Case Digests for Legal Research

Case Digests Legal Research

I N T H E M AT T E R O F T H E C H A R G E S O F P L A G I A R I S M A G A I N S T A S S T. J U S T I C E MARIANO DEL CASTILLO

Issue W/no Justice del Castillo plagiarized the published works of Tams, Criddle-Descent and Ellis W/no ponente twisted the works of author to make it appear that the works supported the Courts decision in the Vinuya decision? (Courts conclusion that the comfort women no longer have legal remedies) Decision No. Intent of passing off the work , idea or writing of another as ones own is an indispensable element of plagiarism. There was only bad referencing. No fraud, which was impelled by corruption or malice. 1.Dismiss Plagiarism Charges 2.Directs Public Information Ofce to send ruling to authors, Clerk of Court to give all court attorneys copies of decision to avoid errors and to aquire software for better citation. 3.Directs Committee of Etics and Ethical Standard to turn over the dummy Restoring Integrity of the UP Law for separate pending matter. Ratio 1. Bad Footnoting and Faulty Programs a.Passage from Tam was only error in foot noting. There was still attribution of the source of passages and did not pass work as own. b. Ellis and Criddles passages were used as a footnotes without appropriation . Judge should have mentioned that it came from an article. Explanation: i. Research accidentally deleted. Early drafts showed that authors were cited. After Judge selected texts to retain, research cleaned up the rest of the materials and by deleting certain subject tags, the footnotes also got deleted. ii. Used Westlaw as sources. Compared to a carpenter collecting materials and selecting which ones to use after. iii.Microsoft Word has errors that may lead to accidental deletion and automatic foot noting misplacement. c. Neither have motive for not citing the well known authors.

Case Digests for Legal Research

d. Omissions of Cridldle and Ellis did not give impression that Judge created the passages. In fact Criddle and Ellis got passages from another author was well. One passage originally from author was from Von Tuhr, who was still in the footnoting. The passage was cited to the original sources and not attempt to be passed as own. 2.There was no twisting or distortion of passages. b. Since Criddle and Ellis were deleted, impossible to connect the works of Judge back to the authors and claim that there was a twisting. c.passages provided background facts to establish international law situation and mere neutral information. 3.No Inexcusable Negligence. b.written decision was still made by judge, and he was still in control of the report which was basis of decision c.law clerk job is necessity due to number of cases of judges. 4.Exhibit J of Roque, UP letter b. letter was only a dummy, upon recital of original, discovered no all signed. c.Only 37 of 81 singed Facts of the Case Vinuya Case Isabelita Vinuya and 70 other women of the Malaya Lolas Organization led an injunction against Executive Department Ofcers for declining to assist in ling complaints against Japanese Military Ofcers who established comfort women stations during the WWII. The Department declined due to the Peace Treaty of the Philippines and Japan, which answers the issue. Court dismissed and denied reconsideration because the Philippines does not have any obligation in international law to espouse the claim for damages. Ratio Plagiarism is the theft of another persons language, thoughts or ideas. The passing off work of another as ones own is the indispensable element. Plagiarism Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, ponente was then accused by counsel of petitioners, Atty. Roque of plagiarism and twisting the true content to suit the arguments. Petitioners said that the fraud committed resulted to prejudice to the petitioners and that the Court should address and disclose to the public the truth. Respondent then circulated letter to colleagues, stating that he did not have the intent of passing another persons work as his own. Revisions in draft were made due to the deliberations of the draft three times.
Case Digests for Legal Research 2

Court then referred the charges to Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards, chaired by Chief Justice for investigation and recommendation. Justice Jose Vitug served as the consultant. UP Law Dean, publicized faculty statement calling the decision injustice and dishonesty and misrepresentation of the Highest Court in the land because of the deliberate intent to appropriate original authors work. All three authors responded. Cridle and Descent were concerned that the Courts decision twisted their work, which actually meant that prohibitions are internationally binding norms that treaties cannot diminish. Ellis also said that Court might have misread the argument where he said that there are appropriate legal remedies for war crimes and that the court used it for cross purpose. Tam said that the generic reference to him at the footnotes, and in connection with another author was inappropriate referencing and gave him less credit than what was due. His work also was used against what he advocated, which was obligations of individual states to the International Community. Administrative Case Counsels for Judge Del Castillo wanted to be heard without the other parties in attendance due to the sensitive and condential matters, like involving the drafting process for the decision of the Vinuya case. Court sustained the petitioners objection. Counsel then called for Judges research to explain how the attribution of the lifted passages in the drafts of her reports were unintentionally deleted. Therefor there was no malicious intent to plagiarize. Counsel for petitioners on the other hand claim that the lack of intent is not a defense in plagiarism and that the standards of plagiarism in academe should apply more forcibly with the judiciary. Petitioners claim that plagiarism is fraud where intent to deceive is inherent. The deliberate and knowing representation presupposes intent. Notes 34 pages and 78 foot notes Example of Problem of foot noting Main topic 1. Supporting 2. Researcher deletes Main topic because not needed. Ends up deleting foot note 1, which was also source of supporting idea, where another author was qouted Three Specic Plagiarized Works Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens by Cridle and Descent, Breaking hte SIlence: Rape as an Intl Crime by Ellis and Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations by Tams

Case Digests for Legal Research

Company

Concurring of In the Matter of the Charges (Serreno ): Malicious Intent and Editorial Error

Problem of Decision Problems in Philippine Academia Defense was not ignorance or mistake, but claim that there was no plagiarism at all weakens Court disciplinary authority Will act as precedent case due to absence of consensus of sanctions for plagiarism Undermining Copyrights of authors and the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines There is no infringement of copyright in using authors work if there are quotations and only to the extent justied, provided that the source, name and author, if appearing in work, are mentioned. Although there were still citations of Primary Sources, the interpretation and ideas of the authors, which are secondary sources, once read will be thought of as the interpretation and analysis of the Judge. Gives impression that the Judge has much to say in matters. Apology of Research was admission that thru the deletion,there was plagiarism Editorial Error as Defense was not presentation of electronic research intent to quotes and attribute: block quotation as soon as pasted introduction that passage is verbatim should not be deleted, it has to be deliberately placed Tam as secondary source and the use only of the primary source is not applicable to the paragraphs of Ellis and Criddle, where paragraphs were lifted accidental deletion of two foot notes will still leave unattributed sources if deleted foot notes were deleted plagiarism prohibits misleading citations carpenter analogy is inappropriate Software use depends on the user and the deliberate effort.

Case Digests for Legal Research

Company

Table of Comparison Failure to use quotation marks to indicate it is not judges work. Nothing to alert reader that it came from other author. Failure to indicate citation Failure to attribute

Types of Plagiarism by Writing Sources by Gordon Harvey - can exist together and in footnotes Uncited data or information thru information that is not common knowledge Uncited Idea, whether specic Claim or General Idea distinct ideas even when it is done in different organization and wording Unquoted but verbatim phrase or passage borrowing distinct passages without quotation marks Uncited structure strategy words and details are original but outline is used from others Types of Judicial Plagiarism by George - Borrowed Text - should use quotations, absence of is intentional plagiarism - Reference Errors - no quotation, but still puts author

Plagiarism and Judicial Plagiarism - Using work of another as own and failure to attribute work to original - does not depend solely on nature of plagiarism, but also on the process of how it was used - act of copying and subsequent omission - plagiarist gains credit for work of other - Nerwman v Burgin said that judicial plagiarism include negligence or recklessness without intent to deceive

Case Digests for Legal Research