Republicof the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
QuezonCity

IN TFIE MATTER OF THE

IMPEACHMENT OF SUPREME COURT
ASSOCIATETUSTICEMARIANO C. DEL
CASTILLO,
H O I , ' 5S O F R I P RI ] S E N T A T I V E S
Oftlceof tfreSecretary General
ISABELITA C. VINUYA, Rffi#ffiflVED
PILAR Q. CALANG,
ooc, NC)
MAXINTAR. DE LA CRUZ, ', o_ -
DATE /1 7111E' 3" Otf4z
LEONORH. SUMAWANG, BY: /t r%r -dfq
MARIA L. QUILANTANG,
HON. REYNALDO V. UMALI,
HON. BERNADETTER. FIERRERA-DY,
HON. IOSEPHVTCTORG. EJERCTTO
HON. CESARV. SARMIENTO,
HON. IRVIN M. ALCALA,
HON. FLORENCTOT. FLORES,JR.,
HON. VICENTE F. BELMONTE,JR.
HON. TEODORO B. BAGUILAT, IR.,
HON. JORGE"BOLET" BAN AL, JR.,
HON. WALDEN F. BELLO,
HON. KAKA J. BAG-AO,
Complainants.

VERIFIEDIMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT
 COMPLAINAI{T'S,respectfullystartethat:

PREFATORY

2004), the
In Tut a, Rosete (A.M. No. MT]-04-1563, scpterrnber B,
to
Sr_rpremc Court haci the occasionto state that jucigesor justicesmust aclhere
in the
the highest tcnets clf judiciarl concluct "to promote ptrblic confidence
in
integrity an4 impartiality of the iudiciary because people's confidence
of lggat
th" iudi.ial s)rste* i, fo.,rlded not o.ly o. the ma8titude
the
knowledee and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on
hiehest standar
It

-D O S S C S S

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

Iawyers
of juclgesto take or initiate appropriatc disciplinary measures against
or collrt persouncl for impropcr conduct, to wit:

to
Oftetrtirnes...leniencyprovides thc cottrt employees the opporfunity
commit rnilor trarrsgressionsof tl-relaws and slight breaches of official
duty gltimatel), leading to vicious delinquencies.The respondent judge
should constarrtly kecp a watchfr:l eye olr the conduct of his
cmployecs. IJe shoulci realize that big fires start small. F{is constant
scrutiny of the trchavior of his ernployees wottld deter any abuse on the
part of thc lattcr in the exercise of their duties. Thcn, his subordinates
woglcl check that any misclenreanor will not retnain uncheckcd' Tlee
slightcst 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 clistrust of the judicial administrators. The
slightest brcach of cluty by and the slightest irrcgularity in the conduct
6f conrt clfficers and cmployecs dctract frclm the c-lignity of the cottrts
and erocle the faith of the peoplc in thc iucliciary.

'
A d t n . C l a s cn v o .1 3 7 - J .N l a r c l r2 7 . 1 ( ) 1 1
 What is irrvolved in the present caseis not just a slight breach of dut1. or
a minor trarrsgression. The public official invoived is not just arr ordinarl,
court persorrnel or judg.. This case involves an Associate Justice of the
Suprerne Court, tt'ho, because of inexcusable acts of intellectual dishonesf,
iras dragged iris colieagues in tire Court, the entjre Supreme Court, and the
countrl"s jttstice svstem in a controversy that has causednot n-rereripples, but
\A'/aves
of ptrblic suspicion and distrust in the justice system.

His acts constitute betrayal of public trust. A mere disciplinary action

H'i1l not suffice, considering the gravity of the action and its effects op the
entire 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"), are ali Filipino citizens, of legal age, and residents
of the
Philippines. They are members of Malaya Lolas, a non-governmental

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

forces in the Philippines during the Second World war.

They may be served summons and other processesof the Honorable

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

 The other Cornpiainants Hon. Rey'naldoV. 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. iorge "Bo\et" Banal, Jr., FIon. Walden F-

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

Representatives,and may be sen,ed surnmons through their respectiveoffices

at tire House of Representatives.

The Respondent,JusticeMariano C. Del Castillo (hereinafter"Justice

Del Castilio")is an incumbentAssociatejusticeof the SupremeCourt and is

being sued in his official capacity. He assumedoffice as AssociateJusticeof

the SupremeCourt on29 Jrrly 2009. He rose from the ranks of the judicrary,

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

Trial Court Judge from 7992to 2001and Court of Appeals AssociateJustice

from 2007until his appointmentto the SupremeCourt in July 2009. He may

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

at the SuplemeCourt,PadreFauraSt.,Ermtta,7000Manila.
Representatives
 THE FACTS

1. On 28 April 2070, thc Supreme Court promulgated a Decision in

et. nl. (C.R. No. 162330).

IsnbelitnVintttltret. nl., us. ExecutiueSecretnr!1,

The Dccision, pL.nncclby justicc llci Castillo, clismissedthc Pctition

for Certiorari filed by thc members of Malaya Lolas, a non-

governmental orgarnizaLionproviditg arid to thc victims of rapc by

Japanesemilitary forccs irr the Philippinc's cluring the Sccond World

War, who were asking the Court to compel the Exectrtivc

Department to cspousc their clairn fc-rrapology ancl other forms of

reparations agairrstthe Japanesegovernment for the rape and sexual

slavery that the1,sufferecl from the Japanesemilitary dttring World

War II.

2. Sigrrificantportions of JtrsticeDel Castillo's ponencinwere lifted

without attribution f rom the works of Internaticlnal Law

professors/authors,
namely,l)r. ChristianJ. Tams,Dr. Evan Criddle,

Dr. Evan Fox-Decent,and Dr. Mark Ellis.Worse,JusticeDel Castillo

made it appcar tl-rattl-retheoriesof these authors to support the

Dccision to clismissthe ViruttlnPetition. The extensiveplagiarisrn

and nrisreprcscrrtation
clone by Justicel)el Castillo were initially

bror-rghtto the attentior-r

of the Sr-rpreme
Court by thc counseiof the

petitioners in Vinuryn in thcir Supplemental Motion for

Reconsidcration
dated 1B]uly 2010.2

'l-he
Supplcrnental}vlotiLrnlirr l{cconsitlcrationalle-gcsthat portionsol'thc llinut,ctdccisi<lnrverelifted r,r,ithout
attribLrtionficlrntlre it'orksof Internationall,ari authrtrs.plrrticularlv:
l . [ ) r o 1 I' .i v a n ( ] r i c l d l ca n c lI : ' r c l 1L.v a n l i o x - D e c e n t ' s2 0 0 9 a r t i c l ei n t h e Y u l e . f o r t r n aol f I n t c r n a t i o n a l
Lau'. "-,1I;iclucicu'1,'l'heo4, rf',/us ('ogens"

)
 3. So6n, the International Law prrofessors/authorscame forward with

thcir coml-rlaintsregarcling thc.plagiarisnr ;rnd misttse of their works

by JusticeDel Castillo.

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

Mark Ellis states:

"I write concenring a most delicatc isstte that has come to m)'
attention in 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 an
acaclemic and as an aclvocate of htttnan rights and hurnanitarian
law, to take cxception to the possible unattthorized use 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
S c c r e t a r y ,L . t .a l . ( C . l t . N o . 1 6 2 2 3 0j,u d g m c u t o f A p r i l 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 ) .

XXX XXX XXX

In particular, I am concerneclabr-ruta large part of the extensivc

clisctrssionin footnote 65, pp. 27-28, of the said Judgment of your
csteemeclCor-rrt.I am also conccnrcd that yc-rure'steenredCourt may
harre misread the arguments I rnacle in the article atrd employed
thcm for cross-pLlrposcs.T'his r,r'ould be ironic since the article was
writtcn preciscly to argtte for thc apPropriate legal remedy for war
crimes, gcnocide, ancl crimes against humanity.

I belicve a full copy of my article was published in the Case Western

I{eserve Jor-trrral of In ternational Law in 2006 has been madc
available to your estccr-nedCourt. I trust that yollr estcemcd Court
will take thc timc to careiully str-rdythc argumcnts I made in the
articlc."

2.
Dr. Clhristian'l'arns' book, L,rt/orc'ing l;,rgaOnnes Obligution.sin InternctlionulI'av', publishedby
( ' a r n b r i d g et J n i v c r s i t yl ) r c s s ;
3 . I ) r . M a r k l r l l i s ' a r t i c l c i n t h c 2 ( X ) 6r , o l L r r nocl ' C l a s cW e s t c r t t . l o u r t t aotfl I n t c m a t i o n all, a w .
"llreuking the,\ilanc'e' On llope us etI lnlernutionul C'rime."
'ht!p;i1ur'^l.scr.i!4[.g..,itr/t|rlc/.-l9|i5tllll/l.citer.-!q[tc1lLrlrli9tlf-;!.[-q1I.,|
I -l l)cccrnber2010.
 the
5. On 19 July 2070,prof. Criclcllemacle public hi: complaint on

mistrseof his works when he posted thc follor,vingin the website

Opiniolur is:

,,f1e rnotion strggests that the Ccttrrt's clecision ctlntains thirty-four

scntenccs ancl citations that are iclentical to sentenccsand citations in

my 2009 YJIL articlc (co-authorecl with Evan Fox-Decent). Professor
Irox-Dcce-nt atrtl I were tlllaware of the petitioners' plagiarisrn
allcgations trntil aftcr tl-remotiorl was filecl toclay.

jtts
Spcaking for m1'5gif, the nrost tror-rbling aspect of thc court's
collens discussion is that it implies that tl-re prohibitions against
jus
crimcs against lrtturauitY, sexual slavcry, ancl tclrture are not
" a
cogelrs l-lorlns. Our article emphatically assertsthe opposite.

to Chiei JusticeRenato Corona, dated 18

6. Then, in a lettersaclc'lressed

Atrgtrst 2070,ProfessclrTatns statcs:

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

law at t he University of Glasgow. I am writing to you ir-rrelation to
t6e use of one of my pr,rblicationsin the above-mcntioncd judgment
of yor-trIlotrottrable Court.

The relevant passageof thc judgment is to be for-rndon 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-rerclerrant sentences werc taken almost word by word from the
introcitrctory chapter of my book Errforcing obligations E,rgaomnes
in 1-rternatiolal Law (Cambriclge University Press 2005).I note that
there is a generic rcfereuce to my work in foobnote 69 of the
another attthor
Judgment, but as this is in relation to a citation from
(Bruno Simma) rathcr than wit h respcct to 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/accesscd on I J [)ccentber2(110.
3 lu,U-ftt ort l3 l)ecemher20 10.
accessed
l ,utrs:.L,r11c1--Q.:SUlttlq-lotrr!,
ta-tcribrl.!t!1111:d,I1]985QL(lll
 in the Juclgment,I do not tirink it cirn be consiclereclatr
rerpr()chlcccl
approPriate form oi referencing'

to
I am particr-rlarlyconcenrctLthat my work shottid havc been trsed
suppgrt thc Judgrnerrt's catttious approach :cl the crga omnes
conc-ept. 11 fact, a most ftlrsory reacling shows that my book's
central thesis is prccisely the oppositc: tramely that the crga onlrles
conccpt has bcen ',,n'iclelyaccepted aucl hars a firm place in
coltemporary inter:national law. Hettcc' the introductory chapter
lgtcs that "[t]he present sttrcly attempts tcl demystify aspectsof the
'rz€ry rnysterions' concept .anci thcrcby to facilitate its

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

lcttes that "the precccling chapters shclw that the concept is now a
part of Lhe. reaiity of inte.matjonal law, cstablishcd in the
jr-rrispruclenceof cotrrts ancl tte pracfice of Statcs" (p- 309).

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

-
how my work shouJclhavc been citecl to support as it seemingly
6as - thc opposite approach. More generarll|,I am concerned at thc
way i1 whic-h )/our l-lonolrable Court's judgment has drawn on
scholarll, work without propcrlY acknowlcdging it'"

7. The extent of the-plagiarisnl and misrepresentatictndone by Justice

Del Castillo is Lrestappreciated from the tables drawn by Suprcme

Cotrrt AssctciatcJusticeMaria Lotrrdes P.A. Scrcno in hcr dissenting

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

Against AssociatcJusticcMariano Dcl Castillo (A.M. No. 10-7-77-SC,

l5 October 2010),tlrtrs:

TABLE A: Comparisonof ChristianJ. Tams's book, entitled En.forcing

Ergn OmnesOLtligntions Luro (2005),hereinaftercalled
hr Internntionnl
"Tan-ls'swork" anc-lthe Supreme Cottrt's 28 April 2010 Decision in
Sccretnrtl.
Vitturln,et.nl, u. Exccutirte

n!1tplscjtrcliciar),.gtlr,,.pUjLrruptlcjcncc/]0l.J)ioc.t<.lllg1-?'0-L()|]Q..1:lZ-LC._sq
20l0.
 CHRISTIAN I. TAMS, Vimtyn, et. nl. a. Execrftizte
ENFORCING ERGA OMNES Secretnrtl, G.R. N o . 1,62230, 28
OBLIGATIONS IN April 2010.
TNTERNATIONALLAW (2005).

