impeachment againts del castilio

8/8/2019 Impeachment Againts Del Castilio

1/61

Republic of the PhilippinesHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Quezon City

IN TFIE MATTER OF THEIMPEACHMENT OF SUPREME COURTASSOCIATE TUSTICEMARIANO C. DELCASTILLO,

ISABELITAC. VINUYA,PILAR Q. CALANG,

MAXINTAR. DE LA CRUZ,LEONOR H. SUMAWANG,MARIA L.QUILANTANG,HON. REYNALDOV. UMALI,HON. BERNADETTER. FIERRERA-DY,HON. IOSEPH VTCTORG. EJERCTTOHON. CESAR V. SARMIENTO,HON. IRVIN M. ALCALA,HON. FLORENCTO . FLORES, R.,HON. VICENTE F. BELMONTE, R.HON. TEODORO B. BAGUILAT, R.,HON. JORGE BOLET" BAN AL,JR.,HON. WALDEN F. BELLO,HON. KAKA J. BAG-AO,

Complainants.

HOI, 'S OF RIPR ]SENTATIVESOftlce f tfreSecretary eneral

Rffi#ffiflVEDooc, NC) -DATE /1 ', o_ 7111E' 3" Otf4zBY: /t r%r -dfq

VERIFIED MPEACHMENT COMPLAINT


2/61

COMPLAINAI{T'S, espectfully tarte hat:

PREFATORY

In Tu t a, Rosete (A.M. No. MT]-04-1563, scpterrnber B, 2004), the

Sr_rpremc ourt haci the occasion o state hat juciges or justices must aclhere o

the highest tcnets clf judiciarlconcluct "to promote ptrblic confidence in the

integrity an 4 impartiality of th e iudiciary because people's confidence in

th" iudi.ial s)rste* i, fo.,rlded not o.ly o. thema8titude of lggat

knowledee and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the

hiehest s tandarIt

D O S S C S S-

In Buennaenttry& . Benetlicfol, the Suprcme Court explained the dr-rty

of juclges o take or initiate appropriatc disciplinary measures against awyers

or collrt persouncl for impropcr conduct, to wit:

Oftetr t i rnes. . . leniency rovides thc cottrt employees he opporfunity to

commit rnilor trarrsgressions of tl-re aws an d slight breaches of official

duty glt imatel) , leading to vicious delinquencies. The respondent udge

should constarr t ly kecp a watchfr:l eye olr the conduct of hiscmployecs. IJe shoulci real ize that big fires star t small . F{is constant

scrutiny of the trchavior of his ernployees wottld deter an y abuse on th e

part of th c lattcr in th e exercise of their duties. Thcn, his subordinates

woglcl check that any misclenreanor will no t retnain uncheckcd' Tlee

sl ightcst scmblance of impropriety on the part of the employecs of the

court in t6e performance of their official cltrties stirs ripples of pr-rblic

sr-rspicion and public cl is trust of the judicial administrators . The

sl ightest brcach of cluty by and the sl ightest rrcgulari ty in the conduct

6f conrt clfficers and cmployecs dctract frclm th e c-lignity of the cottrts

an d erocle he faith of th e peoplc in th c iucliciary.

' Adtn. Clasc vo .137-J .Nla rc l r 7 . 1()11


3/61

What is irrvolved n the present case s not just a slight breach of dut1. ora minor trarrsgression. The public official invoived is not just arr ordinarl,court persorrnel or judg.. This case involves an Associate Justice of theSuprerne Court, tt'ho, because of inexcusable acts of intellectual dishonesf,iras dragged iris colieagues n tire Court, the entjre Supreme Court, and th ecountrl"s jttstice svstem n a controversy that has caused not n-rere ipples, but\A'/aves f ptrblic suspicion an d distrust in th e justice system.

Hi s acts constitute betrayal of public trust. A mere disciplinary actionH'i1l no t suffice, considering the gravity of the action and its effects op theentire nation. Impeachment should be the appropriate remedy.

NATURE OF THE COMPLAINT

This is a verified Impeachment Complaint brought under Article XI ,

Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution against Supreme Court Associate Justice

Mariano C. Del Castillo on the ground of betrayal of public trust.

THE PARTIES

The Complainants, Isabelita C. Vinu'/a, Pilar Q. Galang, Maxima R. De

La Cruz, Leonor H. Sumaw arLg, Maria L. Quilant ang, (hereinafter

"Complainants"), ar e ali Filipino citizens, of legal age, and residents of the

Philippines. They ar e members of Malaya Lolas, a non-governmental

organtzation that provides aid to victims of rape by the Japanese mperial

forces n the Philippines during the Second World war.

They may be served summons and other processes of the Honorable

House of Representatives at c/o KAISA KA, Libertad St., Mandaiuyong Ciry


4/61

The other Cornpiainants Hon. Rey'naldo V. Urnali , Hon. Bernadette R.

Herrera-D),, Flon. Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, Hon. Cesar V. Sarmiento, Hon.

Irvin Ir,{.Alcala, Horr. Florencio T. Flores, Jr.,Hon. Vicente F. Belmonte,

Jr.,Hon. Teodoro B. Baguilat, Jr., F{on. orge "Bo\et" Banal, Jr., FIon. Walden F-

Belio, Hon. Kaka J Bag-ao, are incumbent members of the House of

Representatives, nd may be sen,ed surnmons hrough their respective offices

at tire House of Representatives.

The Respondent, ustice Mariano C. Del Castillo (hereinafter Justice

Del Castilio") s an incumbent Associate ustice of the Supreme Court and is

being sued n his officialcapacity. He assumed fficeas Associate ustice f

the Supreme Court on29 Jrrly 2009. He rose rom the ranks of the udicrary,

having served as Municipal Trial Court Judge from 7989 o 7992,Regional

Trial Court Judge rom 7992 o 2001 and Court of Appeals Associate ustice

from 2007 ntil his appointment o the Supreme Court in July 2009. He may

be sen,ed summons and other processes of the Honorable House of

Representatives t the Supleme Court, Padre Faura St.,Ermtta,7000Manila.


5/61


6/61

3. So6n, the International Law prrofessors/authors ame forward with

thcir coml-rlaints egarcling hc. plagiarisnr ;rnd misttse of their works

by Just ice Del Cast i l lo .

4. In a lctter3 addressed o thc Slrpreme Coltrt , dated 23 July 2010, Dr.

Mark Ell is s ta tes:

"I wri te concenring a most del icatc isst te that has come to m)'

at tent ion n the last fcrv days.

Much as I regret Lo raisc this rnatter beforc yolrr cstecmed Court, I

am compelled, as a clttcstiou of the integrity of rny work as anacaclemic and as an aclvocate of htt tnan rights and hurnanitar ian

law, to take cxception to th e possible unattthorized us e of my law

review article olt rape as an intematir'rnal crime in yotrr esteemcd

Conrt's Jtrdgr-nent in the casc of Vinr-rya et. al. vs. Exectttivc

Sccre ta ry, . t . l . (C. l t . No. 162230, udgmcut of Apr i l 28 ,2010) .

X X X X X X X X X

In part icular, I am concernecl abr-rut a large part of the extensivc

clisctrssion n footnote 65, pp. 27-28, of the said Judgment of yourcsteemecl Cor-rrt. am also conccnrcd that yc-rur 'steenred Court may

harre misread the arguments I rnacle in the article atrd employed

thcm fo r cross-pLlrposcs. 'his r,r'ould be ironic since th e article was

writtcn preciscly to argtte fo r th c apPropriate legal remedy for war

crimes, gcnocide, ancl crimes against humanity.

I belicve a full copy of my article wa s published in th e Case Western

I{eserve Jor-trrral of In ternational Law in 2006 has been madc

available to your estccr-ned ourt. I trust that yollr estcemcd Court

wil l take thc t imc to careiul ly str-rdy hc argumcnts I made in thear t ic lc . "

2. Dr. Clhristian'l 'arns' ook, L,rt/orc'ing;,rga Onnes Obligution.s n Internctlionul 'av' , published y( ' a rnbr idge Jnivcrs i ty )rcss ;

3 . I ) r. Mark lr l l i s 'ar t i c lc n thc 2(X)6 ,olLrrncl 'C lascWestcr t t . lour t ta t l f Intcmat ional ,aw."llreuking the,\ilanc'e' On ll ope us etI lnlernutionul C'rime."

'ht!p;i1ur'^l.scr.i!4[.g.. , i tr/t |rlc/.-l9|i5tlll l / l .citer.-!q[tc1lLrlrli9tlf-;!.[-q1I., |

I -l l)cccrnber 20 10.


7/61

5. On 19 July 2070,prof. Criclcllemacle public hi: complaint on the

mistrse of his works when he posted thc follor,ving n the website

Opinio ur s:

,,f1e rnotion strggests ha t th e Ccttrrt's clecision ctlntains thirty-four

scntenccs ancl citations that ar e iclentical to sentenccs an d citations in

my 2009 YJIL articlc (co-authorecl with Evan Fox-Decent). Professor

Irox-Dcce-nt atrtl I were tlllaware of th e petitioners' plagiarisrn

allcgations trntil aftcr tl-remotiorl wa s filecl toclay.

Spcaking for m1'5gif , he

collens discussion is thatcrimcs against lr t turauitY,

cogelrs -lorlns. Our article

nrost tror-rbling aspect of th c court's jtts

i t implies that tl-re prohibi t ions againstsexual slavcry, ancl tclrture are not jus

emphatical ly asserts he opposi te . " a

6. Then, in a letters aclc'lressed o Chiei Justice Renato Corona, dated 18

Atrgtrst 2070, Professclr atns statcs:

"M y name is Christian J. Tams, ancl I arrt a professor of international

law at t he Universi ty of Glasgow. I am writ ing to you ir-r elat ion to

t6 e us e of on e of my pr,rblications n the above-mcntioncd judgment

of yor-tr lotrot trable Court.

The relevant passage of thc judgment is to be for-rnd n P. 30 of yotlr

Cotrrt 's Judgment, in the sect ion addressing the concept of

obligations erga omtles. As the table annexed to this letter shows,

tl-re clerrant sentences werc taken almost word by word from th e

introcitrctory chapter of my book Errforcing obligations E,rga omnes

in 1-rternatiolal Law (Cambriclge Universi ty Press 2005). note that

there is a generic rcfereuce to my work in foobnote 69 of th e

Judgment, bu t as this is in relation to a citation from another attthor

(Bruno Simma) rathcr than wit h respcct o the substantive passages

o1rturlqp-Lni9jqris.i4g1)I|)lo]t_l2itntqtlil!'rql'}1.l.L':-:pJ.agjurs:rtq:l-ralgq-b-e,d'9':.jb.t!uLtlpi

justlcc/ ccesscd n IJ [)ccentber (1 0.3 lu,U-ftt ta-tcribrl.!t!1111:d,I1]985QL(lll,utrs:.L,r11c1--Q.:SUlttlq-lotrr!,ccessed rt l3 l)ecemher 0 10.


