#ple#ent thereco##en'ations.

Article (F.(" ATT Anne7 )

The -SB shall a'opt the report +ithin /*'a!s of the issuance of a panel report tothe #e#bers" unless one of the parties to

the 'ispute for#all! notifies the -SB of its'ecision to appeal" or the -SB 'eci'es b!consensus not to a'opt the report. If thepanel report is on appeal" the panel reportshall not be consi'ere' for a'option b! the-SB until the co#pletion of the appeal.pa$e D9

2ithin /* 'a!s after the 'ate of circulationof a panel report to the Me#bers" thereport shall be a'opte' at a -SB #eetin$

unless a part! to the 'ispute for#all!notifies the -SB of its 'ecision to appealor the -SB 'eci'es b! consensus not toa'opt the report. If a part! has notifie' its'ecision to appeal" the report b! the panelshall not be consi'ere' for a'option b! the-SB until after co#pletion of the appeal.

Article (/.=" ATT Anne7 )

It #a! uphol'" #o'if!" or re1erse the le$alfin'in$s an' conclusions of the panel. pa$e

The Appellate Bo'! #a! uphol'" #o'if!or re1erse the le$al fin'in$s an'conclusions of the panel.

Article (D.(0" ATT Anne7 )

Note that the AB re1ie+s onl! issues ofla+ co1ere' in the panel report an' le$alinterpretation 'e1elope' b! the panel.pa$e

An appeal shall be li#ite' to issues of la+co1ere' in the panel report an' le$alinterpretations 'e1elope' b! the panel.

Article (D./" ATT Anne7 )

The -SB shall &eep un'er sur1eillance thei#ple#entation of a'opte'reco##en'ation or rulin$s. An! #e#ber#a! raise the issue of i#ple#entation ofthe reco##en'ations or rulin$s at the-SB an!ti#e follo+in$ their a'option.pa$e

The -SB shall &eep un'er sur1eillance thei#ple#entation of a'opte'reco##en'ations or rulin$s. The issue ofi#ple#entation of the reco##en'ations orrulin$s #a! be raise' at the -SB b! an!Me#ber at an! ti#e follo+in$ theira'option.

Article )(./" ATT Anne7 )


98/102

oin$ to another ite# in the sa#e article" ,ustice Sereno copies si$nificant lines fro#Oppenhei#4s Treatise +ithout #a&in$ an attribution to that +or&.

Sereno" ,. Ori$inal +or& Oppenhei#4s Treatise

In #e'iation" the thir' part! facilitates thene$otiations bet+een the partiesconcerne'. It in1ol1es 'irect con'uct ofne$otiations bet+een the parties at issueon the basis of proposals #a'e b! the#e'iator.

On the other han'" $oo' offices are afrien'l! offer b! a thir' part!" +hich triesto in'uce 'isputants to ne$otiate a#on$the#sel1es. Such efforts #a! consist of

1arious &in's of actions ten'in$ to callne$otiations bet+een conflictin$ statesinto e7istence. pa$e ((

The 'ifference bet+een $oo' offices an'#e'iation is that" +hereas $oo' officesconsist in 1arious &in's of action ten'in$to call ne$otiations bet+een the conflictin$States into e7istence" #e'iation consists ina 'irect con'uct of ne$otiations bet+eenthe 'ifferin$ parties on the basis ofproposals #a'e b! the #e'iator.

Oppenhei#" International La+" A Treatise1olu#e ) pa$e (( (F)*

,ustice Sereno e7plains that 3trite" co##on" stan'ar' state#ents3 li&e the ones she copie' fro#Oppenhei# has 3nothin$ ori$inal at all about the#3 an' nee' no citation or 5uotation #ar&s.This is true. In'ee'" the Court ac&no+le'$e' in its October ()" )*(* 'ecision that no pla$iaris#coul' be co##itte' respectin$ 3co##on 'efinitions an' ter#s" abri'$e' histor! of certainprinciples of la+" an' si#ilar fre5uentl! repeate' phrases that" in the +orl' of le$al literature"alrea'! belon$ to the public real#.3 But I cite the abo1e because ,ustice Sereno +oul' not $rantto ,ustice -el Castillo the libert! to use co##on 'efinitions an' ter#s in his ponencia +ithout

the correct attribution.

In the ori$inal 'raft of this concurrin$ opinion that I circulate' a#on$ the #e#bers of the Court"I #entione' an article publishe' in )**D that ,ustice Sereno +rote +ith t+o others entitle',ustice an' the Cost of -oin$ Business./I foun' that a portion of this article appeare' to ha1ebeen repro'uce' +ithout attribution fro# a )**> publication" the Asian -e1elop#ent Ban&Countr! o1ernance Assess#ent Philippines )**>.D,ustice Sereno has since e7plaine' to #!satisfaction that such portion ca#e fro# the three co9authors4 earlier )**( report sub#itte' to the2orl' Ban& 2B. I a# 'roppin$ it as a case of o#ission of attribution.