'crgn onltlcs' 'er[]a olTltles,'

l . xxx The Latirr phrase "The Latin phrase,
thus has become one of the has since become one of the
rallying cries of those sharing a rallying crjes of those sharing a
betief iu the cmergellcc of a belief in the emergetlce of a
value-bascd internatiotral puLrlic value-basc'd international public
ordcr based on law. xxx order. I{owever, as is so often the
case,thc rcality is neithcr so clear
As ofterr, the rcality is neither so nor so bright. Whatc'u'err the
clear r-rorso bright. One problem relevance of obligations erga
is rcarlily admittec-l bY orxncs as a legal concePt, its full
colnrnentators: r,t,hatever the potential remains to be realized
re levancc of obligations erga itr practicc.lrrN6el (p. 30, Rocly of
onltlcsas a legal conccpt, its full the 28 April 2010 Decision)
potential remaitrs to be realised
in practice. xxx Brttno Simma's llrN6'rl Bruncl Simma's tnuch-
nruch-quoted observation cluoted observation encapsulates
encapsLllates this fceling of this feeling of d isaPPointment:
' V i e w e d 'Vier,,r,edrealistic ally, the world
d isappointment:
realistically, the world of oi obligations erga omnes is still
obligatiolls c/'t/7()ttttlcsis still the tlre wclrlcl of tlte "ott ght" rather
worlcl of the "ottgl-lt" rather than tlran of the " is"' TI{E CHARTEI{
Of the " rs" . OF TI{E UNITED NATIONS: A
COMMENTAITY 125 (Simma, ed.
1995). Scc Tams, Enforcing
Obligations Ergn ornlrcs in
International Law (2005).

*The decision mentioned

Christian Tatns's book in
footnote 69.
(pp. 3-4 of ChristianTatns's
book)

TABLE B: Comparisonof EvanJ. C r i d d l e & E v a n Fox-Decent'sarticle in

the Yale Tournalof lnternationalLaw, entitled A Fiducinry Theoryof ILts

9
CogensQA09),hereinafter called " Criddle's & Irox-Decent'swork" and
the Supreme Court's 28 Apri[ 2010 Decision in Vitruun,et nl. u. Executiae
Secretnrtl.

Ilvan J. Criddle & Evan Fox- Vinmln,et.nl. u. Executiac

G.R.No. 162230,28
of lus Secretnnl,
Decent, A FiducinrrlTlrcorry
Cogens, 34 YALE J. INT'L L. 331 April 201,0
(200e).

In intemational la\.{', the tertn In intcmational law, the term

"lm cogens" (litcrally, "jlrs cr-rgcns" (literally,
"compclling law") refcrs to "ccrmpelling law" ) refers to
norms that comrnand norms that command
pcrenlptory anthority, pcrernptclrlr authority,
supcrseding corrflictir-rg treatie's strperseding conflicting treaties
and custom. xxx Jtrs cogens and custorn. Jus cogens norms
NOTMS a rc consiclered are cor-rsidered percmptory in
pcremptory in the sense tha t lhe sensc t]rat they are
they are mandatory, clo not manclatory, do uot adrnit
adrnit derogation, anci can bc derogation, and catr bc moc{ified
moclifieci only by gencral only by gcneral intemational
international l"lorms nc)rnrs of equivalent
ecluivalcnt authori ty. tlxzl (pp. 30-31, Body
authority.lrrNT0l
of the 28 April 2010l)ccision)
q,ee
ll;N2l Vienna Convention on
tlrc Law of Treaties art. 53, ll;N701 qLreVierrtra Cotrveution on
ope'ncc-lfor signattire Moy 2.3, tlrc Law of J'reaties art. 53,
1 9 6 9 ,1 1 5 5 U . N . ] ' . S .3 3 1 , I I . L . M . opernec{ for signature Muy 23,
679 [hereinafterVCf ,Tl. 5 . N . T . S .3 3 1 , 8 I . L . M .
1 . 9 6 9 , 1 1 5U
L)
67 lhercina fter VCLTI.
(pp. 337-332 of thc Yale Law
jotrrnal of Int'l l-aw)

I'}eremptory nonns Lrcgan to xxx peremptory norms

but
attract grcatcr scholarly began to attract grcater scholarly
attcntion r,r,iththc. pulrlicaticlr of attcntion with the publication of
Alfred von Verclross's Alfrcd von Verdross's influential
-freaties
infltrential 1937 article, 1937 article, Forbidden
Forbidclen T'rcaties in in Irrternational Law. trxzzJ
(p. 31,
International Law.U:N]ol Body of thc 28 April 2010
Dccision)

t0
lFNrolIror exatnple, ilr the 7934
Oscar Chim Casc, Jtrdgc l FN 72l V erdross argtrcd that

Schiicking's influential dissent certain discrcte rttles of

statecl that neither alt intema- intcrnaticlnal cuslorn had come
tional court nor alt arbitral to be recognized as having a
tribunal shottlcl apply a treaty cornprrlsory character
prorrision irr cotrtraclicti<tn to notwithstanding contrary state
bonos mores. Oscar Chjnn Case, agrcements. At first, Verdross's
1934 P C.l.J. (ser. A/B) No. 63, at visi on of interna tional jrt
149-50 (Dec. 12) (Schucking, J., cogerls encottntcred skepticism
clissenting). within the lcgal academy. Thcse
voiccs of resistance soon founcl
themselves in the minclritY,
however, as the jtt cogells
concept gainecl euhanced
recognition anct credibility
following the Scconcl Woricl
War'. (Scc [,atrri l-Iannikaine-n,
Percmptory Norms (Jus cogens)
in International Law: Historical
Devclopntcnt, Criteria, Present
(p. 33a of the Yale Law Tottrnal Stafr-rs 150 (1988) (surveying
of Int'l Law) legal scholarship clttrirrg the
pcriod lL)45-69 and reporting
thaL "abottt eigirty per cent lof
scholarsl helcl thc opinion that
thcre are peremptory norms
existing in intemational law").

Classical ptrblicists such as tlrNTrlClassical ptrblicists such as

FTugo Grotius, Emer dc Vattel, Hugo Grotius, Emer dc Vattel,
and Christian Wolff drcw Lrpon and Christian Wolff drew LIF)on
thc Roman larv d istinction the ltoman law distinction
between jus c-lispc'rsi
Livum betwccn jtrc dispositiurntr
(voh-rntary law) and jus (volurrtarylaw) anciTltsscriptum
scripturn (obligatory law) to (obligatory law) to differentiate
c li ffe re n ti a te conscnsual consensual agreements between
agrccrncnts bctwcen states fronr I statcs from thc "necessary"
the "necessary" principlcs of principlcs of it'rternational Iaw
international law that bincl all t h a t b i n d a l l s t a t c s a s a p o i n t o f
{qt_". q!_g_!g11!t .:Ury:elSS gorE_cl!'nc collelU
g r egarry!]9919_f
lt
regardlessof consent.[FN6l

lrrN6l
Sec Hrrgouis Crotii, De jure
Bclli et Pacis [On the Law of
War and Peacel (William
Whcwell ed. & trans., John W.
I'arkcr, Lotrclon 2009) (7625);
Emer c1c VatLel, [-e Droit des
Cens oll Principes de la Loi
Naturellc [.]-rc Law of Nations
or I'rinciplcs of Natr-rrall,awl $$
9, 27 (1758) (distinguishirrg "Ie
f)roitdes Gens Naturel, oll
N6ccssaire" frotn "le Droit (p 31, Footnote 77 of the 28
Volon tairc" );Christian Wolff, A p r i l 2 0I 0 D e c i s i o n )
Jus Centium Methoclo
ScierrtificaPcrtractorlrrn tA
Scicntific Method for
Understancling the [-aw of
Nationsl 115 (JanrcsBrown Scott
cc1., Joscph t{. Drake trans.,
Clarenclon I'ress 1934)(1764).

(p. 33a of the Yalc Law Journal

of Int'l Law)

Ear)y tr,ventieth-century li'N7rl

xxx Early twentieth-century
pul-rlicists such as [,assa pr-rblicists such as Lassa
Oppcnhcim arrcl Wiliiam Hali O p p c n h e i m a n d W i l l i a m H a l l
asserted confidentll, that stales asserlecl that states could not
could not abrogate certain abrogatc certain "Ltniversally
"ttniversally recognizcd recognizecl principlcs" by
principles" b)' mufual muLr-ral agrccment. xxx Judges
agreement. Outside the on the Ccturt of
Pcrmanent
academy, judges or-l the International Justice affirmed
Irermanent Court of the existence of peremptory
Iuternational Jr-rstice affirrnccl norms in international law by
the existence of pcrenrptory referencing treaties contra bclnos
nolms in intcrnational law by mores (contrary to public policy)
referencing treaties confra bc-rnos in a series of individual
mores (contraryz to public conctrrring and dissenting
rlicv) in a series of inclividual oD
t
It-llolts. xxx

t.\
t'
colrcurring and disserrting
o p i n i c l n s .l l ;N roxix x

tF N eWi
l l l i a rn IJ a l l , A Treati se t' rn
In tc rn a ti o n a l I.a w 382-83 (8th
ed. 1921) (a s scrti ng that
"lttttdatne-ntal prirrciplcs of
internatiorral law" nray
" i n v a l i d a t c [ , or at lcast rcnder
voiclabie," conflicting
international allrcerrcrrts); 1
I-assa Oppen-hcittt,
Intc.rnational[.alt' 52u (1905).

[rNro]For cxample, in the 1931 (p 31, Footnote 7'I of the 28

Oscar Chinn Case, Juclge April 2010Decision)
Schticking's influrcntial dissent
stated that neithcr an interna-
tionai ccllrrt nor an arbitral
trilrunal shoulcl apply a treaty
provisit-rn in contradiction to
borros mores. Oscar Chinr-rCase,
7934 P.C.I.J.(ser. A/ts) No. 63, at
149-50 (Dec. 12) (Schiicking, J.,
dissenting).

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

J o u r r n aol f I n t ' l I - a w )

trrNel
William FIall, A Treatise on lr;N7rlxxx (Williarn Hall, A
Intcnrational Law 382-83 (8th Tre atise olr International I-aw
ec1. 1924) (assertirrg that 382-83 (Bth ecl. 7924) (asserting
"fttndamental prirrciples of that "fundamental principles of
intcrn.ltional Ia\A," may international law" may
" i n v a l i c l a f e [ ] , or articast rerrdcr "invalidate [.], or at lcast render
voidaLrle," colrflicting voidable," con flictin g
iuternational agreements)xxx international agreements) xxx

(p 31,, Footnote 71 of the 28

(Footnote 9 of thc Yale Law April 2070 Decision)
Journ:rl of Int'l Law)

r3
lfNrol Fctr cxample, in the 1934 lFNTrlxxx (For er:ample, in thc

Oscar Ch inn Casc, Judge 1931 Oscar Chinn Case, Judge

Schuc-king's infltrential dissent Schticking's influential dissent
stated that neithcr an stated that ncither al-I
international coltrt nc>r all international ctlurt nor an
arbitral tribtrr-ralsirould apply a arbitrai tribunal should apply a
trcaty provision in contradiction treaty provisi<ln in contracliction
to bonos mores. Oscar Chinn to bonos mores. Oscar Chinn
Case, 1934 P.C.f.J. (ser. A/ll) No. Case, 1c)34I'.C.1.J.(sc'r.A/B) No.
63, at 719-50 (Dec. 12) 63,. at 749-50 (Dcc. 12)
(Schucking,J.,disscnting). (Sclrticktng,,I ., clissenting).