8/61

rerpr()chlcccln the Juclgment,I do not t i r ink it cirn be consiclerecl tr

approPriate form oi referencing'

I am part icr-r lar ly oncenrctL hat my work shott id havc been trsed to

suppgrt thc Judgrnerrt 's catttious approach :cl the crga omnes

conc-ept. 11 fact, a most ftlrsory reacling shows that my book'scentral thesis is prccisely th e oppositc: tramely that th e crga onlrles

conccpt ha s bcen ',,n'iclely accepted aucl hars a firm place in

coltemporary inter:national law. Hettcc' th e introductory chapter

lgtcs that "[t]he present st t rcly attempts tcl demystify aspects of the'rzry rnysterions ' concept .anci thcrcby to faci l i tate i ts

irnplernentation" (p.S). In th e same trein, tl-re conch-rding section

lcttes that "the precccl ing chapters shclw that the concept is now a

part of Lhe. reai i ty of inte.matjonal law, cstablishcd in the

jr-rrispruclence f cotrrts ancl te pracfice of Statcs" (p - 309).

With cltrc respect to yollr Flonourablc Ctturt, I am at a loss t o see

how my work shouJcl havc been citecl to support - as i t seemingly

6as - thc opposi te approach. More generarl l | , am concerned at thc

way i1 whic-h )/our l- lonolrable Court 's judgment has drawnon

scholarl l , work without propcrlY acknowlcdging it '"

7. The extent of the- plagiarisnl and misrepresentatictn one by Justice

Del Castil lo is Lrestappreciated from the tables drawn by Suprcme

Cotrrt Assctciatc ustice Maria Lotrrdes P.A. Scrcno n hcr dissenting

opiniop6 in the case "In thc Mattcr of the Charges of Plagiarism

Against Associatc ust icc Mariano Dcl Cast i l lo (A.M. No. 10-7-77-SC,

l5 October 2010), l r t rs :

TABLE A: Comparisonof Christian

J.Tams's book, entitled En.forcing

Ergn Omnes OLtligntionsr Internntionnl uro (2005), ereinafter alled

"Tan-ls's work" anc-l he Supreme Cottrt 's 28 April 2010 Decision n

Vitturln, t.nl,u. Exccutirte ccretnrtl.

n!1tplscjtrcliciar), .gtlr, , .pUjLrruptlcjcncc/]0l.J)ioc.t


9/61

l .

CHRISTIAN I. TAMS,ENFORCING ERGA OMNESOBLIGATIONS INTNTERNATIONALLAW (2005).

xxx The Latirr phrase crgn onlt lcs 'thus has become on e of the

rallying cries of those sharing a

betief iu th e cmergellcc of a

value-bascd nternat iotral puLrl ic

ordcr based on law. xxx

As ofterr, he rcal i ty is nei ther so

clear r-ror o bright. One problem

is rcarl i ly admittec-l bY

colnrnentators: r,t,hatever th ere evancc of obligations erga

onltlcs as a legal conccpt, its full

potential remaitrs to be realised

in pract ice. xxx Brttno Simma's

nruch-quoted observat ion

encapsLllates this fceling of

d sappointmen :'Viewed

real is t ical ly, the world of

obligatiolls c/'t/7 )ttttlcs s still th e

worlcl of the "ottgl-lt" rather thanOf the " rs"

Vimtyn, et.

Secretnrtl, G.R.

Apri l 2010.

"The Latin phrase,'er[]a

olTltles,'ha s since become one of th e

ral lying crjes of those sharing a

belief in th e emergetlce of a

value-basc'd international public

order. I{owever, as s so often th e

case, hc rcal i ty is nei thcr so clear

no r so bright. Whatc'u'err th e

relevance of obligations erga

orxncs as a legal concePt, ts full

potential remains to be real izeditr pract icc. l rrN6elp. 30, Rocly of

the 28 Apri l 2010 Decision)

llrN6'rlBruncl Simma's tnuch-

cluoted observation encapsulates

this feeling of d saPPointment:'Vier,,r,ed realistic ally, th e world

oi obligations erga omnes is still

tlre wclrlcl of tlte "ott ght" rather

tlran of the " is"' TI{E CHARTEI{OF TI{E UNITED NATIONS: A

COMMENTAITY 125 (Simma, ed.

1995). Scc Tams, Enforcing

Obl iga t i ons Ergn orn l r c s i n

International La w (2005).

*The decisionChristian Tatns's

footnote 69.

mentionedbook in

nl . a .No.

Execrftizte1,62230, 28

(pp. 3-4 ofbook)

Chr i s t i an Ta tns ' s

TABLE B: Comparison f Evan J.the Yale Tournal f lnternational

Criddle & EvanLaw, enti t led A

9

Fox-Decent 's rt icle n

Fiducinry Theory of ILts


10/61

Cogens QA09), hereinafter called " Criddle'sthe Supreme Court 's 28 Apri[ 2010 Decision

Secretnrtl.

Irox-Decent's work" andVitruun, t nl . u. Executiae

&in

Ilvan J.Decent,Coge s,(200e).

Criddle & Evan Fox-A FiducinrrlTlrcorry f lus34 YALE J. INT'L L. 331

In intemational la\.{', the tertn"lm cogens" (l i tcral ly,"compcll ing law") refcrs tonorms that comrnandpcrenlptory anthority,supcrseding corrfl ctir-rg treatie'sand custom. xxx Jtrs cogensN O T M S arc consicleredpcremptory in the sense thathey are mandatory, clo notadrnit derogation, anci can bcmoclifieci only by gencralinternat ional l"lormsecluivalcn authori ty. lxzl

ll;N2l ,e e Vienna Convention ontlrc Law of Treaties art. 53,ope'ncc-l or signattire Moy 2.3,1969, 1155 U.N.] ' .S . 331 , I .L .M.679 [hereinafter VCf Tl .

(pp. 337-332 of thc Yale Lawjotrrnal of Int'l l-aw)

I'}eremptory nonns Lrcgan toattract grcatcr scholarlyattcntion r,r,ith hc . pulrlicaticlr ofAlfred von Verclross 'sinfltrential 1937 article,Forbidclen T'rcat ies inInternat ional Law.U:N]l

xxx but peremptory normsbegan to attract grcater scholarly

at tcnt ion with the publicat ion ofAlfrcd von Verdross 's nfluential1937 art icle , Forbidden -freat ies

in Irrternational Law. trxzzJp. 31,Body of thc 28 April 2010Dccision)

Vinmln,et . nl .u. Executiac

Secretnnl, .R.No. 162230,28April 201,0

In intcmational law, the term"jlrs cr-rgcns" (literally,"ccrmpelling law" ) refers tonorms thatpcrernptclrlr

commandauthority,

strperseding conflicting treatiesan d custorn. Ju s cogens normsar e cor-rsidered percmptory inlhe sensc t]rat they ar emanclatory, do uot adrni tderogation, an d catr bc moc{ifiedonly by gcneral intemationalnc)rnrs of equivalentauthori ty. l rrNT0lpp. 30-31, Bodyof the 28 Apr i l 2010l )cc is ion)

ll;N701Lr eVierrtra Cotrveution on

tlrc Law of J ' reat ies ar t . 53,

opernec{ or signature Muy 23,1 .969 ,1155 .N .T.S . 31 , 8 I .L .M.67 L)lhercina fter VCLTI.

t 0


11/61

lFNrolror exatnple, ilr th e 7934

Oscar Chim Casc, JtrdgcSchiicking's influential dissent

statecl that nei ther al t intema-

t ional court nor alt arbitral

t r ibunal shottlcl apply a t reatyprorris ion irr cotrtracl cti


12/61


13/61

colrcurring and disserrting

opiniclns. l l ;Nroi xx

tFNelWill iarn IJall , A Treatise t ' rn

Intcrnational I .aw 382-83 (8th

ed. 1921) (asscr t ing tha t"lttttdatne-ntal

internatiorral" inva l ida tc [ ,voiclabie,"internat ionalI -assa

prirrciplcs oflaw" nray

or at lcast rcnderconf l ic t ing

allrcerrcrrts); 1Oppen-hcittt,

Intc.rnationa l .alt ' 52u (1905).

[rNro] or cxample, in the 1931

Oscar Chinn Case, JuclgeSchticking's influrcntial dissentstated that neithcr an interna-t ionai ccl lrr t nor an arbi tralt r i l runal shoulcl apply a treatyprovisit-rn in contradiction toborros mores. Oscar Chinr-r Case,7934 P.C.I.J. ser. A/ts) No. 63, at149-50 (Dec. 12 ) (Schiicking, J. ,d i ssent ing) .

(pp. 334-5 of th e Yale Lar,r'

Jour rna l f In t ' l I -aw)

"f t tndamenta l

intcrn. l t ional" inva l ic la fe [ ] ,

voidaLrle,"

or art cast rerrdcr

co l r f l i c t i ng

(p 31 , Footnote 7' I of th e

Apri l 2010 Decision)

lr ;N7rlxxx (Will iarn Hall , ATre atise olr International I-aw382-83 (Bth ecl. 7924) (assertingthat "fundamental principles of

28

trrNel i l l iam FIall , A Treat ise onIntcnrat ional Law 382-83 (8thec1. 1924) (assertirrg that

prirrciples ofIa\A," may internat ional law" may

"invalidate [.],or at lcast render

voidable ," con lictin giuternat ional agreements) xx international agreements) xx x

(Footnote 9 of thc Yale Law

Journ:rl of Int ' l Law)

(p 31,, Footnote 71 of the 28April 2070 Decision)

r3


14/61

lfNrol Fctr cxample, in the 1934

Oscar Ch nn Casc, Jud ge

Schuc-king's nfl t rent ial dissentstated that nei thcr an

internat ional coltrt nc>r al larbitral tribtrr-ral irould apply a

trcaty provision in contradict ionto bonos mores. Oscar ChinnCase, 1934 P.C.f J. ser. A/l l) No.63 , at 719-50 (Dec. 12)(Schucking, .,disscnting).

lFNTrl xx (For er:ample, in thc

1931 Oscar Chinn Case, JudgeSchticking's influential dissentstated that nci ther al-I

internat ional ctlurt nor anarbitrai t r ibunal should apply a

treaty provisi


15/61

(pp . 335-6 oi the Yalc Law

Jor-rrnal f lnt ' i Law)

(p 37 , Irootnote 72 of th e 28

Apr i i 2010 Decis ior r )

IFNrslSec Lauri Flannikainen,

Peremptory Norrns (Jus Cogcns)

in Internat ional Law: Historical

Development, Cri ter ia , Prescnt

Status 150 (1988) (surveYing

legal scholarship during the

periocl 1945-69 an d rc'Porting

that "abott t eightY frer cent [ofscholarsl held the t-rpinion that

there are peremptory tlormsexis t i r rg n in temat ior ra l aw") .