Parentheticall!" ho+e1er" in the aca'e#ic #o'el" 3'ual an' o1erlappin$ sub#issions3 is a thesis

+riter4s sin. It si#pl! #eans that the sa#e aca'e#ic +or& is sub#itte' to $ain cre'it for #orethan one aca'e#ic course.In the publishin$ +orl'" +hile not prohibite' across the boar'" la+;ournals an' re1ie+s fro+n upon authors +ho sub#it #anuscripts +hich ha1e been pre1iousl!publishe' else+here" since the purpose of publication is the circulation an' 'istribution ofori$inal scholarship an' the practice +oul' per#it the author to be cre'ite' t+ice for the sa#e+or&.

Notabl!" fro# the papers she furnishe' the #e#bers of the Court" it +oul' see# that the 2B-anish Trust :un' co##issione' an' pai' for the )**( stu'! that ,ustice Sereno an' her co9authors un'ertoo&. In'ee'" the co1er pa$e of the 2B paper she also pro1i'e' sho+s that it +aspart of the 3-ocu#ent of the 2orl' Ban&.3 I +oul' assu#e" ho+e1er" that ,ustice Sereno

obtaine' 2B authori%ation for the subse5uent publication of the report in )**D.

Ne7t" in her #e#oran'u# for petitioners9inter1enors :ran&lin M. -rilon an' A'el A. Ta#ano inPro1ince of North Cotabato" et al. 1. o1ern#ent of the Republic of the Philippines Peace an'Panel on Ancestral -o#ain" et al."F,ustice Sereno lifte' a fa#ous phrase fro# the Unite' States4case of Ba&er 1. Carr" (/F U.S. (*" +ithout #a&in$ attribution to her source.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt6ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt7ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt8ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt8ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt9ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt9ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt6ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt7ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt8ahttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/feb2011/am_10-7-17-sc_2011.html#fnt9a


99/102

,. Sereno Ori$inal 2or& Ba&er 1. Carr

Secon'" there is no lac& of a;u'iciall! 'isco1erable an'#ana$eable stan'ar' for resol1in$

the 5uestion" nor i#possibilit! of'eci'in$ the 5uestion +ithout aninitial polic! 'eter#ination of a &in'clearl! for non9;u'icial 'iscretion.

Pro#inent on the surface of an! case hel' toin1ol1e a political 5uestion is foun' a te7tuall!'e#onstrable constitutional co##it#ent of the

issue to a coor'inate political 'epart#ent@ or alac& of ;u'iciall! 'isco1erable an' #ana$eablestan'ar's for resol1in$ it@ or the i#possibilit! of'eci'in$ +ithout an initial polic! 'eter#inationof a &in' clearl! for non9;u'icial 'iscretion 7 7 7

Ba&er 1. Carr" (/F U.S. (/

,ustice Sereno e7plains that" since she earlier cite' Ba&er 1. Carr in her #e#oran'u#" it +oul'be utterl! pointless to re5uire her to repeat her citation as often as e7cerpts fro# the case appear'o+n the line. It is not 5uite pointless because one +ho copies fro# the +or& of another has an

obli$ation" she insists in her 'issent" to #a&e an attribution to his source. Other+ise" a +riter cansi#pl! sa! at the start of his article that he is cop!in$ fro# a list of na#e' cases an' it +oul' beup to the rea'er to $uess +here the copie' portions are locate' in that article. An e7planation li&ethis fro# an aca'e#ician is 'isheartenin$.

In another article" Uncertainties Be!on' The ?ori%on< The Meta#orphosis of the 2TOIn1est#ent :ra#e+or& In The Philippine Settin$"(*,ustice Sereno also copie' fro# the 2orl'Tra'e Or$ani%ation fact sheet on line prepare' b! the Unite' States -epart#ent of A$riculture+ithout usin$ 5uotation #ar&s" an' #a'e the #aterial appear to be her o+n ori$inal anal!sis.Thus

,ustice Sereno copie' the abo1e 1erbati# in her article entitle' La+!ers4 Beha1ior an' ,u'icial-ecision9Ma&in$((publishe' in the Philippine La+ ,ournal" +ithout 5uotation #ar&s orattribution to ,u'$e Posner. Thus" she +rote

a.m. no. 10-7-17-sc february 8, 2011 del castillo plagiarism

Documents