(Footnote 9 of the Ycalc L,arwI (t, 37, Footnote 71 of the 28

Journal of Int'l Law) I
A p r i l 2 ( ) 1 0D e c i s i o n )
- --+
I

Verdross arguccl that certainI lrrNT2l Verdross argued that

discrete rttles of interrnationali certai n di scretc rttl es of
custorn had colne t o b e i intemational custctm had come
recognized as having a to bc recognizecl as having a
cornpulsory character comprrlsorl, character
notwithstanding contrary state notwithstancling contrary state
agreemell[s.[FN12] agreernents.xxx

lrrNr2l
IVon Verdrctss, supra note
5.1
(p 31, Footnote 72 of the 28
(pp. 335 of the Yale Law |ournal April2070Decision)
of Int'l Law)

At first, Verdross's vision of llrNT2lxxx At first, Verdrclss's

international cogerls vision crf intemational jrts cttgens
cnconntcred skepticism within encountercd skepticisrn rnithin
the lcgal academy. xxx Thesc thc legal academ)'. These voices
voiccs of rcsisLallce soor-l fotturl of rc'sistance
soon ftlund
themsclves in the rninority, themsclves in the minority,
howcver, as thc jus c()gclts lrowevcr, as thc jtts clgens
concept gainccl enhanced corrcept gairred cnhanced
rc.cognition ancl cred ibility recognition and credibility
following thc Seconcl World fo11or,r,ing the Sccond World
War. War. xxx

t1
 (p 37, Irootnote 72 of the 28
(pp. 335-6 oi the Yalc Law A p r i i 2 0 1 0D e c i s i o r r )
Jor-rrnalof lnt'i Law)

IFNrslSec Lauri Flannikainen, lrrNT2l XXX e Lauri

Peremptory Norrns (Jus Cogcns) Flanrrikainen, Peremptory
in International Law: Historical Nortns (Jtrs t:ogens) ln
Development, Criteria, Prescnt Intemational Law: Historical
Status 150 (1988) (surveYing Developmcnt, Criteria, Present
legal scholarship during the Status 150 (1988) (surveYing
periocl 1945-69 and rc'Porting tegal scholarship during the
that "abottt eightY frer cent [of period 7945-69 and rePorting
scholarsl held the t-rpinion that thaf "abottt eighty Per cent lof
there are peremptory tlorms scholarsl held the opinion that
e x i s t i r r gi n i n t e m a t i o r r a ll a w " ) . thcre are pc'remPtorY norn'ls
existing in international law").

(Footnote 18 of the Yale Law (p. 31, Footnotc 72 of thc 28

Jc-rumalof Int'l Law) April 2010Dccision)

x x x t h e 1 9 5 0 sa r r d 1 9 6 0 sw i t h t h e xxx the 1950sand 1960swith the

Unitccl Nations Internatioual lI.C's preparation of the Vienna
Law Comnrission's (l LC) Couvetrtion on the Law of
-I'reatie's
prcparation of the Vienna (VC LT).IrrN73]
Convention ol'l tire Law of
'l'rca (p. 31, Body of the 28 APrii 2010
tics (VCLT). tFN2ol
Decisiorr)
urN2{)l
VCLT, stlpra trote 2.
urN73l
In March 1953, the ILC's
Special Ilapporteur, Sir Hcrsch
Latrterpacht, submitted for the
I[-.C's cclnsideratiou a Partial
clraft convention on treaties
w l r i c h s t a t e c it h a t " [ a l t r e a t Y , o r
any of its provisions, is void if
(p. 336 of the Yale Lan' Journal its perft)rmance involves an act
of Int'l l-aw) whicir is iilegal under
international law ancl if it is
clcclared so to be bY thc

l5
 Internatiorral Cclttrt of Justicc."
Flersch Lauterpachi, Law clf
'freatics: ir]' Special
lteport
' Y.B. Int'l I-.
Rapportetrr, [1953]
Comnt'n 90, 93, U.N. Doc.
A/CN.4/(r3.

'1953,
1 1 . In lv{arch Lauterpacht lrrNT3l Irr March 1953, tl're ILC's
s u b m i tte d for the ILC's Spccial llarpporteur, Sir l-Icrsch
consideration a partial clraft [.auterpacht, snbnrittcd lor thc'
convention or1 treaties whicl-r ILC's consideration a partial
s t a t e d t h a [ " [ a l t r e a t f , o r a n y o f draft conventicln on treaties
its provisions, is voicl if its which statcc{that "[al treaty, or
performance involves an act any of its provisions, is void if
which is illegal u n d c r its perforrnance involves an act
i n t e n r a t i o n a l l a w a n d if it is which is illegal utrder
declared so to be by the intcrnational law and if it is
Intcrnational C o ur t o f cleclared so to be by the
Jttstice." tr'\2r I Intemational Cottrt of Justice."
Hersch Lauterpacht, Law of
[rrN21l
Flersch l,arrtcrpracht,I-aw of Treatics: Report by Special
'['reaties:
Ileport by Sp-recialIlapporteur, [1953] 2 Y.B. Int'l L.
I{apportcur, [1953j 2 Y.B. Int'l ]-. Cornm'n 90, 93, U.N. Doc.
Cornnr'n c)0, 93, U.N. I)oc. A/CN.4/63.
A/CN.1163.
(p 37, Footnote 73 of the 28
(p. 336 of thc Yalc Law Journal A p r i l 2 0 1 0D c c i s i o n )
of Int'l Law)

72. Lautcrpacht's colleagr-reson thc Thotrgh Lhere was a consenslls

ILC gcncrally acceptecl his that certairr iLrternaLionalnorms
assessment that ccrtain lracl attained thc status of jus
internationai norrns had coqens,IIrNT+l1]1gILC was unable
a tta i n c c l th c s ta fr.rsof j us cogcns. to reach a conse'nslls on the
llrN23l Yet despitc generral prolrcr criteria for iclentifying
agrccmcnt ovcr the existence clf peremptory n()rn'ls.
intcrnarticlnal jus cogens, the I[,C
was Llnable to reach a colrscr-rslrs (p. 31, Body of the 28 April 2010
regarding eithcr thc thc.oretical Dccision)

16
basis for pcremptnry norms' rt*tl 5"" t t*-." f<..ntat of
lcgal ar.rthority0r the proper tha B77th Meeti ng', 11.96611 Y.B.
criteriat for iclentifyin g Int'l L. Contnt'tt 227, 230-237,
p e re mp to ry n o rms . U.N. Doc. A/CN.-1i188 (noting
that thc "cntergetrce clf a ntle of
lF\231 See f-Iannikainen, jtrs cogens Lranning aggrcssivc
sllpra
rrcrtc 18, at 760-67 (r-roting that \var as elt-linternational crime"
none of the twenty fi ve was evicicnce that intcrnational
menrlrers of the I LC in 1963 I a w contai ns " mi tl i mum
dcnied thc existencc of jus requirenrent[s] for safeguarding
cogens or contestcd the ttrre.existence of the itrtcrnational
inchrsion of an articlc c)n jr-rs conrrnunity").
cogens in the VCLT); sec, e.8.,
Strnrrnary I{ecords of the 877th
Meeting, 1795611 Y.B. Int'l L.
Comnr'n 227,230-231,LJ.N. L)oc.
A/CN.4/1t18 (rrotirrg that thc
"emergcnce of a ntle of jtrs
cogens baming aggressiverwar
as an ilrtcrnational crirne" was
c.vidence that intcrnational law
contains "minimum
reqlrirement[sl for safeguardi-rrg
thc existe''nceof the internatiorral
commLlnity").

(p. 336 o1'the Yale l-aw Jor-rrnal

of Int'l Law)

lliN2rlxxx sce, e.8., Sttrrrmary [FN7't]See Summary Recclrds of

1 Y.B.
I{ecords of the 877th Mccting, the B77tlrMecting, [,,1,1)661
[19661 1 Y.B. Int'l L. Cornm'n Int'l L. Comm'n 227, 230-231.,
227, 230-737, U.N. Doc. U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/188 (noting
A/CN.4/188 (notirrg that thc that the "entergence clf a mle of
"emcrgcnce of a mle of jus jtrs c0gcns banning aggressive
cogcns banning aggrcssive war war as an international crime"
as an intcrnaticlnal crirne" was was evide'nce that interuational
e v i d e n c e t h a t i n t e r n a t i o n a l l a w law contains "mlnlmun-l
cclntains "rninir-nurn requirement[s] for safeguarcling
rccluirenrent[s] for" safeguarcling thc existcnce of the intc'rnaticlnal
thc existenceof the intenrational commlr nitv" ).
L ' o l n m l rn i ty " ).

1t t - 7
 I tp 31, lrootnotc 7-+ of tire 28
April 2010Decision t
(Footnote 23 of the Yalc I-aw
Ig.l t4w)
lo11aol_"1

After an cxtended debate over After an cxtencled debate ove'r

these and other theorics of jus thesc and other theories of jus
cogerls, the ILC concluclcd cogcns, the ILC conclu dcd
rtrefr-rliv in 7963 that "there is rne'fr-rlly in 1963 that "there is
not as yet any generallY not as yct any gcnerailY
acceptecl criterion by which to acceptecl criterion by which tcr
identify a general rnle of idcntify a gencral rule tlf
interlrational law as having the international law as having the
charactcr of jus cogclls.'/[rN27]
xxx In a
characterof ius cogens.'/[r;N7si
In commentary accolrtPanying cor-nmentary accompanYing the
thc' draft cont etrtion, the ILC dra f t convcntion, the ILC
indicated that "tltc pruclent inclicated tirat "tlte Pn-rdent
collrsc secms to be to . leave colrrse seems to bc to x x x leave
the fr-rllcontent of this rule to be thc fLrll ct-rtrtentof this rule to L-re
worked out in State practice arrd workecl out in State practice and
in the jurisprudence of in the jurispr-udence of
international tribunals./'IFN2elxxx interna tional tribunalq.//[FN76l
xxx

lrrN2TlSecond l{cpc-rrtott thc Law (p. 32,Bodyof the 28 April 2010

-freatics,
of [1c)6312 Y.B. Int'l 1.. Decision)
.1,
Comm'n 52, U.N. Doc.
qecond l{eport on the Law
lr;N7sl
A /C N .4 /1 5 (r.
'freaties,
of [196312 Y.B. Int'l [,.
IFN-2elSccond I{cpolt otr the Law Comnt'n 1, 52, U.N. Doc.
crf Treatiers, sttpra notc 27, at 53. A/CN.4/156.

(p. 337-8of thc YaleLaw Journal Pr,t[d. at

t-rflnt'l Law)

ln sonre municipal cascs,cottrts ItjNTTlxxx In solnc mr-rnicipal

h a v e d eclined to recognize cases, courts harre declined tcl
intc.rnatio n a l norms a s recognizc international norms as
perempto r y w h i l c c x p r c s s i n g perernptt"rry while cxpressing
I
cloubt about the proper critcria cloutrt about the' proper criteria
n*
{q L{gr,t1-lrugru'r9t9l t .-r "I L
for identifvine ius cogens. (Sce,

l8
 e.8.,
Sampson v. Federal
IFN72]See, c.8., Sampson v. Ilepr,rblic of Gernrilrly,, 250 F.3d
Fccleral Rcptrblic of Gcrmatuy, 7 1 4 5 , 7 1 4 9 ( 7 t l r C i r . 2 0 0 1 )
250 F.3cl 7745, 1149 (7th Cir. (expressing con(rcm that jtt
2001) (exprcssing corlccrn that cogcrls should bc invoked
irr cogens should be invokecl " [ o l r r l y a s a l a s t r c s o r t " ) ) .x x x
"[o]nly as a last re'sort").
(p 32, Footnote 77 of the 28
ApriI 20'10Decisiorr)

@. 3a6 of the Yale l-aw Jor-rnal

cti Int'l L,aw)

7 6 . In othcr cases, national courts llrNTTlxxx ln otlrer cases/ nati onal

have acccptecl intcrnational cotrrts have acceptecl
norms as pcremptory, br-rt havc international norms as
hesitateclto enforcc these norms pereffrptory, but havc hesitated
for fear that thcy might there'by to enforcc these norms for fear
cclmnnrmise
I
statc' that they might thereby
sovereigntl'.il|VJJ xxx In Congo cornprclmise state soverrcigrty.
v. Rwancla, f.or example, Jtrdge (See,c.9., Rouzari v. Iran, [20011
ad hoc John Dugard observed 7 L O.I{.3d 675 (Can.) (holcling
that the ICJ hact rcfrained from that the prohibition against
invoking thc jus cogcns concept torture clocs not entail a right to
in several previous cases where i:l civil remcdy, etrforceablc in a
peremptrtry norlrls rnanifestly foreign court)).
clashed with othcr principles of
general intcrnational law.ilrNZli ln Corrgou. ll.lt,artdn,for example,
Sirnilarly, the European Cor-rrtc>f Judgc acl hc'rc John Dr"rgard
Human Itights has adclrr.ssed observcd that the f CI had
jus cogens only once, in A1- refrained from invoking the Trrs
Adsani v. Unitecl Kingdom, cogens concept in several
whcn it farnously rejt'ctccl the ttrevlol-ls
l.
CASCS where
argument that jr-rs cogens peremptory norms manifestly
violations would cleprive a state clashed with othcr principlcs of
of sovercign immunity. gencral irrternational law. (Sec
Arrned Activities on the
UrNZJ Sec, c.g., Bouzari v. Iran, Territory of the Congo (Dem.
[2004] 71 O.I{.3c1 675 (Can.) Rtp. Conro u. Rwnndn)
(holcling that the prohil'rition (Juclgnrcnt of Febrttarl, 3, 2006),
against torture does not entail ar at 2 (I)isscn tirrg Opin ion of
le\t _!q Judge Dugard))

l9
 enforceab e itr a fclrt:ign court).
Sirnilarl' ', the European Court of
TINZJ S, Armed Activities on l{urnan ltights has addrcsscd
'fcrlitory
the o f t h e C o n g o jtrs rr()gns only once, in AI'
' Llnited Kingrlorn,when
(Dem. R"p. Congo v. I{walrcla) Adsnni
(Jnclgmertrtof Feb. 3, 200(r), at 2 it frr ,trsly rejected the
(dissenting opinion of Judgc argLrn.rc nt that jus cogetn
Dugard) xxx. violafi:rnSwrlr-rlddeprivc a statc
of sol'ercign immtrn ity. Al-
Atlsnrti tt. l.,lnitt:dK[ngrlom, 2007-
XI,Etrr. Ct. H.R. 7c),61).