(Footnote 18 of the Yale Law

Jc-rumal f Int ' l Law)

Flanrrikainen,Nortns (Jtrs t:ogens) ln

Intemational Law: Historical

Developmcnt, Criteria, Present

Status 150 (1988) (surveYing

tegal scholarship during th e

period 7945-69 an d rePorting

thaf "abott t eighty Per cent lof

scholarsl held the opinion thatthcre are pc'remPtorY norn'ls

exist ing n internat ional aw").

(p. 31, Footnotc 72 of thc 28April 2010Dccision)

lrrNT2l XXX e LauriPeremptory

xxx the 1950s r rd 1960s wi th the

Unitccl Nations InternatioualLaw Comnrission 's (lLC)

prcparat ion of the Vienna

Convention ol'l tire La w of'l'rca tics (VCLT). FN2ol

urN2{)lCLT, stlpra trote 2.

(p. 336 of the Yale Lan' Journalof Int'l l-aw)

xxx the 1950s and 1960s with th e

lI.C's preparat ion of the ViennaCouvetrtion on th e Law of-I'reatie's(VC LT). rrN73]

(p. 31, Body of the 28 APrii 2010

Decisiorr)

urN73ln March 1953, th e ILC's

Special Ilapporteur, Si r Hcrsch

Latrterpacht, submitted fo r th e

I[-.C's cclnsideratiou a Partialclra t convention on trea ies

wlr ich s ta tec i ha t " [a l t rea tY, or

any of i ts provisions, is void if

i ts perft)rmance involves an act

whicir is i i legal under

internat ional law ancl if i t is

l 5

clcclared so to be bY th c


16/61

1 1 . In lv{archsubmitted

Intcrnat ional

Jttstice." r ' \2r

in tenra t iona l law anddeclared so to be

'1953, Lauterpachtfor the ILC's

Internatiorral Cclt t r t of Just icc."Flersch Lauterpachi , Law clf'freatics: lteport ir]' SpecialRapportetrr, 1953] Y.B. Int ' l I-.

Comnt 'n 90, 93, U.N. Doc.

A/CN.4/(r3.

lrrNT3lrr March 1953, tl 're ILC'sSpccial llarpporteur, Sir l-Icrsch[.auterpacht, snbnrittcd lor thc 'ILC's considerat ion a part ialdraft conventicln on treaties

which statcc{ hat "[al treaty, or

any of its provisions, is void ifits perforrnance involves an actwhich is illegal utrderintcrnat ional law and if i t is

cleclared so to be by theIntemational Cottr t of Just ice."Hersch Lauterpacht, Law ofTreat ics: Report by SpecialI lapporteur, [1953] 2 Y.B. Int ' l L.

Cornm'n 90, 93, U.N. Doc.

A/CN.4/63.

(p 37, Footnote 73 of the 28Apr i l 2010 Dccis ion)

considerat ion a partial clraftconvention or1 treat ies whicl-rs ta ted ha[ "[a l t rea t f or any ofi ts provisions, is voicl i f i ts

performance involves an actwhich i s i l lega l undcr

Cou t

if i t isby the

o f

[rrN21llersch ,arrtcrpracht, -aw of'['reaties: Ileport by Sp-recialI{apportcur, [1953j 2 Y.B. Int ' l ] -.

Cornnr'n c)0, 93 , U.N. I)oc.A/CN.1163.

(p. 336 of thc Yalc Law Journalof In t ' l Law)

72. Lautcrpacht 's col leagr-res n thcIL C gcncrally acceptecl his

Thotrgh Lhere was a consensllsthat certairr iLrternaLional normslracl at tained thc status of jus

coqens, IrNT+l]1 g LC wa s unableto reach a conse'nslls on theprolrcr criteria fo r iclentifyingperemptory n()rn ' ls .

(p . 31, Body of the 28 April 2010Dccis ion)

assessment

internat ionai

that ccrtain

norrns ha dattainccl thc stafr.rs of jus cogcns .llrN23l Yet despitc generral

agrccmcnt ovcr the existence clf

intcrnarticlnal ju s cogens, the I[,C

was Llnable to reach a colrscr-rslrs

regarding eithcr thc thc.oretical

1 6


17/61

basis for pcremptnry norms'lcgal ar.rthority 0r the propercriteriat fo r iclen ifyin g

peremptory norms.

lF\231 See f-Iannikainen, sllprarrcrtc 18, at 760-67 (r-roting that

none of the twenty fi vemenrlrers of th e I LC in 1963dcnied thc existencc of jus

cogens or contestcd theinchrsion of an articlc c)n jr-rs

cogens in the VCLT); sec, e.8.,Strnrrnary I{ecords of the 877thMeeting, 179561 1 Y.B. Int ' l L.

Comnr 'n 227,230-231, J.N. L)oc.A/CN.4/1t18 (rrotirrg that thc"emergcnce of a ntle of jtrs

cogens baming aggressiver wa ras an ilrtcrnational crirne" wasc.vidence that intcrnational lawcontains "minimum

reqlrirement[sl for safeguardi-rrgthc existe''nce f the internatiorralcommLlnity").

(p . 336 o1' he Yale l-aw Jor-rrnalof In t ' l Law)

lliN2rlxxx sce, e 8., SttrrrmaryI{ecords of the 877th Mccting,

[19661 1 Y.B. Int ' l L. Cornm'n227, 230-737, U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/188 (notirrg that thc

"emcrgcnce of a mle of juscogcns banning aggrcssive waras an intcrnat iclnal crirne" wasevidence tha t in te rna t iona l awcclntains "rninir-nurn

rcclu renrent[s] for" sa eguarclingthc existence of the intenrat ional

rt*tl 5"" t t*-." f


18/61

I tp 31, lrootnotc 7- + of tire 28April 2010 Decision

(Footnote

lo11aol_"123 of theIg.l t4w)

Yalc I-aw

After an cxtended debate overthese and other theorics of jus

cogerls, th e IL C concluclcd

rtrefr-rliv in 7963 that "there is

no t as yet any generallYacceptecl cri ter ion by which to

identify a general rnle of

interlrat ional law as having the

charactcr of jus cogclls.'/[rN27]xx

In commentary accolrtPanying

thc' draft cont etrtion, th e IL Cindicated that "t l tc pruclentcollrsc secms to be to . leavethe fr-rllcontent of this rule to be

worked out in State pract ice arrd

in th e jurisprudence of

internat ional tr ibunals . / ' IFN2elxx

lrrN2Tlecond l{cpc-rrtott thc Lawof -freatics, [1c)631 Y.B. Int ' l 1 ..

Comm'n.1 ,

52 , U.N. Doc.A/CN.4/15(r.

IFN-2elccond I{cpolt otr the La w

crf Treatiers, sttpra notc 27, at 53.

After an cxtencled debate ove'rthesc an d other theories of jus

cogcns, th e IL C co n clu dcd

rne'fr-rlly n 1963 that "there is

no t as yc t an y gcnerailY

acceptecl criterion by which tc r

idcntify a gencral rule tlf

internat ional law as having the

character of ius cogens. ' /[r;N7sin a

cor-nmentary accompanYing th e

dr a convcntion, th e IL Cinclicated tirat "tlte Pn-rdentcolrrse seems o bc to x x x leave

thc fLrll ct-rtrtent f this rule to L-re

workecl ou t in State practice and

in the jurispr-udence of

interna ional tribunalq.// FN76lxx

(p. 32,Body of the 28 Apri l 2010Decis on

lr;N7slecond l{eport on th e Law

of 'freaties, [19631 2 Y.B. Int ' l [ , .

Comnt 'n 1, 52, U.N. Doc.

A/CN.4/156.

(p. 337-8 f thc Yale Law Journalt-rfnt'l Law)

Pr,t d. at

IL

ItjNTTlxx In solnc mr-rnicipal

cases, courts harre declined tc lrecognizc international norms as

perernptt"rry while cxpressing

cloubt about the proper cri tcr ia cloutrt about the' proper criteria

{q L{gr,1-lrugru'r9t9l t .-r "I

municipal cascs, cottrtseclined to recognizeonal norms asory whi lc cxprcss ing

ln sonrehave dintc.rnatiperempt

l 8

for identifvine ius cogens. (Sce,


19/61

7 6 .

IFN72] ee, c.8., Sampson v.

Fccleral Rcptrbl ic of Gcrmatuy,250 F.3cl 7745, 1149 (7th Cir.2001) (exprcssing corlccrn that

irr cogens should be invokecl"[o]nly as a last re'sort").

@. 3a6 of the Yale l-aw Jor-rnalcti nt ' l L,aw)

In othcr cases, nat ional courts

have acccptecl intcrnat ionalnorms as pcremptory, br-rt havchesitatecl o enforcc these normsfor fear that thcy might there'bycclmnnrmise

Istatc'

sovereigntl ' . i l |VJJ xxx In Congov. Rwancla, f .or e xample, Jtrdgead hoc John Dugard observedthat th e ICJ hact rcfrained frominvoking thc jus cogcns concept

in several previous cases whereperemptrtry norlrls rnanifestlyclashed with othcr principles ofgeneral intcrnational law.ilrNZliSirni lar ly, he European Cor-rrt >fHuman Itights has adclrr.ssedjus cogens only once, in A1 -Adsani v. Unitecl Kingdom,whcn it farnously rejt'ctccl th eargument that jr-rs cogens

violat ions would cleprive a stateof sovercign mmunity.

UrNZJ Sec, c.g., Bouzari v. Iran,

[2004] 71 O.I{.3c1 675 (Can.)(holcling that the prohil'ritionagainst torture does not entai l ar

le\t _!q

e 8. , Sampson v. FederalIlepr,rblic of Gernrilrly,, 250 F.3d

7145, 7149 (7t l r Ci r. 2001)(expressing con(rcm that j tt

cogcrls should bc invoked

"[o l r r lyas a las t rcsor t" ) ) . xxx

(p 32, Footnote 77 of the 28ApriI 20'10Decisiorr)

l lrNTTlxx ln otlrer

cotr ts haveinterna ional

cases / nat ional

accepteclnorms as

pereffrptory, bu t havc hesitated

to enforcc these norms for fearthat they might therebycornprclmise state soverrcigrty.(See, .9., Rouzari v. Iran, [200117 L O.I{.3d 675 (Can.) (holcl ingthat the prohibi t ion aga nsttorture clocs not entail a right to

i:l civil remcdy, etrforceablc in aforeign court)) .

ln Corrgo . ll.lt,artdn, or example,

Judgc acl hc'rc John Dr"rgardobservcd that the f CI hadrefrained from invoking the Trrscoge s concept in severalttrevlol-lsl.

