Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the UP

College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court Rule
10.2 | March 8, 2011 & June 7, 2011 | Villarama, J; De Castro, J

Nature of Case: Administrative Matter in the SC

Petitioner: Supreme Court

Respondent: UP Law Faculty

SUMMARY: Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive
Secretary, the counsel for the petitioners therein filed, 1) a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the
fundamental responsibility of states in protecting its citizens human rights specifically pertaining to jus
cogens norms; and, 2) a supplement thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from
different sources and that the true intents of the plagiarized sources were twisted by the ponente to suit
the arguments laid down in said decision. Thereafter, an ethics committee tasked to investigate the
veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly plagiarized sent their respective
letters to the Supreme Court.Due to this, the faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement
(Restoring Integrity Statement), which alleged plagiarism against Justice del Castillo, treating the same
not only as an established fact, but as a truth. Said statement was posted online and at the Colleges
bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause
Resolution directing respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the
Bar for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

DOCTRINE: The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally
primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or
interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has
repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the
courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment
and common decency.

FACTS:

Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (the
Vinuya decision), the case involving the Filipino comfort women during the Japanese occupation, the
counsel for the petitioners therein filed, first, a Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental
responsibility of states in protecting its citizens human rights specifically pertaining to jus cogens norms
and, second, a supplement thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from different
sources and that the true intents of the plagiarized sources were twisted by the ponente, Justice
Mariano del

Castillo (Justice del Castillo), to suit the arguments laid down in said decision.

Vis-a-vis the Courts formation of an ethics committee tasked to investigate the veracity of the alleged
plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly plagiarized sent their respective letters to the Supreme
Court, noting the misreading and/or misrepresentation of their articles. Hence, in their articles, they
argue that the crimes of rape, torture and sexual slavery can be classified as crimes against humanity,
thus attaining the jus cogens status; consequently, it shall be obligatory upon the State to seek remedies
on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. However, the Vinuya decision cited them to support the contrary
stand.

In response to this controversy, the faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement entitled
Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on
the Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court (Restoring Integrity
Statement), which statement alleged plagiarism against Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as
an established fact, but as a truth. Said statement was posted online and at the Colleges bulletin board
and was submitted to the Supreme Court.

The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary as a
reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. The authors
also not only assumed that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they went further by directly
accusing the Court of perpetrating extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort
women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. They further attempt to educate this Court on how to go about
the review of the case. The insult to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of
deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on the basis of polluted sources, the
Courts alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming lack of concern
of the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency and respect.

The manner in presenting the arguments and the language used therein, the Court believed, were
inappropriate considering its signatories are lawyers. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause
Resolution directing respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the
Bar for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Conversely, compliance to such resolution
was unsatisfactory, except for one respondent.

ISSUE/S & RATIO:

1. WON the Show Cause Resolution denies respondents their freedom of expression

NO A reading of the Show Cause Resolution will plainly show that it was neither the fact that
respondents had criticized a decision of the Court nor that they had charged one of its members of
plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It was the manner of the criticism and the contumacious
language by which respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have expressed
their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for the proper disposition and
consideration of the Court that gave rise to said Resolution. The Show Cause Resolution painstakingly
enumerated the statements that the Court considered excessive and uncalled for under the
circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to this Court of the UP Law
facultys Restoring Integrity Statement.
The right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of expression in the Bill of
Rights of the Constitution, must be exercised responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding
obligation. Freedom is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. Thus,
proscribed are the uses of unnecessary language, which jeopardizes high esteem in courts, creates or
promotes distrust in judicial administration, or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of people
in the integrity of the members of the Court. In other words, while a lawyer is entitled to present his
case with vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and abusive
language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be emphatic but respectful,
convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not offensive.

A long line of cases shows that the Court has held that the right to criticize the courts and judicial
officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary
be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but
members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline
lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial,
have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency.

2. WON the Show Cause Resolution violates respondents academic freedom as law professors

NO. There is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the subject matter
they can teach and the manner of their instruction. Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the principle of
academic freedom for this Court to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for
contumacious conduct and speech, coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party in a pending
case, without observing proper procedure, even if purportedly done in their capacity as teachers.

Respondents cannot successfully invoke academic freedom in this case. The constitutional right to
freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to
give due respect to the courts and to uphold the publics faith in the legal profession and the justice
system. The Court believes that the reason that freedom of expression may be so delimited in the case
of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic freedom of law professors. The Court reiterates
that lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in
other disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound by their oath to
uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. Thus, their actions as law professors must be
measured against the same canons of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the
Bar as the fact of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they are lawyers.

RULING: PETITION DISMISSED.