(p 32, Footnotc 77 of the

April 2010 Decision)

(pp. 346-7 of the Yale Law

journal of Int'l L a w )

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

ReserveJournalof InternationalLaw, entitledBreskin;q Rnpens
tlrcSilence:
an InternntionnlCrime (2006-7),hereaftercalled "Ellis's work" and the
StrpremeCourt's 28 April 2010 Decision in Vinryn, et nl. a. Executitte
Secretsrtt.

Mark Ellis, Rrenkfugthe Silence:Rnpe ns nn InternntionnlVittwln, et. nI. a.

Crime,38CASEW. RES.I. rNT' L L. 225 (2006-2007
). Exectiiae Secretnry,
G.R.No. 162230,28
April 2070.

fhe conccpt of rape as an inten-ratioual crime is rclatively urN6sl

The concept of
new. This is not tcl say that rape has l-levcr been historically rape as an
-fhe
prohibitcd, partic-ularly in 14131.lrrN7l 1863 Lieber international crirnc
Instructions, which codificd custotnary inter-nartioual law is relativcly new.
clf land h'arfarc, classificcl rape as a crime clf "troop This is not to say
It
cliscipling.'/[FN8l spccified rape as a capital crime that rape has never
,rt.'ithu! glt)/.r"Noll-he I 90Zlqgg! been historicall

20
Convcntion prrotccted womell by requiring the protet'tion prohibited,
of thcir "hcx-rour.//U:N101
Bltt mclclern-clayscnsitivity to thc particularly in war.
crime of rapc did not cmerge trrrtil after World War lI. But modern-duy
scnsitivity to the
tFNTlFor c'xample, the "l'reaty tlf Anrity antl Comnr. t'cc crimc of rape did
Prussia and thc UrriteclStatesproviclcs that in tinre ol war not emerge until
all women ancl children "shall not be molcstetl in thcir after World War II.
persons." The T'reaty of Amity ancl Cclmmcrce, Betwet'n his xxx (For exarnple,
Majesty thc King of Prussia ancl the United States of the Treaty of
8 TRIIATIES & Arnity
Ar-rrerica,art. 23, Sept. 10, 1785,U.S.-l)rLrss., and
OTFIEI{ IN]''L AGI(EEMENI'S OF TFIE U.S. 78, 85, Cclrnmcrce
a v a i l a b l ea t x x r . bertween Prussia
and the United
lFNsl Davicl Mitchell, The Prohibition of l{apc
States in prclvides
Intcrnational Flurnanitarian Lar.t,as a Norm of Jus Cogens: t h a t i n t i n r e o f w a r
Clarifying thc Doctrinc, 15 DUKE l. COMP. IN'|"L L. 279, all wornen arrd
224. childrcn "shall not
be molested in
t FN eId
l . at 236. their persons." The
Treaty of Amity
lFNrol
"Family honolrr and rights, the lives of persons, and and Commercc,
privatc prclperty, os well as rcligious convictions and Betwcen
prracticc,tnttst be resp-tcctccl."Conycltic-rn (IV) I{especting Majesty the King
tlre Laws & Custorns of War on Lancl, art. 46, Oct.78, 1907, of Prlrssia and the
availablc a t Unitc.cl States of
http ://w ww. yal e.ed u /1aw vvcb/avaI on/l awof w arlira gu e04.h t America, art. 23,
m #art16. Sept.70,7785,U.S.-
Pruss., 8
TREATIES &

AGI{EEMENTSOF
TFIE IJ.S.78, 85I)]
The 1863 Licber
Instructions
(p. 227 of thc Case Western Law I{eservc lournal of Int'l classifiedrape as a
I-aw) crirnc of "troop
discipline."
(Mitchell, The
Prohibition of
Rape fur
Intcmational
HurnanitarianLaw
as a Norm of Jus

2l
 cogens: Clarifying
tlre Doctrinc, 75
DUKE I COMP
lN'I',L. L. 21,9,224).
It specificcl rape as
a capital crime
ptrnishable by tire
death penalty (Id.
'T'he
at 236). 7907
Hague Convention
prcltected women
by requiring the
protection of their
"11onour."
("Family honottr
and rights, the
lives of persons,,
and private
property, flS r.ttell
AS religious
convictious and
practice, must be
respected."
Convention (lV)
Respecting the
Laws & Customs
of War on Land,
art. 46, Oct. 18,
xxx.
1907[)1.

(p. 27, Footnote65

of the 28 April
2010Decision)

Af ter World War Il, whe.n thc Allie's established the l|N651xxx In the
Nurcmberg Cl-rarter,the word rapewas ncltrncntionecl.Thc Nurcmberg
ar t i c l c on c ri m e s a g a i n s t hr-rrnani ty expl i ci tl y set forth Charter, the word
pr o h i b i te d a c ts , b u t ra p c w a s not menti tttretl by nante.[l ' N r1] raPe was not
rnentioned. Thc'
lr ' N rl l Se e g e n e ra l l y , Agrccment for the Proscctttion and article on crlmes
Punishment of tl-re M a j o r War Crimiuals of the Eurt)-pean ggatlst humanit

22
 '1945,59 '1544,82
Axis, Arg. B, Stat. U.l{.T.S. 279. cxplicitly set forth
crohibited acts,
:lut rape was not
(p. 227 of tlrc Casc Westcrn l-aw ILescrve]ournai of merrtioned by
Law) f-rame. xxx See
Agreement for the
Prosecution and
l:'unishment of the
Major War
Criminals o.f the
European Axis,
Arg. B, 7945, 59
Stat. 1541, 82
U. N.T.S. 279. xxx.

(p. 27, Footnote 65

of thc 28 April
2010 Decisiorr)

The Nrlremberg Judgmcnt dicl not rnake any reference lFN6sl xxx Tire
rape and rape was not proseculgd.tll"rt:l
ax1. Nurembcrg
Jr-rdgmentdi'd not
It was diffcrer-rtfor the Charter of the International Military
Tribunal for the Far Easf.trrNtsl xxX Thc Tribunal prosecuted refercnce to rape
rape crimes, evcn though its Stattrte clid not explicitly and rape was not
'['hc
crirninalize rape.IFNr7l Far East Tribunal held Gcncral prosecuted. (Judge
Iwane Matsui, Cornmancler Shnnroku lfata and Foreign Cabrielie Kirk
Minister Hirota criminally responsible for a series of McDonalcl, The
crimes, inclurling rapc, conrnritted by persons ulrder their I n l e r n ; r t i o n a l C r i m i n a l
'l'ribunals
authoritY.lFNrttl Crinre arnd
Ilurrislrluert--iil tlre
rFNr3l l$soatiercI-Arcm-i-
Juclge Gabriellc Kirk McDonalcl, f'he lntcrnational Ir,Sd_l_[qL1-!-_omp. I-.
Crirninal T'ribLrnals Crime ancl Punisirmcnt in the However,
667,676.)
InterrrationalArena, 7 ILSA I. INT'L COMI' L. 667, at 676. International
Military Tribunal
lrrNr5l See Charter of the lrrtcrnaticlnalTrilrunal for the Far for thc Far East
.f
E a s t ,J a n .19 , 1 9 4 6 , .t . A . S .15 8 9 . prosectrted rape
crlnles,
SeeMcDonald, supra note at 676. thoLrgh its Stattrte
dicl not explicitly
THE TOKYO TUDGMEN.|: IUDGMENT OF' THE
a")
.:.)
 :riminalize raPC.
AT'IONAL N{ILITARY TI{IBUNAL FOI{ THE FAR
INTEIR.N
Roling and C.F.I{uter ecls.,1c)77). fhe Far East
EAST 445-51(B.V-A.
fribunal held
rleneral Iwane
'v4atsui,

Int'l lommander
(p. 228 of tl-reCase Western Law Reserve Journal of
Shunroku Hata
Law)
atrd Foreign
Minister Flirota
criminally
responsible for a
series of crimes,
inch,rdirrg raPe/
comrnitted by
pcrsons under
their authoritY.
(rHE TOKYO
JUDGMENT:
IUDGMEN'f OF
THE
INTERNATIONA
MILITARY
TITIBUNAL FOI{
TFIE FAR EAST
445-54(7977).xxx

(p. 27, Footnote65

of the 28 APril
2010Dccision)

'fhe
U;N6slXXX first
Thc first mcntion of rape as a specific crime came in
Decenrbcr 1945 whcn Control Cottncil Lar,vNo. 10 inch'rdecl mention of raPe as

the term rape in thc defini tion of crimes against a specific crime
camc in December
humanity.t|Nz2lLaw No. 10, aclopted by the four occupying
7945 when Control
powers in Germany, was clevisecl to establish a uniform
basis for prosecuting war criminals in Cerman courts' Council Law No.
1Q__l:-9['d"d_lLt
''t A
;'t
II;N221Control Cor-rncil for Germany, Law No. 10: term rape in the
Punishmcrrt of Persotrs Guilty of War Crimcs, Crimt's definition of
Against Peace and Against Fltrrnanity, Dcc. 20, 7915, 3 crimes against
Oificial Gazctte Control Council for Germany 50, 53 (7946), humanity. Law
available at No. 10, adoptecl by
0.htm
http://wwwl.ttmn.edtr,4rumanrts/instrec/ccno1 (last the folrr occupying
visited Nov. 20, 2003). This larn, set forth a trniform legal powers IN

basis in Gcrmatry for thc. prosectrtion of war criminals and Ccrmany, was
similar offcnders, othcr than tlrc>serlcalt with under the clevised to
Intcrnatiorral Military Tribr,rnal.Seeid. at 50. establish a ttniform
basis fclr
(pp. 228-9 of the Casc Westcru La'"vlLese'rveJournal of lnt'1 prosecllting war
Law) criminals in
Cerman colrrts.
(Control Council
for Gennany, Law
No. 10:
Punishment of
Persons Ctrilty of
War Crimes,
Crimes Against
Peace and Against
Humanity, Dec.20,
1945, 3 Officia l
Gazette Control
Courncil for
Cermany 50, 53
(1946))xxx

(p. 27, Foohrote65

of the 28 April
2010Decision)

'freatnrcnt
The 1949 Ceneva Convention Ilelative to ther of [F-N65]
xxx The 7949
Prisouers of War was the first modcrn-r1ay international Ceneva
instrument to cstablish protections against rLtpc for Conrzention
wonlen.0rN23lHowever, the most irnportant dcrrelopment in Relative to the
breaking thc silcncc of rape as an intc.rnational crime has Treatment clf
come throtrgh the jr-rrisprudc.nccof the ICTY and the Prisoners of War
Intematiorral Criminal Tribunal for I{war^rda(fCTIf). Roth of was the first

25
 -duy
thesc Tribunals have significantly advancecl the crime of nrodern
rape by enabling it to be p-165ecr-tted as genocicle, a \ /ar international
crinte, atrcla crimc agailrst humanity. xxx. instrument to
cstablish
Gcneva Convcntion Relative ttl the Irrotectiou of protections against
lrrN23j
'1949,
Civiliarr I'ersons in Tir-nc of War, Atrg' 12, art. 2" , 6 rapc for women.
U.S.T. 3316,75 U.N.1:.5.287 (entry into force Oc-t.20, 1cri0) Ceneva
firercinafter Fourtl-rGeneva Convention]. Convention
Itelative to the
(p. 229 of thc Case Wcste'rn l-aw Rescrve Jourrral of ltr''l I'rotection of
Law) Civilian Persons in
Time of War, Aug.
12, 1,949,art. 27, h_
r.J.s.]" 3316. 75
U.N.T.S. 287 (entry
irrto force Oct. 20,
1950) fi-rcreinaft'er
Fourth Ceneva
Convention].
Furthermorc, tl-re
ICC, the ICTY, and
the Intemational
Criminal Triburral
for Rwancla (ICTR)
havc significantly
advanced thc
crime of rape by
cnabling it to be
prosecuted as
genocide, a war
crime, and a crime
against humanity.
XXX.