CASCS whereperemptory norms manifestly

clashed with othcr principlcs ofgencral irrternational law. (SecArrned Activities on th eTerritory of the Congo (Dem.Rtp. Conro u. Rwnndn)(Juclgnrcnt of Febrttarl, 3, 2006),a 2 (I)isscn irrg Opin ion of

l 9

Judge Dugard))


20/61

enforceab e it r a fclrt:ign court).

TINZJ S, Armed Activities on

the' fc r l i to ry of the Congo

(Dem. R"p. Congo v. I{walrcla)

(Jnclgmertrt f Feb. 3, 200(r) at 2(dissenting opinion of JudgcDugard) xxx.

Sirnilarl' ' , th e European Court of

l{urnan ltights has addrcsscdjtrs rr()gns only once, in AI'Adsnni ' Llnited Kingrlorn, when

it frr ,trsly rejected theargLrn.rc t that jus cogetnviolafi : rnSwrlr-rlddeprivc a statcof sol'ercign immtrn ity. Al-

Atlsnrti tt . l.,lnitt:dK[ngrlom, 2007-

XI,Etrr. Ct. H.R. 7c),61).

(p 32, Footnotc 77 of th e

April 2010 Decision)

(pp. 346-7 ofjournal of Int ' l

the Yale LawLaw)

TABLE C: Comparison of Mark Ellis 's article in the Case Western

Reserve ournalofInternational aw, entitled Breskin;qlrcSilence: npe s

an Internntionnl rime 2006-7), ereafter alled "Ellis's work" and theStrpreme Court's 28 April 2010 Decision n Vinryn, et nl. a. ExecutitteSecretsrtt.

Mark Ellis, Rrenkfug heCrime,38CASE W. RES. .

Silence: npe ns nn InternntionnlrNT' L L. 225 (2006-2007

fhe conccpt of rape as an inten-ratioual crime is rclatively

new. This is not tcl say that rape has l-levcr been historically

prohibitcd, partic-ularly in 14131.lrrN7lfh e 1863 Lieber

Instructions, which codificd custotnary inter-nartioual law

cl f land h'arfarc, classificcl rape as a crime cl f "troop

cliscipl ing. ' / [FN8lt spccif ed rape as a capital cr ime

urN6sl he concept of

rape as an

international crirncis relat ivcly new.This is not to sa ythat rape ha s never

,rt.'ithu! glt)/.r"Nol-he I 90Zlqgg!

20

Vittwln, et . nI. a.

Exectiiae Secretnry,G.R. No. 162230,28April 2070.

been historicall


21/61

Convcntion prrotccted womell by requiring th e protet'tion

of thcir "hcx-rour.//U:N101lt t mclclern-clay cnsi t ivi ty to thc

crime of rapc did not cmerge trrrtil after World War lI.

tFNTl or c'xample, th e "l'reaty tlf Anrity antl Comnr. t'cc

Prussia and thc Urritecl States proviclcs that in t inre ol waral l women ancl children "shall not be molcstet l in thcir

persons." Th e T'reaty of Amity ancl Cclmmcrce, Betwet'n hisMajesty th c King of Prussia ancl the United States ofAr-rrerica, rt. 23, Sept . 10, 1785, U.S.-l)rLrss., TRIIATIES &OTFIEI{ IN] ' 'L AGI(EEMENI'S OF TFIE U.S. 78, 85,ava i lab le a t xxr.

lFNsl Davicl Mitchell , The Prohibi t ion of l{apc inIntcrnat ional Flurnanitar ian Lar. t , s a Norm of Jus Cogens:

Clarifying thc Doctr inc, 15 DUKE l. COMP. IN' |"L L. 279,224.

tFNeld . at 236.

lFNrolFamily honolrr and r ights , the l ives of persons, andprivatc prclperty, os well as rcl igious convict ions andprracticc, nttst be resp-tcctccl." onycltic-rn (IV) I{espectingtlre Laws & Custorns of War on Lancl , ar t . 46, Oct .78, 1907,ava i lab lc a t

http : /w ww. yal e. e d u 1 w vvcb/av a on/l awof w arlira gu e04. tm #art16.

(p. 227 of thc Case Western Law

I-aw)

I{eservc lournal of Int ' l

2 l

prohibi ted,part icularly in war.But modern-duyscns i t iv i ty to thecrimc of rape di d

not emerge unti lafter World War II.xxx (For exarnple,th e Treaty ofArnity andCclrnmcrcebertween Prussiaand the UnitedStates prclvidestha t n t i n r e o f war

al l wornen arrdchildrcn "shall notbe molested intheir persons." TheTreaty of Amityan d Commercc,BetwcenMajesty the Kingof Prlrssia and theUnitc.cl States of

America, art. 23,Sept. 70, 7785,U.S.-Pruss., 8TREATIES &

AGI{EEMENTSOFTFIE IJ.S. 78, 85I)]The 1863 LicberInstructionsclassified ape as a

crirnc of "troopdiscipline."(Mitchell, TheProhibition ofRape furIntcmationalHurnanitarian Lawas a Norm of Jus


22/61

Af ter World War Il, whe.n thc Allie's established heNurcmberg Cl-rarter, he word rape wa s nclt ncntionecl. hcar t ic lc on cr imes agains t hr- r rnani ty explicit ly set forth

prohibited acts, but rapc was not mentit t tret l by nante.[l 'Nr1]

l r 'Nr l lSee genera l ly,

Punishment of tl-re

cogens: Clarifyingtlre Doctr inc, 75DUKE I COMPlN'I',L. L. 21,9, 224).It specificcl rape as

a capital cr imeptrnishable by tiredeath penalty (Id.

at 236).'T'he 7907

Hague Conventionprcltected womenby requiring th eprotection of their"11onour."

("Family honottr

and rights, thelives of persons,,and privateproperty, flS r.ttell

AS religiousconvictious andpractice, must berespected."Convention (lV)Respecting the

Laws & Customsof War on Land,art. 46, Oct. 18,1907[)1. xx .

(p. 27, Footnote 65of the 28 April2010Decision)

l|N651 xx In

NurcmbergCharter, theraPe wasrnentioned.

the

wordnotThc'

Agrccment fo r th e Proscctttion an d article on crlmes

War Crimiuals of the Eurt)-peana or

22

ggatlst humanit


23/61


24/61

INTEIR.N T'IONAL N{ LITARYEAST 445-51(B.V-A. olingand

TI{IBUNALFOI{ THE FARC.F. {uterecls., c)77).

:r iminalize raPC.Eas theld

Iwane

fhe Farfribunalrleneral'v4atsui,

lommanderShunroku Hata

atrd Foreign

Minister Flirota

criminallyresponsible fo r a

series of crimes,

inch,rdirrg raPe/

comrnittedpcrsons

byunder

(p . 22 8 of tl-reCase Western La w Reserve Journal of Int'lLaw)

Thc first mcntion of rape as a specific crime came in

Decenrbcr 1945 whcn Control Cottncil Lar,v No . 10 inch'rdecl

th e term rape in th c defini tion of crimes against

humanity.t|Nz2l aw No. 10 , aclopted by th e four occupying

powers in Germany, was clevisecl o establish a uniform

basis or prosecuting war criminals in Cerman courts '

their authoritY.(rHE TOKYOJUDGMENT:IUDGMEN'fTHE

OF

INTERNATIONAMILITARY

TITIBUNAL FOI{TFIE FAR EAST445-54 7977). xxx

(p . 27 , Footnote 65of the 28 APril2010Dccision)

U;N6sl XX'fhe first

mention of raPe as

a specific crime

camc in December

7945 when Control

Council Law No.

1Q__l:-9['d"d lLt''t A;' t


25/61

II;N221 ontrol Cor-rncil for Germany, La w No. 10:

Punishmcrrt of Persotrs Guilty of War Crimcs, Crimt's

Against Peace and Against Fltrrnanity, Dcc. 20 , 7915, 3

Oificial Gazctte Control Council for Germany 50 , 53 (7946),

avai lable at

http://wwwl.ttmn.edtr,4rumanrts/instrec/ccno1 .htm (lastvisited Nov. 20, 2003). This larn, set forth a trniform legal

basis in Gcrmatry for thc. prosectr t ion of war cr iminals and

similar offcnders, othcr than t l rc>se lcal t with under the

Intcrnatiorral Mili tary Tribr,rnal . ee d. at 50.

(pp. 228-9 of the Casc Westcru La'"v Lese 'rve ournal of lnt '1

Law)

Th e 1949 Ceneva Convention Ilelative to therfreatnrcnt of

Prisouers of War was the f irs t modcrn-r1ay internat ionalinstrument to cstabl ish protect ions against rLtpc forwonlen.0rN23lowever, the most irnportant dcrrelopment nbreaking thc si lcncc of rape as an intc.rnat ional crime hascome throtrgh the jr-rrisprudc.ncc of the ICTY an d th eIntematiorral Criminal Tribunal for I{war^rda fCTIf). Roth of

25

term rape in thedefinition ofcrimes againsthumanity. La wNo. 10, adoptecl by

th e folrr occupyingpowersCcrmany,clevisedestablish a ttniformbasis fclrprosecllting warcriminals inCerman colrrts.(Control Council

for Gennany, LawNo. 1 0 :Punishment ofPersons Ctrilty of

War Crimes,Crimes AgainstPeace and AgainstHumani ty, Dec .20 ,1945, 3 OfficiaGazette Control

Courncil forCermany 50, 53(1946)) xx

(p . 27, Foohrote 65of the 28 April2010Decision)

I N

wasto

[F-N65]xx The 7949CenevaConrzention

Relative toTreatmentPrisoners ofwas th e

thecl f

Warfirst


26/61

thesc Tribunals have significantly advancecl the crime of

rape by enabling it to be p-165ecr-tted s genocicle, a \ /a r

crinte, atrcl a crimc agailrst humanity. xxx.

lrrN23j cneva Convcntion Relative tt l th e Irrotectiou of

Civiliarr I'ersons in Tir-nc of War, Atrg' 12, '1949, art. 2" , 6U.S.T. 3316,75 U.N.1:.5.287 entry into force Oc-t .20, 1cr 0)

firercinafter Fourtl-rGeneva Convention].

(p. 229 of thc Case Wcste'rn l-aw Rescrve Jourrral of l t r ' ' l

Law)

nrodern -duy

internationalinstrument tocstablishprotections against

rapc for women.CenevaConventionItelative to theI'rotection ofCivilian Persons inTime of War, Aug.12 , 1,949, art. 27 , h_r.J.s.]" 3316. 75U.N.T.S. 287 (entry

irrto force Oct. 20 ,1950) fi-rcreinaft'erFourth CenevaConvention].Furthermorc, tl-reICC, the ICTY, an dth e IntemationalCriminal Triburralfor Rwancla (ICTR)havc significantly

advanced thccrime of rape bycnabling i t to beprosecuted asgenocide, a wa rcrime, and a crimeagainst humanity.XXX.

(p . 27 Footnote 65of the 28 April2010Decision)

26


27/61

8. Thc cc-rntrr-rversyeneratecl y thc isstle of plag; arism at the Suprc'me

Cotrrt heightenccl even nlorc, and Jtrstice Del Castil lcl circulatccl a

letter to other members c-rf he Strpreme Court e xplaining:

It m ust bc ernphas z,ed that therc wo ; every intention toattribute all sources, whenever dtte. At nct point was there everany malicious interrt tcl appropriate another 's work as our own.

Wc recall that this porzencin as thrice includcd in the Agenda oftire Cor,rrt n banc. It was cleliberatccl rpon dttring the Baguio

session on April 13, 2070, April z0,2010 arrd in Manila on April27, 2010. Each tinre, suggcstions were mac'lewhich necessitatedmajor rcvisions in the draft. Sources werc re-stuclicd,disctrssions modifiecl, passages added or deleted. The resultingdecision comprises 34 pages with 78 footnotes.

X X X X

As rcgarcls the claim of the petitioners that the concepts ascontained in the above foreign materials were "twistcd," th csame remairrs heir opinion which we do not necessarily hare.T

9. On 27 Jr-rly2010, hc Sr-rpreme Conrt convened its Ethics Committee

and clirccted t to cornmence an investigation on the allegations of

plagiarism and misrepresentation comrnitted by Justice Del Castillo

ir r th e Vinuyn Dccision. On 72 Octobcr 2070, the Sr-rpreme Court

issuecl a per urinm De.cision incling that Justice Del Castil lo did not

commit any misconcluct, or inc-xcusable egligencc, and absolved

him of the charges f plagiar isnr and misreprcsentat ion.s

7 Se e ln the N4atter f ' thc OhargesN o . l 0 - 7 - 1 7 - S C l .6 . t

I U .

of I ' las iar isnr. tc .Against Associate lust ice a r i anu Cl . )e l

27


28/61

10.Mearnwhiie, n 27 July 2010,law professors t thc UP College f Law

issucd a Statcment, Restoring ntegri$," asserting hat:

"With thesc corrsiclerations, nd bearing in mind thc solemn dtrties

and trust reposed trpon thcm as tcachers n th c profession of Law, itis the opinion of the Facr-rlty f thc Universi ty of the Phil ippincs

Col lege of Law that :

(1 ) fh e plagiarisnt corunitted in the case of Vinuya v. Executive

Secretary s unacceptablc, tnethical and in breach of th e high

standards of rnoral cc-rneluct an d judicial an d professionalcompetence expected of the Supreme Cottr t ;

(2 ) Sr-rch a ftrndamental brcach enclang;ers hc irrtegrity an d

crcdibility of thc entire Sttpreme Cottrt and undermines th efounclat ions of the Phil ippine judicial system by al lowingimplici t ly the clecjsion of cascs ancl the cstabl ishment of legal

prccedents through ct rbious Inearls;

(3 ) 'fhc same breach ancl conseclr-rent lisposition of the Vinuyacase cloes violencc. to the prirnordial fnnction of the SupremeCourt as the ul t imate dispcnser of' ustice to al l those who have

been left withotrt legal or equitablc recoursc, sttch as th e

pct i t io r tc rs hcrc in ;

(a ) In light of the extrernely scrious and far-reaching naturc of

th e clishoncsty and to save the honor an d clignity of th eSr-rpreme Court as an instiLtttion, t is nccessary for the ponc'nteof Virruya v. Executive Secretary to resign hi s position, withoutprejudice to any othcr sanctions that the Court may considerappropriatc;

(5 ) Thc. Suprcmc Court must takc this opporbunity to review th emanner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches

ancl f inal izes decisions in ordcr to prevent a recllrrenc e ofsinrilar acts, ancl tc-r rorricle clear and concise guidance to theIlerrch and Bar to ensLrrc only tire highest quality of legalrcscarch ancl writing in pleaclings, practice, zurcl djtrdication."

2 8


29/61

11.on 1g october 2010, lre strpr:erne Cotrrtiss;r-red Resolution in the

case ,Ir.c:Letter .f the up Law Factrrty e'titlt.-1Rcs oring Integrity: A

stntenrertt bt1 ha Fnctiltrl o.f tt e Llrtlztersittl .f :,irehilippines College of

Lnztt 0n tlte Allegntions f Plnginrism nnd Misreptresentntionn the

s,prenre Court(A.M. No. 10-10-4-sc) dir-ect i .g up Law

professors '

to "show cause why they shoulcl not bc clisciplinedas members of

the Bar for: violation of Canons 10 ' '11' ancl 13 ancll{ules 1'02 and

1i .05 of the c.rle .f pr'fessionar Responsibirity,an d fur:ther

dirc.cting he thc uP l.aw Dean to show callsc whyhc should not be

discipl inar i ly deal twith for violat ion of Canon 10, Rr-r les 0 '01 7A'02

ancl 10.03 "f,r sr-rbmitting, hrc-rtrgh is letter datedAugust 70 ' 2010'

clrrrirrg the pendency of G.R. No. 162230, vinuyav' Executive

secretary and of the investigation before the Committeecln Ethics

ancl Ethical standards, for the conside'ation 'f the CourtEn Banc, a

clr-rmmy which is no t a true and faithful reproductionof the

pr-rrportecl tatement, entitlecl "Restoring Integrity:A Statement by

the Faculty of the University of the Philippines Collegeof Law on

the Allegations .f tt lagiarism a.c1 Misrcpresentationn the supreme

Court ."

12 .The controvcrsy br.ought ab.ut by the intellectualdishonesty of

J'stice Dcl Castil lo, has unnecessarily burdenedthe Supreme Cottrt

and tarnishecl ts integrity, both locally and internationally' Thus:

29


30/61

72.1 C)n 72 October 2010, .JP Prof. Diane Desierto postetl "An OperrAppeal to felkrw Internatiural Legal Scholars" o support the UPLaw facr,rltv n th e nternational aw commurrity blog Oytinrturis:.')

72.2. On 24 October 2010, Prof. Bruce Ackerman, a Sierling Profcssor of

La w & l)olitical Sciencc at Yalc Univcrsity, w;'s rcportecl to haveer-nailed: l ca n only hope that good scnse prcva ils & Ieads to some

sr-rber second-thought from the Cottrt rnajority. Otherwise, th c

continuing controversy will do seriotts darnage to th e Philippine's

standing in the w


31/61

rather than tc-ract as its faithful gr-rardian. U1 t rnately, it is the

Suprerne Conrt, acting as the stronghold of civil lji-rertiesancl rising

above ts own frai l t ies , which is in the best posi t ion to cleanse tself

and its ranks and rcpair tl-re amage brought Ll | . ropts imagc before

thc nat ion and befctre he worl (1," 4

12.6. On 29 C)ctobc.r (.)10,he Exccutive Comtnit tee of UI 'Dil iman isstrecl

a statement "No to Plagiarism! Assert ing Academic Freedom!"

against thc Sr,rpreme Court's decision jn th e Plagiarisrt case, an d in

support the UP College of Law facr-r1ty, ssertingthat We stand by

the. UP College of Law Faculty ' for speaking otrt against plagiarism.

We ask the Suprcme Court to withclraw the'show callse ' ordcr

against the 37 facr-rlty membcrs of the U.l ' . Collcge of Law." 15

72.7. On 31 Octobcr 2010, the. College of Law of th e Lyceum of th e

I 'hi l ippincs Univcrsi ty, Makati City, relcasecl to thc public aStatemcnt on Plagiarism. The LI '}U Law faculty dcciared that i t

"regrcts that, try [the] I)ecision in AM No. 10-10-4-SC, dated

Octobcr 19,2010, l re Snprcme Court disregarded & ignored its own

decisions, ru lets & rcgulations whcn it dicl no t hold any person

rcsponsible for copyzillg an d infringing intellectual property rights

of foreign acadcmicians; dicl no t requirc an y persou to apologizc frlr

the. oversight ( if that is what i t was); and dicl rrot issue a correctecj

dccisiot- t n the Vintrya case with Proper at tr ibutiolIS."l6

72.8. On 04 Novernber 2010, Dr. ]ohn Paul C. Vcrgara, Vice President fo rthc Lc-ryola chools (Atcneo), issned a memorandttm, "Treatment of

I'lagiarism Cases in th c Loyola Schools in Light of th e Recent

Suprcme Cor-rrt Dccision" reiterating th e Atctreo scho ols' position"that acaclemic onestv ancl he ackrrowledgcmetrt of sonrces s not

simply a matter of the correct use of qtrotat ion marks, placement of

footnotes, or acqtr is i t ion of permissions; t is a qtrest ion of personalclisciplinc antl rnoral character. Thc school's rcsolve on the stringent

requiremcnts in the proper ackrrowleclgcment of sources goes to thehcart of its mission in forming persons for oLhers-persons who

valtre ruth, rcspect , grat i tude, ntegri ty and just ice."rz

' , 'http':i/phdipp!!e.c'r-ltt1ntcni;rI],.b|.l&:pq!qr1,!tj'!t)/.!J)/ipc-appe1Ir&rjtldtqr!l-rqI!L4!ll!._ul.

1 3 D e c e m b e 2 0 l t ) .' 'http;1.ittt\:\Y.!lpll!|!-!]lLl-n-q11!1p-cli1inr1rr-crq-i!1!\t'-!Q.l']]li!tL|}!]

occesScd n l3 l)cccnrt.ler 010.

llirttptlrruu'r1' .1-t 'rcelx11f,. .c 'onrirrote.nlU.\qle--iti"l"1-rlJ59-12!751!iiicccssecln l3 Dccembcr20l0.' h1{ir:i/[s.ateco.edu/rriodrrlc.dtp]!]:!:_.itt'!t_clg$qtlrl&!'t_d::? 8( ) 7E04$-i4t) ccessed tt I 3 De ccmber 2010.

3 l


32/61

12.9. On 09 November 201,0, the Coordinating Ciruncil of Privatc

Educational Associat ions (COCOI'LA) issued a Statemcnt of

Concern to take cxception to th e I'lagiarir, n decision, and"implore[cl] th e Sr-rpreme Court, rnost rcspectlrtlllr, to iollow

'The

Wuy Forwarcl ' of jr-rs t iccSereno's Disse 'nt ing Opinion as the only

way by which i t carr maintain i ts jucl icialdignity."r8

13. Due to Justice Del Castillo's singular act of intellectual dishctnesty,

the Supreme Court was exposed to ridicule before the intemational

legal commLlnity, ts integrity as an institution was put to question,

and thc public conficlencc rr the jtrdicial system and in the tnoral

authori ty of the r, rdiciary as further eroded.

14.Complainants therefore accLlse Associate Jr-rsticeMariano C. Del

Castillo of betraying the public trust.