(p. 27, Footnote65

of the 28 April
2010Decision)

26
 generateclby thc isstle of plag; arism at the Suprc'me
8. Thc cc-rntrr-rversy

Cotrrt heightenccl even nlorc, and JtrsticeDel Castillcl circulatccl a

letter to other members c-rfthe StrpremeCourt e xplaining:

I t m ust bc ernphastz,ed that therc wo ; every intention to

attribute all sources, whenever dtte. At nct point was there ever
any malicious interrt tcl appropriate another's work as our own.
Wc recall that this porzencinwas thrice includcd in the Agenda of
tire Cor,rrtcn banc. It was cleliberatccltrpon dttring the Baguio
sessionon April 13, 2070,April z0,2010 arrd in Manila on April
27, 2010. Each tinre, suggcstionswere mac'lewhich necessitated
major rcvisions in the draft. Sources werc re-stuclicd,
disctrssionsmodifiecl, passagesadded or deleted. The resulting
decision comprises 34 pages with 78 footnotes.

XXXX

As rcgarcls the claim of the petitioners that the concepts as

contained in the above foreign materials were "twistcd," thc
same remairrstheir opinion which we do not necessarilyshare.T

9. On 27 Jr-rly2010, thc Sr-rpremeConrt convened its Ethics Committee

and clirccted it to cornmence an investigation on the allegations of

plagiarism and misrepresentationcomrnitted by JusticeDel Castillo

irr the Vinuyn Dccision. On 72 Octobcr 2070, the Sr-rpremeCourt

issuecla per urinm De.cisionfincling that Justice Del Castillo did not

commit any misconcluct, or inc-xcusablenegligencc, and absolved

him of the chargesof plagiarisnrand misreprcsentation.s

7
See"ln the N4atterof'thc Ohargeso f I ' l a s i a r i s n re. t c .A g a i n s tA s s o c i a t e. l u s t i c eM a r i a n uC l .I ) e l
No. l0-7-17-SCl.
6 . t
IU.

27
 on 27 July 2010,lawprofessorsat thc UP Collegeof Law
10.Mearnwhiie,

issucda Statcment,"RestoringIntegri$," assertingthat:

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

and trust reposed trpon thcm as tcachers in thc profession of Law, it
is the opinion of the Facr-rltyof thc University of the Philippincs
C o l l e g eo f L a w t h a t :

'fhe
(1) plagiarisnt corunitted in the case of Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary is unacceptablc, ttnethical and in breach of the high
standards of rnoral cc-rneluctand judicial and professional
competenceexpectedof the Supreme Cottrt;

(2) Sr-rch a ftrndamental brcach enclang;ersthc irrtegrity and

crcdibility of thc entire Sttpreme Cottrt and undermines the
founclations of the Philippine judicial system by allowing
implicitly the clecjsion of cascs ancl the cstablishment of legal
prccedents through ct rbious Inearls;

'fhc
(3) same breach ancl conseclr-rent clisposition of the Vinuya
case cloes violencc. to the prirnordial fnnction of the Supreme
Court as the ultimate dispcnser of' justice to all those who have
been left withotrt legal or equitablc recoursc, sttch as the
p c t i t i o r t c r st h c r c i n ;

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

the clishoncsty and to save the honor and clignity of the
Sr-rpremeCourt as an instiLtttion, it is nccessary for the ponc'nte
of Virruya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without
prejudice to any othcr sanctions that the Court may consider
appropriatc;

(5) Thc. Suprcmc Court must takc this opporbunity to review the
manner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches
ancl finalizes decisions in ordcr to prevent a recllrrence of
sinrilar acts, ancl tc-rprorricle clear and concise guidance to the
Ilerrch and Bar to ensLrrc only tire highest quality of legal
rcscarch ancl writing in pleaclings,practice, zurcladjtrdication."

28
 Cotrrt iss;r-red a Resolution in the
11.on 1g october 2010, tlre strpr:erne
,,Ir.c:Letter .f the up Law Factrrty e'titlt.-1 Rcstoring Integrity: A
case
o.f t:,irephilippines Collegeof
stntenrertt bt1tha Fnctiltrl o.f ttte Llrtlztersittl
nnd Misreptresentntion in the
Lnztt 0n tlte Allegntionsof Plnginrism
'(A.M. No. 10-10-4-sc)dir-ecti.g up Law professors'
s,prenre Court
clisciplined as members of
to "show cause why they shoulcl not bc
13 ancl l{ules 1'02 and
the Bar for: violation of Canons 10' '11' ancl
.f pr'fessionar Responsibirity, and fur:ther
1i .05 of the c.rle
callsc why hc should not be
dirc.ctingthe thc uP l.aw Dean to show
Canon 10, Rr-rles10'01' 7A'02
disciplinarily dealt with for violation of
letter dated August 70' 2010'
ancl 10.03 "f,r sr-rbmitting,thrc-rtrghhis
vinuya v' Executive
clrrrirrg the pendency of G.R. No. 162230,
the Committee cln Ethics
secretary and of the investigation before
'f the Court En Banc, a
ancl Ethical standards, for the conside'ation
reproduction of the
clr-rmmy which is not a true and faithful
Integrity: A Statement by
pr-rrporteclstatement, entitlecl "Restoring
College of Law on
the Faculty of the University of the Philippines
in the supreme
the Allegations .f ttlagiarism a.c1 Misrcpresentation

Court."

intellectual dishonesty of
12.The controvcrsy br.ought ab.ut by the
burdened the Supreme Cottrt
J'stice Dcl Castillo, has unnecessarily
internationally' Thus:
and tarnisheclits integrity, both locally and

29
 72.1. C)n 72 October 2010, I.JPProf. Diane Desierto postetl "An Operr
Appeal to felkrw Internatiural Legal Scholars"to support the UP
Law facr,rltvon the internationallaw commurrityblog Oytinrt
luris:.')

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

Law & l)olitical Sciencc at Yalc Univcrsity, w;'s rcportecl to have
er-nailed:"l can only hope that good scnse prcva ils & Ieads to some
sr-rbersecond-thought from the Cottrt rnajority. Otherwise, thc
continuing controversy will do seriotts darnage to the Philippine's
standing in the w<trld."1o

12.3. Or-r26 October 2070,Profs.Cridrlle anc{ Fox-Deccrrt posted in Opinitt

Juris "T'hat a court wolrlcl assert jurisdiction to satrction its
is, in onr opinicln, an abltse of jucliciai Power. T'o thc best
c-letractors
of our knowlccigc, no colrrt in a democracy has cver attcmpted to
assert thc kincl of jurisdiction the ['SC is asserting now against the
U P C o l l e g eo f L a w . " 1 1

12.4. Orr 26 October 2070, Senator Francis llscuclcro issued a Statementl2

saying "It is my strong belief that any govc-rnmcnt official,
inclucling mcmbcrs of the jr-rdiciar;., should not trc thin-skinnecl
alrout disser-rtingpLtblic opinion which is permitted in a democratic
country like ours." He further stated that the "SC metnbers, as all
other governrner-rtofficials, are always undcr public visibility, thus
criticisms such as tl-ratfrorn the UP [-aw faculty should be taken
constmctively, espccially given the fact that even otlr Supreme
Court had the matter already investigatecl." Also, Senator Francis
l'angilinan commeutcd that "Juclicial restraint will best serve thc
interest of the Supreme Court. With all due respcct, the Supreme
Cotrrt should learn to cl-rooseits lrarttlesand to my rnind, t]ris isn't
clne olttltern."l3

12.5. On 27 October 2070, Serratcl'rcsident Juan I'otrce Enrile released a

statement stating arrlong others that "Freedom of expression which
embraces acaclemic freedom rnay bc' orphaned should our Highest
Colrrt choose to use its strong hancl when it feels bruiscd or httrt,

'
htjp.//qni
n!qiuris,!'r'
'QQI
al leBations-o| --iudjt.fr{-Jlqui{tj yri{ acccsseclon I 3 I )cccrritter'20 I 0.
'f
UUtclrrcer.inctuirer.n-qllg-htipl,LirL{rlrtl?tulrulqri,r?0!}lLl:i1l99iL! acccsseclon l3 Decenrber 20la.
'l
acccsscclott l3 l)ecember 20l0.
lrllPzoPMqil!!Ls.olg1qglPltilppir-c.::pliig!irtstt-t-i,tll,..tgi!liettV
'-
http:i/urvry.senr1te.gcry1lt/IUqfS-rqlf:ilrv^il(l1Qll0?(, _r.:lqUrlUq!,aSp accessedon l3 I)cccmbcr 2010.
,'http://rrr,r111'.k|!q.p|,!]lr19:\.p'lu.,'q],!!qL:gr..'rnc'tltt1qnt{r!e\:it1.1iqlgrtid:..iE].rq
a l o n e & t : l t i r l " 7 0 : n r e s s - r ' c : l e r i r s c & l t e mai tclc" 'e8s1s e oc n
l l 3 l . ) e c e r n b e2r0 1 0 .

30
 rather than tc-ract as its faithful gr-rardian. U1t rnately, it is the
Suprerne Conrt, acting as the stronghold of civil lji-rertiesancl rising
above its own frailties, which is in the best position to cleanseitself
and its ranks and rcpair tl-redamage brought Ll|.ropits imagc before
thc nation and befctrethe worl (1,"t4

12.6. On 29 C)ctobc.r the Exccutive Comtnittee of UI'Diliman isstrecl

2(.)10,
a statement "No to Plagiarism! Asserting Academic Freedom!"
against thc Sr,rpremeCourt's decision jn the Plagiarisrt case, and in
support the UP College of Law facr-r1ty, assertingthat"We stand by
the.UP College of Law Faculty'for speaking otrt against plagiarism.
'show callse' ordcr
We ask the Suprcme Court to withclraw the
15
against the 37 facr-rltymembcrs of the U.l'. Collcge of Law."

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

I'hilippincs Univcrsity, Makati City, relcasecl to thc public a
Statemcnt on Plagiarism. The LI'}U Law faculty dcciared that it
"regrcts that, try [the] I)ecision in AM No. 10-10-4-SC,dated
Octobcr 19,2010,tlre Snprcme Court disregarded & ignored its own
decisions, rulets & rcgulations whcn it dicl not hold any person
rcsponsible for copyzillg and infringing intellectual property rights
of foreign acadcmicians; dicl not requirc any persou to apologizc frlr
the.oversight (if that is what it was); and dicl rrot issue a correctecj
dccisiot-tin the Vintrya casewith Proper attributiolIS."l6

72.8. On 04 Novernber 2010, Dr. ]ohn Paul C. Vcrgara, Vice President for
thc Lc-ryolaSchools (Atcneo), issned a memorandttm, "Treatment of
I'lagiarism Cases in thc Loyola Schools in Light of the Recent
Suprcme Cor-rrt Dccision" reiterating the Atctreo schools' position
"that acaclemichonestv ancl the ackrrowledgcmetrtof sonrces is not
simply a matter of the correct use of qtrotation marks, placement of
footnotes, or acqtrisition of permissions; it is a qtrestion of personal
clisciplinc antl rnoral character. Thc school's rcsolve on the stringent
requiremcnts in the proper ackrrowleclgcment of sources goes to the
hcart of its mission in forming persons for oLhers-persons who
valtre truth, rcspect,gratitude, integrity and justice."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 bre2 0 l t ) .
''http;1.ittt\:\Y.!lpll!|!-!]lLl-n-q11!1p-cli1inr1rr-crq-i!1!\t'-!Q.l']]li!tL|}!]
on l3 l)cccnrt.ler
occesScd 2010.
on l3 Dccembcr20l0.
llirttptlrruu'r1'.1-t'rcelx11f,..c'onrirrote.nlU.\qle--iti"l"1-rlJ59-12!751!iiicccssecl
''
h1{ir:i/[s.ate I ?8()I 7E04$-i4t)accessedott I 3 Deccmber 2010.
nco.edu/rriodrrlc.dtp]!]:!:_.itt'!t_clg$qtlrl&!'t_d::

3l
 12.9. On 09 November 201,0, the Coordinating Ciruncil of Privatc
Educational Associations (COCOI'LA) issued a Statemcnt of
Concern to take cxception to the I'lagiarir,rn decision, and
'The
"implore[cl] the Sr-rpremeCourt, rnost rcspectlrtlllr, to iollow
Wuy Forwarcl' of jr-rsticcSereno's Disse'nting Opinion as the only
way by which it carrmaintain its juclicial dignity."r8

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

the Supreme Court was exposed to ridicule before the intemational

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

and thc public conficlenccirr the jtrdicial system and in the tnoral

authority of the jr,rdiciarywas further eroded.