't l' 'trp,/l..ap.org.lt]{ploaqllqirtrinlgildi-2Q10l1l2,1ll 81i$i:l-prll'accessecl n 13 December 010.

1 . t-) ,


33/61

GIIOUI\TD OR M PEACIJME]. T

Justice Mariano C. Del Casti l lo betrayed ptr rl ic trust when he

committed acts that undermined public confidence in the judicialsystem and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary.Specifically:

Justice Del Castillo betrayed public trust when he lifted withoutattribution significant portions of the works of foreign authorities,in violation of pertinent rules on use and citation of sotrrces.

justice Del Castillo betrayed public trust when he twisted whatInternational Law professors/authors Criddle, Fox-Decent, Tams,and Ellis said in their works, making it appear that the theoryespoused by these authors support an argument to dismiss the caseof the Petitioners in Vinuyn, et. nL as. Executiue Secretnrll, et. ol.,when in fact, the theories of these authors support the claims ofthe Petitioners.

III. Justice Del Castillo betrayed public trust when, in twisting thetrue intents of the sources, e misled the other members of theHonorable Supreme Court.

DISCUSSION

Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo betrayed ublic trust when hecommitted acts hat undermined public confidence n the udicialsystem and in the moral authority and ntegrity of the udiciary.

l.hc first section f the 1987 C,oustittrtion's rticle on Accountability f

Public Officers (Article Xf) contains hc funclarncntal tandards of public

scrvice, hus:

I .

TI.

.) ]J J


34/61


35/61

I t bears ernphasis hat rcspondent Del Cast i l lo , PrL r tclassuming off ice,

tgok an oath to trpholcl, clefcnd alnd bear trtte faith ; rrcl allegiancc to the

Copstitution, gbey the laws, lcgal orclers and clccrecs ro,nttlgated by tire dtrly

constituted authoritics, to will werll ancl faithftrll lzdischarge to the best of his

abilitv the cltrtics of the qffice or positior'r cntrtrsterd o hirn. and to voluntarily

assume the obligation improsecl by his ,oath of office, without mental

rcservatiotr or purpose of cvasion.

A cl n ni s rative' Cocle)

(Chaptcr 10, Section 40, Rcvised

Br:ing a magistrate of the highest cottrt of the land, rc:spondc'nt Del

Cast i l lo is l ikcwisc expccted to possess the highest qual i f icat ions and

eminence. 'fhe pr-rblicexacts nrnr hin'r a profottncl krrowledg" of th c law and

a demonstration of competence, ndcpencletrcc nd intcgrity.

Canon 2 of thc New Cocle of Jtrclicial Concluct fctr the Philippine

Jucliciary providcs the starnclarcls or integrity within the ucliciar/ , thus:

CAA/OAJ2INTEGRITY

Integrity is cssential not only to thc propcr discharge of the judicial

office but also o the personal demeanor of juclges.

SECTfON 1. Judges shall ensl lrc that not only is their cotrduct above

reproach, but that i t is pcrceived to be so in the view of a reasonableotrserver.

St1C. 2. lhe behar,,irtr ncl r,-onduct f juclges must reirffirm th e pcople'sfai th in the intcgri ty of t l ' re udiciary. Just ice nust not nrerely be cloneL-rutntrst also be se-en cl bc done.

35


36/61

SEC. 3. Judgcs shotrld take or initiate appropriatt . disciplinary

measLlres gainst lawyers or court personnel for ttnprofcssional

conduct of which thc udgt: may havc bccclme ware.

In Tnrtas. RoscrfeTg,hc Strpremc. Court eluciciated on the irnportance of

rnaintairring nte.gritywithin thc jtrdiciary. Thc Court cxplained thus:

We have repeateclly adrrronished otrr jtrdges to adhere to th e highest

tencts of juclicial c


37/61

from any suspicion as to its faimess ancl mpartiality, ancl also as to th ejuclgc 's nte'grity.

Moreovc.r, Canon 3, Rulc 3.01 of the CocJc f Jtrdicierl onduct mandates

respondent o be faithfr-rlo the law ancl maintain professional competence.I

Against these exacting standarcls of juciicial condttct, respondent Del

Castillo's intcllccttral ciisl-roncsty, s narratcd earlier, and will be furthcr

explaincd bclo w, constitutes rxrt merely an act of impropriety, but an act of

bctrayal of public trust . ' fhe gravc negat ive impacts of his plagiar izccl

decision on thc public pcrct-'ption f the trdiciary and thc justice systern n the

country, coupled with his manifest incapacity to pcrform his Constitutional

mandate ir-r ood faith, rendcr him turfit to continLle n office.

Justice DeI Csstillo betroyed ublic trust when he ifted without sttributionsignificnnt portions of the rcorks of foreign nuthorities,

in aiolntion of pertinent niles ofl use utd cittrtion of sources,

Applying the afore-clturtecl orms reqtrirecl n the conduct of judges

(and usticcs), hc qr-restioncd ctsof JusticcDcl Castillo n the Vintnln ase all

very mucir short of performing judicial cluties bcyond rcproach. n tire

disscnting pinion of JusticcSereno n thc case ntitled ln The Matter Of lhe

Charges Of Plagiarism, tc.,Against Associate usticeMariano C. Del Castillo.

(A.M.No. 10-7-77-SC), he f-Ionorable ustice numcratcd 24 acts of Jr-rstice el

Castillo of failing o rnakc proper citations, amely:

A.l .Fai l t t re to ttsc' lttotatic,rnnarks to indicate that the cntire paragraphirr the bocly of th e clecisit,rn n page 30 was not th e ponenfe's originalparagraPh, bttt was li[tec1 erbatirn from Tanrs's work. TTre attributionto Tatls is r.vholll. nsr,rfficjent becatrse withotrt th e qr_rotation marks,

3 7


38/61

there is nothing to aler t the rcader that the paragraph was l i f tec{

ver"batinr from Tanrs. The iootnote leaves th e reader with th e

inrprcssion that the saicl paragraph is th e author's owtl ar-ralysis f ergn

0tl |nc.s.

Th e " Sct'-fanrs,

Irnforcing Obligatior-rs Ergn ontncs inInternationarl La w (2005)" line in footnote 69 ttf the Virutyn decision

docs not cleariy irrclicatc that thc statemcnt on Sitnma's obscrrration

was liftcd cl irect ly from l l-ams's wor[


39/61

B.U Failurc to indicate that thc second c-l iscusive setrtence of

footnotc 7) was not the pctrtcnte's, ut was l if ted verbatirn from Pages335-33(r f Criddlc and Fox-f]ccettt 's work.

8.9 Failurc to ir-rcl icatchat the ci tat iotr and the c: iscursive passage

tlrercgr-r n the last setntcnce of fclotnote 72 was trtlt the ponente's, bttt

was liftecl verbatirn fronr disctrrsive footrrote 1f l ( : Cricldlc & Fox-

Decent 's work.

B'10 Failr-rre o use cluotatic-rtr narks to il-rclicate ha t a lrhrase in the

body crf he dccisiorr on pagc 31 was uot the Ttortt 'ntc's, ut was l i f ted

verbafim from pagc 336 of Criddle & Fox-D-eccnt's ork.

8.11 Failurc. o indicatc that the cnt irety of disctrrsive ootnote 73 was

rrot tlrc yttnrerrta's,rr- l twas l if ted vcrbat im from page 336 of Cricidle &

Fox-Decent's ,vork.

8.12 Failure to indicate that the iclca of lack of "consenst ts on

wlrcther certain international norrns had attaincd the status of jus

ct'tguls" was i-l paraphrase of a sentcnce combined with a verbatim

lif t ing of a phrase that appears on page 336 of Cricldle & Fox-Decent 's

wrrrk and was not the ponenfe r-owlr c-'r-rrrchrsion. his is an examplc of

patchwork plagiarism.

8.13 Failure to incl icate: hat the entirety of cl iscursive oohrote 74 on

pagc 31 of the Decision was not the Ttoncnte's orln-lent on the source

ci tcd, but was l if tecl vcrbatim from footnote 23 of Criddle & Fox-

Decent 's work.

11.14 Failr-rrc o indicatc thror,rgh cluotation marks and with th e properattribr-rtion o Cridclle that the first two sentences of page 32 werc no ttlre pctrrcnte's, ut were liftecl verbatirn from two non-adjoiningserrtences n pagcs 337-338 of Cridclle & Fox-Decent's work.

8.15 Failurc to indicate throlrgh cltrotation marks an d the rigirtcitation that tl-rc cliscrrrsive sentence in the second paragraph offootnote 77, and the citation the.rein, wcrc rrot th e ponente's, ttt were

Iiftccl vcrbat inr from pagc 346 of the borly of Criddle & Fox-Dccent 'swcrrk in th e instance of the ciiscursive scntcncc, ancl from footuote 72 ofCric{dle & Fox-Decent's r,r,ork n the instancc of t1-re ase citccl and thedescript ion tircreof.

8.16 Failure to indicatc that the choicc of ci tat ion and the discr-rrsivethereon statcmcnt in the seconcl sc-.ntcncc f thc sccond paragraph of

3 9


40/61

disctrrsive footnote 77 was not t l re potwlte 's , bttt r,t ' i ,s ifted verbatimfrom footncl te 72 of Cricldle & Fox-Dccent 's work.

8.77 Fail t rre to indicate t irrough cluotat ion markr, atrd the rightci tar t ions hat thc entirety of the discursive thircl to f iJ h paragraphs offcrotnote 77 were not thc

prodr-rctof tb,e pont 'nfe 's iwn analysis and

clroice of sources, but were Iiftecl vcrbatim from foott rtes 73 and 77 onpages 346-317 f Cricldle & Fox-Decent 's work.

C.l to C.6 Irai l t rre to usc quotat ion malks and t l ' re ight ci tat ions toindicate that half of the long discr-rrsive ootnotc 65, incluc{ing th csources citcd therein, was ach lally compiisecl of the rearrangement,arrc-lrr son-le parts, repl-rrasing of 1B sentence-s ound on pales 227-228of Mr. Ell is 's work in Cnsc Wcstt:nt Lnru Rcsarut : oru 'nnl of IntenmtionnlLnru.

These 24 acts of failing to make propcr citations negatc ack of intent to

commit p-rlagiarism trd cloes not inclicate simplc inadvertence on the part of

Justice Del Castil lo ancl/or his court personnel who irrit ially made the research

on tlre ponencin. Oner or two crrors c-rrnaclvcrtclrce may amount to exctrsable

negligence on thc 1-rart f the ponente and/c'rr he rescarcher bu t no t when sllch

errors amountcc-l r- l24 separate acts of plagiarisrn. Even asslrming, only for'

the sake of argr-rment, hat the 24 separate acts of omission to take proper

citation is not plagiarism, sLrch act is highly irregular and cat-rhardly be

just i f icd as nexcusable egl igence.

By delegating ther entire acljuclication of the Virruya case to his court

staff and allowing his pcnnccl clecision o contain lifterd passagcs rom uncited

sollrces, espondent Del Castillo violatcd his oath to faithfr-rlly lischarge o the

bcst of his ability thc cluties of the office or position entrusted to him and the

Cocle. f JtrclicialConduct which rnandates im to main ta in rofessional

compctence. Worse, he placecl his officc in clisrepute, encouraged disrespcct

40


41/61

f.r the law ancl mplirccl public confidence n the irrtcgrity of thejudiciary

itself .

Truly, it is ngt cicniccl hat tirele isa neccssity o' cvery

Justiceo utilizc

the serviccs of law clerks to research on points of iaw art sstte or the orderly

and so'nd adrninistratiorr of justice. Flowever, this should not bc taken to

nlean as a cenrpletc' snrrencler of the control an d sr-rpervision over the

clecision-making process to the cclurt staff consider:ing that tl-rese vcry

dccisions eve-ntually become the Supreme Coltrt 's judgment ou the cases and

form part of the law of the la.c1. By failing to properly supervise his court

staff, responclent Del castillo not only cast hc supreme Court in a bad light,

br-rt ikewise repre.hcnsibly llorvcc1 he flawcd clecision o become part of the

country's jurisprucle.nce. Such failtrre corrstitutes uexctrsable ross negiigence

on his 1-rartcnclering hirl trnfit to continue with his office.

As the portente of the Vinuya decision rt was incumbent ttpon

respondent Del Castillo to personally draft the decision or if one has been

drafted by his court staff as in this case, he shotrld have scrutinized the

sources cite.c-l n the clraft clecision ancl cxerciscd the highest degree of

ctiligencc n the pcrformance of his Constitutional n'ranclate. He is not merely

a stamp pacl of thc clraft decisions written by his court staff.

Ftrrthermore, respondent Dcl Castillo likervise blatantly displayed a

clearth of candor by not cven offering an explanation on thc cause of the lack

of attributi6n in the Vinuya clecision. In the explanatory lettcr submitted by

respr-rndent Del Castilkr nZ}Jtrly 2010 before thc Suprelne Court, he did not

4 l


42/61

acknowlerlge he copying, lack.f attrib' t ion and trse.f cc'rpiccw.rks and clicl

nrt evcn inciicate how the lack of attribution can'le aboutancl who were

responsible herefor. Irrstead of i ' i t iatirrg the proper disciplirrarl proceedings

against rris cotrrt staff wh' was liable forthe plagiarism, respo.clent Del

Castillo even coverecl Ll p hcr rnisclecds and statc'c1 ha t" there was every

intention to attribtrtc". This is a violatio^ of canon 2, secti,n 3 ofthe Judicial

Code of L.thics,which states hat "[j]trt lges shotrki take or initiateaPpropriatc

discipli^ary mcasures agai.st lawyers or c.r,rrt personncl for trnprofessic-rnal

concluct of wl-rich hc juclgc may havc bccome aware." It'stice DelCastillcl

has miserably failecl o takc the necessary disciplinary rneasures againstthe

court personne-.I ho lras voltrntarily arimitted her tregligence, excttsableor

not. To c1ate, uch cotrrt pcrsonncl ha s no aclministrative sanctiotr fo r thc

.egligent acts, which can be a signal that similar acts by other court personnt ' l

may be toleratercl ven if the slightest ir:rcgularity or breach of duty detract

from tle dignity of the courts ancl erode thc conficlencc n thc jtrcliciary'

Ittstice De l Cnstillo betrnyetl yfulic tnrst when hetwisted ztthnt nzo

professorslsuthors snirl n their roorks, mnking it nppteor hnt the theory

espotrcert y these mfthors xrpport fl n &rgtnnent to dismiss th e c&se of th e

petitioners in Vhruyn, et . tl . as . Exeurtiue Secretnry, et. nl , uhen in fact,

the theories of these stfthors xtpTtort the cltthns of the Petitioners.

Jtrstice Del Castil lo has not orrly misappropriated theidcas of others as

his own, he has likewisc misused thesc. deas, and conrrerted them into

argLlmcnts hat arc corrtrary o thc authors 'own positions on thc issue.

Resporrdent

statecl tr the' ctters

Del Cast i lkt ' s misuse of the plagiar izcd port ions is c lear ly

of the authttrs hemsclves, htts:

42


43/61


44/61

th e trse of on e of my publications in th e abovt:-nrentionedtrdgment

of your I-{otrottlable Court'

XX X XX X XX X

I am particularly concerncrl thatrn y work shotrld have been used to

supp..,rt tlre Jttclgnrerrt,s cautiot-ts arpproacht< l tlre ert'a omnes

concept. In fact, a mclst cLlrsory reading showsthat ITly book's

ccntral thesis s precisely the opposi te: namely thatthe erga offIncs

conccpt has been wiclely accep'r te and hasa firm place in

cctntenrporary intc'rnatjttnal laW, F{ence th e introdttctorychapter

notes that "[t]he prese.nt tucly attemPts to demystifyaspects of the

,Vc.ry nrysteriotrs, cotrcept and tlrereby tc.l facilitateit s

implementatic[t" (p 5) In th e same vcitt, th c concludingsectiotr

notes that "thc prececling chaptcrs show that th ecclncept s now a

part Of th c realityof international law, estalrlished in th e

jrrirpr.rclence of cottrts an d th e practice of States" (p ' 3tl9)'

With due respect t0 yollr Honourablc Coltr t , Iam at a loss to see

|ow my work shor,rltl have Lrecn citecl to support- as it seemingly

has - the opposi te approach. More general lf , I amconcerned at the

wa y in which yoLlr 1{ououralrle Coult's judgmentha s drawn on

scholarly work without properly ackuowledgingit '"

what the a'trrors referrecl t. as "cross-pLlrposes"and "clpposite

approach, , is prain ancr simple nl isappricat ion of tht 'plagiar izedart ic les c-r

su'rport a ciecisi.n that is contrary t'thc position thatthe authors themselves

espoLlse. lf the 24 collnts of plagiarisrn will be consiclerecls merely casting

doubts on thc pr.fessional c.mpetclrce of responclentDel Castil lo, the

rnisapplication of thc plagiarizecl material certair-rly trestionshe integrity of

tlneponente.

44


45/61

IrtsticeDel Cnstitto betrorlerl ublic tntst when, n ttttisting the true ntentsof

the sotrces, e mislerl he othcr mernbers f the Honornble SuTtrelne ourt.

Had Jr-rsticc el Castillo committccl plagiarism in an article that he had

authored, for publication in a journal, ior cxample, the nature of his offense

woulcl bc clifferent. Tt woulci still be an irregular conduct, regardless of

wl1ethcr he is a member clf tl-re trprrcnre ourt or nttt, btrt its cffects would not

be as far-rcaching as that of thc plagiarism that he had colrlmitted in the

Virruya dccisic-rn.

Jtrstice Dc.l Castillo was tha Ttonente >f hc decision. I-Ie was not writing

for 6inrsell hc was writing for the Suprrerne Cottrt. He was not writing an

art ic lc , he was wri t ing jr-rr ispruclence, hich forms part of the law of the land.

IJc was sllpposecl o be formtrlatirrg hc expression of the collective wisdom of

t6e Supremc Court, and, not jtrst throtrgh one of its divisions, but through the

Court en bnnc.

By submitting his ponencin with the plagiarized material, ancl for

purposes contrary tcl the intenclecl positions of the original authors, he haci

nrislecl tfic otirer membcrs of the Cotrrt whcl hacl concurred with the ytonencin

and hac-l trthorized ts reicase as the Court 's clecision.

Responclent 's Llnacceptable act of plagiarisrn is irr fact a penalized

offense under th c In tellechtnl ProTterty Code &.A, 8293), he E Contmerce Act

(R.A. B7g2), and trndetr the Strpremc Court 's own circtrlar on the Contputer

Grtitlt:lines nd Policies AM No 05-3-08-SC). Dttc to resporrdent 's gross

ncgligeltce, a plagiarizccl clccision hars bcen rcleased to the worldwicle web

. t (IJ


46/61

thror-rgh r-l() t ss than thc Suprcmc Cottrt 's websitc which, applying thc

Grtidelines nd Policics, r-ralifies s a crirninal t-rifcnse tuder the E-Conrmerce

Act.It is highly cleplorarblehat respondent Del Cast i l lo 's gross negl igence and

incompetence has rcachccl to a level that thc Strprerne Cclurt is made

answerable cl repeatet l violat ions of dotnest ic ancl ntcrnat ional intel lectual

property laws for each anc-l vcry singlc doy that thc plagiar izecl dccis jon is

posterl n the internet

The fact that the Strpreme Cotrrt issnccl a Decision which found that

responclernt s not gui l ty oi plagiar ism s of tr i t moment . Del Cast i l lo 's s ingle

act of c l ishonc.s ty lrcady madc a htrgc ' i rnpact on thc pcrcept icln of the local

and intcrnat ional lcgal communit ies on the integri ty of the Supreme Ccxtr t ,

the judiciary ancl just ice systcnr in the Phil ippines. Domest ical ly, the

mcmbers of thc Iegal proiession, stuclcnts and other citizc'ns have c'xpressccl

their r-rutcrv vcr thc d espicable act of intcllectual thieverv which negatirrely

affected thc irrtcgritv and cclmpetelrcc f the Supreme Cclurt and its sitting

jr,rsticcs. T'hc intcrnatiorral legal cont ntrnity has also expresscd its disdain

over respondent 's betrayal ilf ptrblic trtrst through clifferent fora, fronted by

no other than the pectplc whose works wcre not given the proper attribution

and wcre aggrievcd by the plargiarism esr>rted o try rcspondent Del Castil lo.

Jtrstice Dcl Castillo has brought infarny not only to hin'rself, but also tct

his colleaglles n the Strprreme ourt, in the ucliciary, and the lcgal professiott,

ancl o the courrtry's ustice systern n gcneral.

46


47/61

Larvyers arc bouncl trncler Canon 10 of the Cocie of Profcssional

Rcsponsibi l i ty, not to clo any falsehoocl , or conscnt t tl t l rc doing of any in

Cgtrrt; n6r s6all he rnisleacl, r allow the Cotrrt trt be mislt:d Lryany artifice."

Unfortunately, in this ci-]sc , t was not an orcl i r rary awl 'g1 ' , r. cot tnsel who

causccl he Court to bc misle-rl , t was one of its membcrs who was given the

very important task of wri t ing Lhe lc 'c is iotr f the Court .

lustice Del Cnstitlo 's ncts hnue rendered him unfit to corttimre u office. His

corrtitttterlseruice uill prejudice the 7nfulic nterest utd ruill bring tlrc entire

Supreme. Court nnd the country's jttstice system h'fto disrepute.