14.Complainants therefore accLlseAssociate Jr-rsticeMariano C. Del

Castillo of betraying the public trust.

't l''trp,/l..ap.org.lt]{ploaqllqirtrinlgildi-2Q10
I ll1l2,1llI 81i$i:l-prll'accessecl
on 13 December
2010.
1.t
-)/,
 GIIOUI\TDFOR IM PEACIJME].JT

Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo betrayed ptr irlic trust when he

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

I. Justice Del Castillo betrayed public trust when he lifted without

attribution significant portions of the works of foreign authorities,
in violation of pertinent rules on use and citation of sotrrces.

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

III. Justice Del Castillo betrayed public trust when, in twisting the
true intents of the sources,he misled the other members of the
Honorable SupremeCourt.

DISCUSSION

JusticeMariano C. Del Castillobetrayedpublic trust when he

committedactsthat underminedpublic confidencein the judicial
systemand in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary.

l.hc first sectionof the 1987C,oustittrtion's

Article on Accountabilityof
Public Officers (Article Xf) contains thc funclarncntalstandardsof public

scrvice,thus:

.),]
JJ
 Section 1. Public office is a pr,rblictrust. Public officers ,rnd employees
rnust, at all times, be accountablc tt> the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficirrnc/i act with
patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.

This is fsllowccl by thc provision on impeachrnerltof certairrptrblic officers, tcr

wit:
'Ihc
Section 2. I'rcsiclenl, the Vice-l)resiclent, the Members clf the
Supremc Court, thc Memtrers of thc Coristittttional Cornmissitlus, and
tlre Ornbuc-lsrnanmay bc removecl frotn <tfficc on inrpcachmcnt for,
and cgnviction of, culpalrle violation of the Constitution, treason,
bribery, graft ancl crlrruption, other high crimes, or bctrayal of public
trust. All other pr-rblic officers and employees lttay be removed from
office as providcd by law, but nctt by itnpeachmc-nt.

Public office is a public trust. This is the essentialprinciple that should

serve as a yarrclstickfclr proper conduct of public office'rs. Thus, the 7987

Constitution ac-lcledthe conccpt of "betrayal of public trr-rst"as a ground for

irnpeachment. Explaining the adclition of this ground, constitutional expert

Bernas,S.J.,statccl:
Fr. Joacluir^r

The 1973 Constitution, holvever, added "graft and corrttption"

as another groltnd, ancl the 1987 Constituticxr acldcd the broad concept
of "bc.trayalof public tmst." The phrasc was intcnded tcl be a catch-all
phrase to covcr any violation of the oath oi office. Commissioner de
los Reyes, who hacl been responsible fc-rrthe insertion of the phrase,
saicl that it referred to all acts, evcrl if not punishable by statute as
pcnal offenses, which would renclcr the officer urrfit to cotrtitrue in
officc. He eltumeratcd "betrayal of public interest, inexcttsable
ncgligence of duty, tyrannical abusc of power, breach of official duty
by malfeasance or rnisfeasance, cronyism, favoritism, etc., to the
prcjuclice of public interest and which tencl to bring the office into
disrepute." To which Itomulo adcled "r'lbstruction of jltstice." But
"profanity, obsccnity, habittrarl clrtrnkenness whilc' performing official
duty" were nclt meant to bc included. (Bemas, J., Thc 1987
Constitution of thc. Rcpublic of the I'hilippines A Commentary, 2009
ccl., p. 1153; citlng II I{ECORD 272, 286)

34
 It bears ernphasisthat rcspondentDel Castillo, PrL rr tcl assuming office,

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

Copstitution, gbey the laws, lcgal orclersand clccrecspro,nttlgated by tire dtrly

constituted authoritics, to will werll ancl faithftrlllz discharge to the best of his

abilitv the cltrtics of the qffice or positior'rcntrtrsterdto hirn. and to voluntarily

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

rcservatiotr or purpose of cvasion. (Chaptcr 10, Section 40, Rcvised

A clrn i ni strative' Cocle)

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

Castillo is likcwisc expccted to possess the highest qualifications and

'fhe
eminence. pr-rblicexacts fnrnr hin'r a profottncl krrowledg" of thc law and

a demonstration of competence,indcpencletrccand intcgrity.

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

for integrity within the jucliciar/, thus:

Jucliciaryprovidcs the starnclarcls

CAA/OAJ2
INTEGRITY

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

office but also to the personal demeanor of juclges.

SECTfON 1. Judges shall ensllrc that not only is their cotrduct above
reproach, but that it is pcrceived to be so in the view of a reasonable
otrserver.

St1C.2. lhe behar,,irtrancl r,-onductof juclges must reirffirm the pcople's

faith in the intcgrity of tl'rejudiciary. Justice rnust not nrerely be clone
L-rutrntrst also be se-entcl bc done.

35
 SEC. 3. Judgcs shotrld take or initiate appropriatt. disciplinary
measLlresagainst lawyers or court personnel for ttnprofcssional
conductof which thc judgt:may havc bccclmeaware.

thc Strpremc.Court eluciciatedon the irnportance of

In Tnrtas. RoscrfeTg,

rnaintairringinte.gritywithin thc jtrdiciary. Thc Court cxplained thus:

We have repeateclly adrrronished otrr jtrdges to adhere to the highest

tencts of juclicial c<'rncltrct.They mtrst. be thc ernbodinrent of
'I"he
ccllrtpetence, integrity ancl indc'petrdeuce, cxnctirtt stnndnrclsof
in
corrrluctrlammtdt:d frorn judrcs nrc dcsigncdtctltrttrnoteptrblic cott.fidcnce
the intt:gritrlnrtrlin4tnrtinlityof tltt'judicinnl Itccnuse the people'sconfidettce
irt tlrcjttdicint nlstarnis forrndcdnttt ttnlryon the rnngnitudeo.fIegnlknort'lcdge
nntl the rliliqcnccof the nreniltersttf tlrc ltanclr,Itut alsttrnr the lighest standnrd
of integrity nnd mctrul ttstriglftnt'ssthry nre expectadfo ;rosscss.When a
juclge Lrccomesthc transgressor of any law which he is swom to apply,
hc placcs his officc in disrcpute, ertcouragcs clisrespectfor the law and
impairs public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the
juciiciary itsclf. It is therefore paramount that a judge's personal
behavior both in the performance of his duties and darily life, be free
frorn any appcarance of impropriety as to be beyond reproach. (italics
strppliecl)

Still on the matter of intcgrity of judges, in SiLtnynn-loaquinzts.lartellnnll:0,the

Supreme Cottrt furthcr reminded juclges as follows, to wit:

FIcnce, arjnclget'sofficial conduct and l-risbehavior in the performance

of judicial dtrties shoulcl be frec from the appcarance of impropriety
and must be bey<tnc-{ reprctac}r.One who occupies an exalted position
in the administration of justice must pay a high price for the honor
trestowccl upon him, for his private as r,vellas his oificial conduct must
at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety. Becausc
appearance is as irnportant as reality in the pcrforrnance of iudicial
ftinctions, like Caesar's ra,,ifc,a juclgc rnttst trclt only t-rcpure but aiscl
beyorrd suspiciorr. A jlrclge has thc c{r"rtyto not orrly rt:nder a iust and
impartial clccision, bnt also renclcr it itr strch a marutcr as to be free

'o r t i . 2 0 0 4 ,4 3 7S C l l t z5\ 8 1 .
A . l v { .N o . t v l l - J - o . l1- . 5 6 3Scpternbe
.
'u
A . M . N o . I t ' t. t -o o -l o o t . N r l v e m b c rt3 , 200I,:t6ttscl tn -503

36
 from any suspicion as to its faimess ancl impartiality, ancl also as to the
juclgc'sinte'grity.

Moreovc.r,Canon 3, Rulc 3.01 of the CocJcof JtrdicierlConduct mandates

respondent to be faithfr-rlto the law ancl maintain professional competence.

I

Against these exacting standarcls of juciicial condttct, respondent Del

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

explaincd bclow, constitutes rxrt merely an act of impropriety, but an act of

'fhe
bctrayal of public trust. gravc negative impacts of his plagiarizccl

decision on thc public pcrct-'ptionof the jtrdiciary and thc justice systern in the

country, coupled with his manifest incapacity to pcrform his Constitutional

mandate ir-rgood faith, rendcr him turfit to continLlein office.

JusticeDeI Csstillo betroyedpublic trust when he lifted without sttribution

significnnt portions of the rcorks of foreign nuthorities,
in aiolntion of pertinent niles ofl useutd cittrtion of sources,

Applying the afore-clturtecl

norms reqtrireclin the conduct of judges
(and justiccs),thc qr-restioncd
actsof JusticcDcl Castilloin the Vintnlncasefall
very mucir short of performing judicial cluties bcyond rcproach. In tire

disscntingopinion of JusticcSerenoin thc caseentitled "ln The Matter Of lhe

ChargesOf Plagiarism,Etc.,AgainstAssociateJusticeMariano C. Del Castillo.

(A.M. No. 10-7-77-SC),

the f-IonorableJusticeenumcratcd24 actsof Jr-rstice
Del
Castilloof failing to rnakcproper citations,namely:

A.l.Failttre to ttsc'clttotatic,rn
rnarks to indicate that the cntire paragraph
irr the bocly of the clecisit,rnon page 30 was not the ponenfe'soriginal
paragraPh, bttt was li[tec1verbatirn from Tanrs's work. TTreattribution
to Tatls is r.vholll. insr,rfficjent becatrse withotrt the qr_rotationmarks,

37
there is nothing to alert the rcader that the paragraph was liftec{
ver"batinr from Tanrs. The iootnote leaves the reader with the
inrprcssion that the saicl paragraph is the author's owtl ar-ralysisof ergn
0tl|nc.s.

-fanrs,
The " Sct' Irnforcing Obligatior-rs Ergn ontncs in
Internationarl Law (2005)" line in footnote 69 ttf the Virutyn decision
docs not cleariy irrclicatc that thc statemcnt on Sitnma's obscrrration
was liftcd clirectly from ll-ams's wor[<; it onll' directs the reader to
'fams's
work should thc reacler wish to rcad furthcr discussions on thc
nratter.

8.1 Failure to use cluotatiorrmarks tc-rinciicatc t}-ratthc two sentcnces

were rr<rt the ytctnante's,br-rt were hftccl vcrbatim from two notl-
adjoinirrg sentcncesfouncl on pages 331 ancl 332 of the YnIe ls:7ttlrntrtml
of IntcrnntionnlLmu arttcle of Criciclle & Fox-Dccent and with absolutely
no attribution to t]rc latter.

8.2 Failtrrc tc-ruse cluotation marks to inclicate tirat the sentcnce

fragnrcnt on peremptory nonns was not tlnepcttrcnte'soriginal writing,
btrt was liftcd verbatim from page 334 of the Ynlc Lnru lournnl ,f
Intenmtittrrnl LnrLrarticle oi Criddlc & Fr'rx-Decentr.trith absolutcly ncr
attribution to the authors.

8.3 Failtrrc to usc quotation marks to indicate that the first sentence
in discursivc footnote rrtunber 77 was not thc ptonente'sidea, but was
lifted verbatim from Cridcllc & Fox-Dccent's work at page 334.

8.4 Failurc to use quotation marks to indicatc that the third sentence
in discursive footnote number 7'I was not the ponente'sidea, but was
Iiftecl from Criclcllc & Fox-Dccent's work at 334-335.

B.5 Failr-rre to indicaLe tl'rat one foohrote sollrce in discursive

footnote 71 was liftcd rzerbatinr fronr cliscursive footnote 9 of Tams;
thus, even thc iclea bcing propolrnclecl in this discursive part of
footncrte71 was prcscnteclas thc pottcnta's,instcad oi Criddie's & Fox-
Dccent's.

8.6 Failure to indicate that the last discnrsive scntencein footnoteTl

and tlre citations tl'rercof wore not the ltonerrtr:'s,but were lifted
vcrbatinr fronr ior-ltnote9 of Cric1c1le'
& Fox-Decent's work.

8.7 Farilureto inclicatc that the first discursive sentcnce of foohrote

7 2 w a s n o t t h e p l n u l f c ' s , b u t ''vas lif tcd verbatinr frorn page 335 of
Cricldle & Fox-Decent'swork.

38
B.U Failurc to indicate that thc second c-liscu rsive setrtence of
but was lifted verbatirn from Pages
footnotc 7) was not the pctrtcnte's,
335-33(rof Criddlc and Fox-f]ccettt'swork.