Final ly, to al low respondcnt Del Cast i l lo to cont inue occr- lpying his

pr-rsition will sr.ncl a tri-rcl ignal tc l ou r uation, cspe''cially or-lr youth, that

plagiarrism anrl thc r-rnbridlcct cut-ancl-prastc abit in our tcchnolc-rgically

aclr,anccrl pc.riod are consiclcrccl a-ls cceptable practices. Rcspondent Del

Cast i l lo was appointecl ct onc of the highest posi t ions in the judiciary and

thus, thc'rc- s no reas()n why his scrvicc to thc ptrbiic should be allrlwed tcl all

sirort of the highest stanclarcls xpectcd of him. Accordingly, the flimsy

excllsc oi "Microsoff Officc" should not be evetr allowcd to exoneratc him of

the evcntual consequences f his ncgl igence and omission.

Through his concluct, responclent Dcl Castillo has undermined thc'

integrity of his ofiice, brought clisrcpr-rtc'ott hc Sr-rprclrle ourt, cast doubt on

the justicc system oi the country ancl in so doitrg, betrayecl he public trust.

Iirtr, how can we expcct the Snprernc Cottrt tcl r-rpholcl he law and render

jr-rsticcf the csteernc.cl trsticcs tl 'remscives ommit crttcial errors and exhibit

t l 7-t I


48/61

lack of profcssional compctcnce to decirlc t]re cases brotrght before the

Supreme Cotrrt?

Jr-rs t ice el Cast i lkr 's violat ion of his oath of off icc, thc New Code ofJuc-l ic ial ondtrct for the Phil iprpine Jtrdiciarry, nd the Cocle of Professional

Rcsponsibi l i ty or lawyers , arc pernicious given the fact that i t is colrmit ted

by an incttmbcnt mcnrl-rcr f thc Supremc Court. In In Re: Ltnrlntetl ettet'Of

Mr . LortisC. Bit'nctgt-t,ctitioner rt Birnogo '. f/rrtr nlt,sArtd Lintknichong, G.R. Np .

1791202r tht : Strprerne Court helcj hat :

"the act of Justice Reyes not only violated the New Code of ]udicialConduct or the Philippine Judiciary, he Code of JuclicialConduct and theCanons of Judicial Ethics, t also nfringed on the internal deliberations ofthe Court and mpeded and degraded he administration of justice. The actis rendered all tl ' remore pernicious considering hat t was committec{ y noIess than a justice of the Supreme Court who was supposed o serve asexample o th e bench and bar.,,

f.hosc- words mltst apply rvith eqtral forcc to this present casc of JusticeMariano C. Del Cast i l lo .

-" A.M. No . ()c)-2-9-SC. l. 'e nrarl,2-{.2(X)9

4 8


49/61

PRAYER

WIIEREI;ORE, premises considered, t is respectfully prayed that HON.SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CAS ILLO,after due compliance u,itir the procedure set forth in Article XI , Sectiorr 3 ofthe Constitution, be found to have committed BETRAYAL OF PUBLICTRUST and accordingly, cause tire instant Impeachrnent Compiaint to beadopted as the Articles of Impeachment against ASSOCIATE JUSTICEMARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO for transmission o the Senate or trial.

Complainants pra.y or other just and equitable elief.

Quezon City, 14 December 2070.

r, ' l / / '

tr:Lt,-7*, ?4*,/ISABELITAC. VINUYA PILAR Q. CALANCr l tnfvtv tt \ .MAXIMAR. DE LA CRUZ LEONOR H. SUMAWANC

) i

^1ft;;;:;':::^*l-'"

49


50/61

FION. REYNALDO V. UMALI

Fror{.JOSEPH ICTORG. EJERCITO

FION. FL T. FLORES, R.

CESAR V. SARMIENTO

. HERRERA-DY

LO

Horv. nvlTvx

5 0


51/61

VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION

AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING

We, the undersigned concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers, of legal age,residents of Mapaniqui,Cfudr,tVnnd members of the Malaya Lolas, an organizition ofFilipino Comfort Women who suffered unspeakable orrors in the hands of the JapaneseImperial Army during World War II, after having been sworn in accordance with liw, dohereby state hat:

1. We are Complainants n this case;

We have caused the preparation of this ImpeachmentComplaint;

3. we have read its contents and affirm that they are true of ourown knowledge and belief on the basis of our reading andappreciation of documents and other records pertinentthereto.;

4. We hereby certifu that there is no other case commenced orpending before any court involving the same parties and thesame ssue and that, should we learn of such a case, we shallnotify the court within five (S) days rom our notice.

IN \AITNESS WHEREOF, we have signed his instrument on Decemb"r $, zoro inthe City of Makati.

SUBSCzuBED ND SWORN o before me in the City of Makati this {tr' day ofDecember o1o, hereby certifiz hat I have examined he affiants and I am satlsfied hataffiants executed and understood the above, the affiants personally appearing andknown to me to be the same persons who executed he foregoing instiument andexhibiting o me their respective dentification papers as described above. Further, theaffiants avow under penalty of law to the whole ruth of the contents of the instrument ordocument

2 .

Doc.No . *'llPage No. f?Book No. .4Series f zoro

(fT-

tt- ,/ \.Altnn do]-f r. r6hurznnnr-NO' i , - DUBLIC

UNTi'- ::,:!:V3ERf 20tOl90L{ArJ; ;: '_ ': ?D,.'r:r '{TEE\TEF

\/'X'- '. j : i f''l'-\.rTfCIT'IRC!^ ' -N ' l I r iCf l

Name Signature IDIsabelitaC. Vinuya Senior Citizen' s ID No. 226

date ssued l3ll07

PilarQ, Galang

?fliltSeniorCitizen's D No.0881 date ssued 19106

Maxima R. De la Cruz

tv*vtr.th6fLAzSenior Citizen' s ID No.3426 date ssued ll4l09

Leonor H. Sumawans/r/ /

( : a^ , / : .+". j, , . /z-z ; . : , : . , , . ,1

Senior Citizen's D No.788846 date ssued 19197

Maria L. Quilantang >\. ,'') , { n h -;-' / / " f ' ( ( , Di tu , I tn l r l5l

L

Philhealth D No.200153621 5 date ssued3l0r12009


52/61

Republic of theQuezon City

Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , R r v N r, r i r v . t r i i l A L l , of legale iuP i4 i r r : i l , f Cf- t i i r. ' f t i l i r i r - r, [ l f ;4 u


53/61


Philippines )l s .s .

VERIFICATION

I , BEfi.n 'l.EfiT R. l+Eri{].rt$ t}Y , of legal &ge, Fi l ipino, with address at

; after having been duly s\ rornand state that I am a Complainant

the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.

I hereby further attest that I have caused th e preparation of the foregoing

Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained therein are true and corre ct based on my personal knowledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this dav ofDecember 2O 10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

frN1n

in

/*Ttto before me this dav of December 2OIO atUBSCRIBED AND SWORN

Quezon City, Philippines.

&ry,BARLI/A-YAPSecretary General


54/61


Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

TL , CHnK . 6f\rnttrNrt , of 1egal age, Filipino, with address at

after having been duly swornin accordance rn'ith law, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainantin the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.


Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day ofDecember 2010 at Quezori City, Philippines.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN o before me this 4^O of December 2OIO atQuezon City, Philippines.


55/61


Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I, rRvtnlm' pUcAt-ft , of legal &ge Filipino, rn'ith address at

, after having been duly swornin accordance rn'ith laur, do hereby certify an d state that I am a Complainantin the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.


Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same , and that the allegationscontained therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand this _day ofDecember 20 1 O at Quezon City, Philippines.

) ,,"',11**

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN o before me this '{Lu of December 2OIO atQuezon City, Philippines.

i/

F

/t-


56/61


Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , F L " g K E { , t C l p T. F L 0 t E qr f i - , o f l e g a l ?ge Filipino, with address at'after harring been duly swornstate that I am a Complainantn accordance u'ith la\A',do hereb)' certify and

in the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.

I hereby further attest that I have caused the preparation of the foregoing

Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained therein are true an d correct based on my personal knorn'ledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand this _day ofDecember 2010 at Quezo:n City, Philippines.

suBSCRIBtrD AND swoRN to before me this 4u, of December 2oro atQuezon CilJ", Philippine s.

I'/^r-e i*fYNE. BARLN_?npSecretary General

MARILYNB. B


57/61


58/61


Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , E0p0R0 . 0F^llLAr,IR , of legal age, Filipino, with address at

ir-rin

NrlF ti.CU(Er f.F"a6ilrnx!ts rgfiA1Ahi 4ft\fLE{,J. , after having been duly swornaccordance rE th lau', do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainantthe foregoing Impeachment Complaint.


Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained therein are true and correct based on my personal knorn'ledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this dav ofDecember 20 i 0 at Quezon City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN o before me this f4uu of December 2OI0 atQuezon CiR-,Philippines.

/J-t'/t- a7r/YNA. BAR{IA-YAPSecretary General


59/61


Philippines )l s .s .

VERIFICATION

I, fnR6r fultN B , f,ANhl- JR . , of legal &Ee, Filipino, with address atafter having been duly sworn

state that I am a ComplainantE5l[ lpriSr, F f'ftcfrrtr_lvtin accordance rn'ith la\A',do hereby certify andin the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.


Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained the rein are true an d correct based on my personal knou'ledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day ofDecember 2010 at Quezorr City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORNQuezon City, Philippines.

/vflto before me this ' ' day of December 2OIO at

t /l t ^ - l

/lt^44-4-


60/61


Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I, N{L0trnI r. Ra I 0 , of legal dg e Filipino, rn'ith address atSqS Bqjtf oF GEft.qnlTFfl\v6h run6ftd omPut, c-t after having been duly swornin accordance u'ith lau/, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainantin the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.


Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained therein are true an d correct based on my personal knorn'ledgeand f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day ofDecember 2O 10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

/ t'

/ / ' , '(._.(s LAffiant

SUBSCRIBtrD AND SWORN o before me tn"*aaay

of Decem ber 2OIO atQuezon City, Philippines.

Mfu,Secretary General


61/61


Philippines )) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , RRLTNE 1q41q1J, B hG- ho , of legal a1e Filipino, rn'ith address atg, after having been duly sworn

in accordance with laur, do hereby certify an d state that I am a Complainant

in the foregoing Impeachment Complaint.


Impeachment Complaint, that I have read the same, and that the allegationscontained therein are true and correct based on my personal knou'ledge

and f or on authentic documents and other avaiiabie records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto se t my hand this -da-v of

December 2O10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN o before me this 4u, of December 2OIO at

Quezon City, Philippines.

)1hr^ut'/ C n)"{'

MARILYN s. BARI/A_YAPSecretary General

impeachment againts del castilio

Documents