8.9 Failurc to ir-rclicatcthat the citatiotr and the c:iscursive passage

tlrercgr-rin the last setntcnceof fclotnote 72 was trtlt the ponente's,bttt
was liftecl verbatirn fronr disctrrsive footrrote 1fl ( : Cricldlc & Fox-
Decent's work.

tnarks to il-rclicatethat a lrhrase in the

B'10 Failr-rreto use cluotatic-rtr
body crf the dccisiorr on pagc 31 was uot the Ttortt'ntc's,but was lifted
verbafim from pagc 336 of Criddle & Fox-D-eccnt'swork.

8.11 Failurc.to indicatc that the cntirety of disctrrsivefootnote 73 was

trr-ltwas lifted vcrbatim from page 336 of Cricidle &
rrot tlrc yttnrerrta's,
Fox-Decent's ',vork.

8.12 Failure to indicate that the iclca of lack of "consenstts on

wlrcther certain international norrns had attaincd the status of jus
ct'tguls" was i-l paraphrase of a sentcnce combined with a verbatim
lifting of a phrase that appears on page 336 of Cricldle & Fox-Decent's
'r-
This is an examplc of
wrrrk and was not the ponenfe owlr c-'r-rrrchrsion.
patchwork plagiarism.

8.13 Failure to inclicate:that the entirety of cliscursivefoohrote 74 on

pagc 31 of the Decision was not the Ttoncnte's corln-lent on the source
citcd, but was liftecl vcrbatim from footnote 23 of Criddle & Fox-
Decent's work.

11.14 Failr-rrcto indicatc thror,rghcluotation marks and with the proper

attribr-rtion to Cridclle that the first two sentences of page 32 werc not
tlre pctrrcnte's,but were liftecl verbatirn from two non-adjoining
serrtenceson pagcs 337-338of Cridclle & Fox-Decent's work.

8.15 Failurc to indicate throlrgh cltrotation marks and the rigirt

citation that tl-rc cliscrrrsive sentence in the second paragraph of
footnote 77, and the citation the.rein,wcrc rrot the ponente's,bttt were
Iiftccl vcrbatinr from pagc 346 of the borly of Criddle & Fox-Dccent's
wcrrk in the instance of the ciiscursive scntcncc, ancl from footuote 72 of
Cric{dle & Fox-Decent's r,r,orkin the instancc of t1-recase citccl and the
description tircreof.

8.16 Failure to indicatc that the choicc of citation and the discr-rrsive
thereon statcmcnt in the seconcl sc-.ntcnccof thc sccond paragraph of

39
 disctrrsive footnote 77 was not tlre potwlte's, bttt r,t'i,slifted verbatim
from footnclte72 of Cricldle & Fox-Dccent'swork.

8.77 Failtrre to indicate tirrough cluotation markr, atrd the right

citartionsthat thc entirety of the discursive thircl to fiJth paragraphs of
fcrotnote 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 on
pages 346-317of Cricldle & Fox-Decent'swork.

C.l to C.6 Irailtrre to usc quotation malks and tl're right citations to
indicate that half of the long discr-rrsivefootnotc 65, incluc{ing thc
sources citcd therein, was achlally compiisecl of the rearrangement,
arrc-lirr son-leparts, repl-rrasingof 1B sentence-sfound on pa€les227-228
of Mr. Ellis's work in CnscWcstt:ntLnru Rcsarut:
loru'nnlof Intenmtionnl
Lnru.

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

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

JusticeDel Castillo ancl/or his court personnel who irritially made the research

on tlre ponencin.Oneror two crrors c-rrinaclvcrtclrcemay amount to exctrsable

negligence on thc 1-rartof the ponente and/c'rrthe rescarcherbut not when sllch

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

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

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

justificd as inexcusablenegligence.

By delegating therentire acljuclicationof the Virruya case to his court

staff and allowing his pcnnccl clecisionto contain lifterdpassagcsfrom uncited

sollrces,respondent Del Castillo violatcd his oath to faithfr-rllyclischargeto the

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

Cocle.of JtrclicialConduct which rnandateshim t o m a i n t a i n rofessional

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

40
 of the judiciary
f.r the law ancl implirccl public confidencein the ir rtcgrity

itself.

to utilizc
Truly, it is ngt cicnicclthat tirele is a neccssity fo' cvery Justice
isstte for the orderly
the serviccs of law clerks to researchon points of iaw art
not bc taken to
and so'nd adrninistratiorr of justice. Flowever, this should
over the
nlean as a cenrpletc' snrrencler of the control and sr-rpervision
tl-rese vcry
clecision-making process to the cclurt staff consider:ing that
the casesand
dccisions eve-ntuallybecome the Supreme Coltrt's judgment ou
his court
form part of the law of the la.c1. By failing to properly supervise
in a bad light,
staff, responclentDel castillo not only cast thc supreme Court
part of the
br-rtlikewise repre.hcnsiblyallorvcc1the flawcd clecisionto become
negiigence
country's jurisprucle.nce.Such failtrre corrstitutesiuexctrsablegross

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

As the portente of the Vinuya decision, rt was incumbent ttpon

has been
respondent Del Castillo to personally draft the decision or if one
the
drafted by his court staff as in this case, he shotrld have scrutinized
of
sources cite.c-lin the clraft clecision ancl cxerciscd the highest degree
not merely
ctiligenccin the pcrformance of his Constitutional n'ranclate.He is

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

Ftrrthermore, respondent Dcl Castillo likervise blatantly displayed a

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

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

respr-rndentDel Castilkr <>nZ}Jtrly 2010before thc Suprelne Court, he did not

4l
 trse.f cc'rpiccw.rks and clicl
acknowlerlge the copying, lack.f attrib'tion and
can'le about ancl who were
nrt evcn inciicate how the lack of attribution
disciplir rarl proceedings
responsibletherefor. Irrsteadof i'itiatirrg the proper

against rris cotrrt staff wh' was liable for the plagiarism, respo.clent Del
that " there was every
Castillo even coverecl Llp hcr rnisclecds and statc'c1
2, secti,n 3 of the Judicial
intention to attribtrtc". This is a violatio^ of canon
or initiate aPpropriatc
Code of L.thics,which statesthat "[j]trtlges shotrki take
for trnprofessic-rnal
discipli^ary mcasures agai.st lawyers or c.r,rrt personncl

concluct of wl-richthc juclgc may havc bccome aware." It'stice Del Castillcl

rneasuresagainst the
has miserably failecl to takc the necessarydisciplinary
or
who lras voltrntarily arimitted her tregligence,excttsable
court personne-.I
for thc
not. To c1ate,such cotrrt pcrsonncl has no aclministrative sanctiotr
court personnt'l
.egligent acts,which can be a signal that similar acts by other
of duty detract
may be toleratercleven if the slightest ir:rcgularity or breach
jtrcliciary'
from tle dignity of the courts ancl erode thc conficlenccin thc

tnrst when he twisted ztthnt lnzo

Ittstice Del Cnstillo betrnyetl yfulic
the theory
professorslsuthors snirl in their roorks, mnking it nppteorthnt
of the
espotrcertby thesemfthors xrpport fln &rgtnnent to dismiss the c&se
petitioners in Vhruyn, et. tl. as.Exeurtiue Secretnry, et. nl, uhen in fact,
the theories of these stfthors xtpTtort the cltthns of the Petitioners.

the idcas of others as

JtrsticeDel Castillo has not orrly misappropriated
them into
his own, he has likewisc misused thesc. ideas, and conrrerted
issue.
argLlmcntsthat arc corrtrary to thc authors'own positions on thc

ResporrdentDel Castilkt's misuse of the plagiarizcd portions is clearly

stateclitr the' lctters of the authttrs themsclves,thtts:

42
 to the strpreme c.'rt,
aclrlrerssccr dated 23 July 2010,Dr'
In a re,tter2r
Mark Ellisstates:

,,I write cr-rncerning a most clelicate isstterthat has come to my

attention in the last few clarys'

XXX XXX XXX

part clf the extensive

In particular, I arrn conccrneld about a large'
saicl Judgment of yolrr
disctrssiol in footnote 65, pp. 27-28, of the
estecmed Cottrt may
estecmeclCor-rrt.I am also conce.rncc{that your
article and employed
irave misrcact thc rrrgLunents I made in thc
them ft>r cross-P1-14)oses. This woulcl bc irclnic since the article was
legal remedy for war
writtcn pr".iu"iy t,'r arg.le for tfie appropriate
crimes, genociclc,arrclcrinres agairrstlrtrnranit;..,,

his cornplaint cln the misuse

On lg Jtrly 2010,Prof. Criddlc madc public
website OPiniolur[s:
of his works when he posteclthe fclllowing in the

','l'6c motion suggcsts that the Coltrt's clecisi.' contains thirty-four

and citations in
scntenceszurd citations that arc iclentical to scntences
Professor
my 2009 YJII- article (co-authoreclwith Evau Fox-Decent)'
prlagiarism
Ir.x-Dece.t anci I wcre Lrnaware of the petitioners'
allcgations gltil arfterthc rl6tioll was filed t6day'

of the cottrt's jus

Speaking for mYsclf, thc rnost tror-rbling aspect
prohibitions against
cogens discussion is that it inrplies that the
torture are not jus
crinres against humanitY, sexual slavery, and
the opposite' " 22
cogensnorms. C)ur article emphatically asserts

In a letter23adtircsscclto Chief JusticeRenatoCorona,

dated 18 August
2010,ProfessorTams states:

''fauts,
"My l-laltte is Cl-rristian J. anel I alll a prtlfessor of intemational
to )/ou i n rel ati on t o
l a w a t t h c U n i versi ty of Gl asgow . I am w ri ti ng

accessed
Lil/t,etiql:.t.r-llej:ulril-q:q!-lbe-rl$-ilpileLtupr-ei'-q{oqrLlrllis,
on l3 l )c c c rrtl " 2
rc0r1 0 .
)jl,riut'pu'',quirjr.rld2()\{li!7l|!)lw!qL1-4t-l'tt[a!:lgly:lliitgirlilrl:rl.rgLge-bq..dcl:r!.s:pbllrppuE
accesscd 2010'
rln l3 l)ccenrl'rer
.iUflrqql
tt qL1'1'
lastaccesscd on l3 I)ccctnber2010'
l-r{p:liwryrn rgril:(l.co!tr/!i(u/313i052{Liutf:y.qllql''lA:lqprgrrie-(
43
 the abovt:-nrentioned jtrdgment
the trse of one of my publications in
of your I-{otrottlableCourt'

XXX XXX XXX

work shotrld have been used to

I am particularly concerncrl that rny
t<l tlre ert'a omnes
supp..,rt tlre Jttclgnrerrt,s cautiot-ts arpproach
shows that ITly book's
concept. In fact, a mclst cLlrsory reading
namely that the erga offIncs
ccntral thesis is precisely the opposite:
conccpt has been wiclely accep'rte d and has a firm place in
the introdttctory chapter
cctntenrporary intc'rnatjttnal laW, F{ence
to demystify aspectsof the
notes that "[t]he prese.ntstucly attemPts
,Vc.ry nrysteriotrs, cotrcept and tlrereby tc.l facilitate its
thc concluding sectiotr
implementatic[t" (p 5) In the same vcitt,
that the cclncept is now a
notes that "thc prececling chaptcrs show
law, estalrlished in the
part Of thc reality of international
jrrirpr.rclence of cottrts and the practice of States" (p' 3tl9)'

I am at a loss to see
With due respect t0 yollr Honourablc Coltrt,
to support - as it seemingly
|ow my work shor,rltlhave Lrecncitecl
I am concerned at the
has - the opposite approach. More generallf,
judgment has drawn on
way in which yoLlr 1{ououralrle Coult's
it'"
scholarly work without properly ackuowledging

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

of tht'plagiarized articles tc-r

approach,,is prain ancr simple nlisapprication
that the authors themselves
su'rport a ciecisi.n that is contrary t'thc position
be consiclereclas merely casting
espoLlse. lf the 24 collnts of plagiarisrn will
of responclent Del Castillo, the
doubts on thc pr.fessional c.mpetclrce
qtrestionsthe integrity of
rnisapplication of thc plagiarizecl material certair-rly

tlneponente.

44
 ttttisting the true intents of
IrtsticeDel Cnstittobetrorlerlpublic tntst when, in
the sotrces,he mislerl the othcr mernbersof the HonornbleSuTtrelne Court.

Del Castillo committccl plagiarism in an article that he had

Had Jr-rsticc

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-reStrprrcnreCourt 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.

t>fthc decision. I-Ie was not writing

JtrsticeDc.l Castillo was tha Ttonente

for 6inrsell hc was writing for the SuprrerneCottrt. He was not writing an

which forms part of the law of the land.

articlc,he was writing jr-rrispruclence,

IJc was sllpposeclto be formtrlatirrg thc expressionof 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-latrthorized its reicaseas the Court's clecision.

Responclent's Llnacceptableact of plagiarisrn is irr fact a penalized

offense under thc In tellechtnl ProTtertyCode &.A, 8293), the E-ContmerceAct

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

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

ncgligeltce, a plagiarizccl clccision harsbcen rcleased to the worldwicle web

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

Grtidelinesnnd Policics,qr-ralifiesas a crirninal t-rifcnseltuder the E-Conrmerce

that respondentDel Castillo'sgrossnegligenceand

Act.It is highly cleplorarble

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

answerable tcl repeatetl violations of dotnestic ancl intcrnational intellectual

property laws for each anc-levcry singlc doy that thc plagiarizecldccisjon is

posterl in the internet

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

is not guilty oi plagiarism is of trit moment. Del Castillo's single

responclernt

act of clishonc.styalrcady madc a htrgc'irnpact on thc pcrcepticlnof the local

and intcrnational lcgal communities on the integrity of the Supreme Ccxtrt,

the judiciary ancl justice systcnr in the Philippines. Domestically, the

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

their r-rutcrvovcr thc despicable act of intcllectual thieverv which negatirrely

affected thc irrtcgritv and cclmpetelrccof the Supreme Cclurt and its sitting

jr,rsticcs. T'hc intcrnatiorral legal contrntrnity 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 plargiarismresr>rtedto try rcspondent Del Castillo.

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

his colleagllesin the StrprremeCourt, in the jucliciary, and the lcgal professiott,

ancl to the courrtry'sjustice systernin gcneral.

46
 Larvyers arc bouncl trncler Canon 10 of the Cocie of Profcssional

Rcsponsibility,"not to clo any falsehoocl,nor conscnt ttl tlrc doing of any in

Cgtrrt; n6r s6all he rnisleacl,or allow the Cotrrt trt be mislt:d Lry any artifice."

Unfortunately, in this ci-]sc,it was not an orclirrary lawl'g1',r. cottnsel who

causcclthe Court to bc misle-rl,it was one of its membcrs who was given the

of the Court.
very important task of writing Lheclc'cisiotr

His
lustice Del Cnstitlo's ncts hnue renderedhim unfit to corttimrefu office.
corrtitttterlseruice ruill prejudice the 7nfulic interest utd ruill bring tlrc entire
Supreme.Court nnd the country's jttstice system h'fto disrepute.

Finally, to allow respondcnt Del Castillo to continue occr-lpyinghis

pr-rsition will sr.ncl a tri-rclsignal tcl our uation, cspe''ciallyor-lr youth, that

plagiarrism anrl thc r-rnbridlcctcut-ancl-prastchabit in our tcchnolc-rgically

aclr,anccrlpc.riod are consiclcrccla-lsacceptable practices. Rcspondent Del

Castillo was appointecl tct onc of the highest positions in the judiciary and

thus, thc'rc-is no reas()nwhy his scrvicc to thc ptrbiic should be allrlwed tcl fall

sirort of the highest stanclarclscxpectcd of him. Accordingly, the flimsy

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

of his ncgligenceand omission.

the evcntual consequences

Through his concluct, responclent Dcl Castillo has undermined thc'

integrity of his ofiice, brought clisrcpr-rtc'ottLhc Sr-rprclrleCourt, cast doubt on

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

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

jtrsticcs tl'remscivescommit crttcial errors and exhibit

jr-rsticcif the csteernc.cl

tl 7
--t I
 lack of profcssional compctcnce to decirlc t]re cases brotrght before the

Supreme Cotrrt?

Del Castilkr's violation of his oath of officc, thc New Code of

Jr-rstice

Juc-licialCondtrct for the PhiliprpineJtrdiciarry,and the Cocle of Professional

Rcsponsibility for lawyers, arc pernicious given the fact that it is colrmitted

by an incttmbcnt mcnrl-rcrof thc Supremc Court. In In Re:LtnrlntetlLettet'Of

Pctitioner Irt Birnogoy'. f/rrtr nlt,sArtd Lintknichong, G.R. Np.

Mr. LortisC. Bit'nctgt-t,

1791202r
, tht: StrprerneCourt helcjthat:

"the act of Justice Reyes not only violated the New Code of
]udicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary,the Code of JuclicialConduct and the
Canonsof Judicial Ethics,it also infringed on the internal deliberationsof
the Court and impeded and degradedthe administrationof justice. The act
is renderedall tl'remore perniciousconsideringthat it was committec{by no
Iess than a justice of the Supreme Court who was supposed to serve as
example to the bench and bar.,,

f.hosc- words mltst apply rvith eqtral forcc to this present casc of
Justice
Mariano C. Del Castillo.

-"
A.M. No. ()c)-2-
l9-SC. l.'ebnrarl,2-{.2(X)9

48
 PRAYER

WIIEREI;ORE, premises considered,it 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 of
the Constitution, be found to have committed BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC
TRUST and accordingly, cause tire instant Impeachrnent Compiaint to be
adopted as the Articles of Impeachment against ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO for transmissionto the Senatefor trial.

Complainants pra.yfor other just and equitable relief.

Quezon City, 14 December 2070.

r
,'l//'

tr:Lt,-7*, ?4*,/
ISABELITAC. VINUYA PILAR Q. CALANC

rltnf
vtv tt \.
MAXIMA R. DE LA CRUZ LEONOR H. SUMAWANC
)i

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

49
FION. REYNALDO V. UMALI . HERRERA-DY

VICTORG. EJERCITO
Fror{.JOSEPH CESARV. SARMIENTO

FION. FL T. FLORES,IR. Horv.rnvlTvx

LO

50
 VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
AGAINST FORUM SHOPPING
We, the undersigned concerned Filipino citizens and taxpayers,of legal age,
residentsof Mapaniqui,Cfudr,tVn
and members of the Malaya Lolas, an organizition of
Filipino Comfort Women who suffered unspeakablehorrors in the hands of the Japanese
Imperial Army during World War II, after having been sworn in accordancewith liw, do
herebystatethat:
1. We are Complainantsin this case;

2. We have caused the preparation of this Impeachment

Complaint;

3. we have read its contents and affirm that they are true of our
own knowledge and belief on the basis of our reading and
appreciation of documents and other records pertinent
thereto.;

4. We hereby certifu that there is no other casecommencedor

pending before any court involving the same parties and the
same issue and that, should we learn of such a case,we shall
notify the court within five (S) daysfrom our notice.

IN \AITNESSWHEREOF,we havesignedthis instrument on Decemb"rr$, zoro in

the City of Makati.

Name Signature ID
IsabelitaC. Vinuya Senior Citizen's ID No. 226
dateissued7l3ll07

PilarQ, Galang
?flilt SeniorCitizen'sID No.
0881 dateissuedl19106

Maxima R. De la Cruz Senior Citizen's ID No.

3426 dateissued4ll4l09
tv*vtr.th 6fLAz
LeonorH. Sumawans SeniorCitizen'sID No.
/ / 788846 dateissued819197
r/
( a^, / :.+". j,,
:
./z-z ;.:, :.,,.,1

Maria L. Quilantang >\. ,'' PhilhealthID No.

' / ),
{ n h -;-
/"f '( (, D itu,Itnlrl5
-l
200153621-5 dateissued
L 3l0r12009

SUBSCzuBEDAND SWORNto before me in the City of Makati this {tr' day of

December2o1o, I herebycertifizthat I haveexaminedthe affiantsand I am satlsfiedthat
affiants executed and understood the above, the affiants personally appearing and
known to me to be the same persons who executedthe foregoing instiument and
exhibiting to me their respectiveidentification papersas describedabove. Further, the
affiantsavow under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contentsof the instrument or
document

Doc.No. *'ll
(fT-
PageNo. f?
BookNo. .4
tt- ,/ \.
Altnn do]-fs r. r6hurznnnr-
Seriesof zoro N O ' i , -R / D U B L I C
UNTi'-1::,:!:V3ER jf 20tO
l90L{ ArJ; ;:'_ :': ?D,.'r:r'{TE(E\TEF
\/'X'-1'. j : i f''l'-\.r^
ATf CIT'I
R C ! ^ ' -N ' l I r i C f l
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I, RrvNr,ri r v. triilALl
, of legal &ge, Filipino, rn'ith address at
e i u P { i 4 i r r : i l , f C f -[ t i i r . ' f t i l i r i r - r iil" ',
after having been duly s\ /orn
, [ l f ; 4r u < i . r _ 1 ' , r ' - i (. ri r
in accordance rn'ith la\A',do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knou'ledg.
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of

December 20 10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

, Affiant

/r7y'
SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN to before me this _day of December 2OIO at
Quezon City, Philippines.

&ry^-
MARILYNts. BARUlr-YAP
Secretary General
Republicof the Philippines )
Quezon City l s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , BEfi.nP'l.EfiT R. l+Eri{].rt$- t}Y

, of legal &ge, Filipino, with address at
frN ; after having been duly s\ rorn
1n and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and corre ct based on my personal knowledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this dav of

December 2O 10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

/*Tt
SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN to before me this dav of December 2OIO at
Quezon City, Philippines.

& ry,
BARLI/A-YAP
Secretary General
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

T
L, CHnKY. 6f\rnttrNrt , of 1egal age, Filipino, with address at
after having been duly sworn
in accordance rn'ith law, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day of

December 2010 at Quezori City, Philippines.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /4^O of December 2OIOat

Quezon City, Philippines.
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

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

, after having been duly sworn
in accordance rn'ith laur, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day of

December 20 1O at Quezon City, Philippines.

i
// ) ,,"
F ',11**

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this '{Lu of December 2OIOat

Quezon City, Philippines.
-bt-<-^^/-/fr/ /
0 aXaf
MARILYNB. BARWA_YAP
Secretary General
 Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , F L " g K E { , t C l p T . F L 0 trEf iq-

l e g a l ?ge, Filipino, with address at
,of
'after
harring been duly sworn
in accordance u'ith la\A',do hereb)' certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knorn'ledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day of

December 2010 at Quezo:n City, Philippines.

suBSCRIBtrD AND swoRN to before me this/4u, of December 2oro at

Quezon CilJ", Philippine s.

I
'/^r-e i*f
YNE.
MARILYN BARLN_?np
B. B
Secretary General
Republic of the Phitippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

r I(.
I , VITFNTEF. BELTvioNTF , of legal ?Be, Filipino, v,'ith address at
M l0 after having been cluly sworn
in accordance rn'ith law, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knowledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this dav of

December 2O10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN to before me tnis/%av of D e c e m b e r 2 O 1 O a t

Quezon Ciq', Philippines.

)
M,A M#"w*
ARILYNE. B
Secretary General
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , E0p0R0p. 0F€^llLAr, *IR. , of legal age, Filipino, with address at

NrlF ti.CU(E
0r f.F"a6ilrnx!ts rgfiA1Ahi(4ft\fLE{,
aJ., after having been duly sworn
ir-r accordance rEith lau', do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knorn'ledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this dav of

December 20 i 0 at Quezon City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this f4uu of December 2OI0 at

Quezon CiR-,Philippines.

/
J-t'/t- a7r/
YN A. BAR{IA-YAP
Secretary General
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City l s.s.

VERIFICATION

I, fnR6r fultN B , f,ANhl-J JR . , of legal &Ee, Filipino, with address at

E5l[ lpriSr,oFff'ftcfrrtr_lvt after having been duly sworn
in accordance rn'ith la\A',do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained the rein are true and correct based on my personal knou'ledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day of

December 2010 at Quezorr City, Philippines.

/vfl
SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN to before me this' ' day of December 2OIO at
Quezon City, Philippines.

t/
lt ^ -l
/lt^44-4-<+- (/ A+t--
MARTLYNw. BART/A-YAp
Secretary General
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I, N{L0trnI r. Ra I 0 , of legal dge, Filipino, rn'ith address at

SqS Bqjtf oF GEft.q€nlTFfl\v6herun6ftd(omPut, c-t after having been duly sworn
in accordance u'ith lau/, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained therein are true and correct based on my personal knorn'ledge
and f or on authentic documents and other available records.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _day of

December 2O 10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

(._.(s
/ L/
'
/t / /' ,'

Affiant

SUBSCRIBtrD AND SWORN to before me tn of Decem ber 2OIOat

"*aaay
Quezon City, Philippines.

Mfu,
Secretary General
Republic of the Philippines )
Quezon City ) s.s.

VERIFICATION

I , RRLTNE"1q41q1
"J, B hG- ho , of legal a1e, Filipino, rn'ith address at
g, after having been duly sworn
in accordance with laur, do hereby certify and state that I am a Complainant
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 allegations
contained 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 set my hand this -da-v of

December 2O10 at Quezon City, Philippines.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this '4u, of December 2OIOat

Quezon City, Philippines.

)1
hr^ut'/ C n)"{'
MARILYNts. BARI/A_YAP
Secretary General