You are on page 1of 14

Republika ng Pilipinas

KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila

PRESS RELEASE
0 2 October 2012

DOJ ISSUES ADVISORYO N PLAGIARISM

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued Advisory Opinion No.
0 2 , Series of 2012 explaining the meaning of plagiarism in the context of
Philippine law and cases.
Consistent with the proactive stand of the D O J , the Advisory
Opinion addresses a recurring issue in the criminal justice system and
lays out the scope of protection of authors under the country's
intellectual property laws and sets out the liabilities for infringers.
"Plagiarism is a concept more understood in academic circles as an
offense against academic integrity anathema to the strict standards of
originality of scholarly works which members of the academic
community subscribe to. However, recent events brought to fore the
importance of knowing exactly what plagiarism is and to clarify the
misconception that there is no crime of plagiarism under our laws," said
Secretary of Justice Leila M . de Lima.
As the Advisory Opinion points out, plagiarism, which the Supreme
Court has described as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of
another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own", if
committed under certain circumstances, can amount to criminal
violation of the Intellectual Property Code, the E-Commerce Act or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The Advisory provides guidance on how to avoid, prevent and
resolve plagiarism as it is recognized as an undesirable act that breaches
the standards of propriety by depriving another person of the fruits of
creativity.
The highlights are as follows:
1.

Plagiarism should be avoided, regardless of the presence of

2. 0 2 (Series of 2012) . the D O J hopes to continue to build community awareness and increase social trust for a peaceful and just Republic. Everyone can be a victim of plagiarism. 5. Cultivate the habit of attribution. With this Advisory Opinion. cite. 3. Always be vigilant in detecting cases of plagiarism. sanctions against it. When in doubt. 4. Enclosed: Advisory Opinion No. Encourage institutions to adopt anti-plagiarism measures.

an artistic work. 0 2 (Series of 2012) 18 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2 ADVISORY ON PLAGIARISM 1. where standards for original scholarly w o r k leading to an undergraduate or graduate degree are strictly enforced. p l a g i a r i s m means the theft o f another person's language. " The p a s s i n g off of the w o r k of another as one's o w n is thus a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e element of p l a g i a r i s m .Republika ng Pilipinas KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN Department of Justice Manila A D V I S O R Y O P I N I O N N O . or ideas. against Associate Justice Mariano C. M .. arising f r o m cases of alleged plagiaristic acts c o m m i t t e d by h i g h . etc. as it is c o m m o n l y u n d e r s t o o d a c c o r d i n g to Webster. w h i c h assumes more gravity w h e n c o m m i t t e d i n the context of an activity that puts p r e m i u m precisely o n the p r o d u c t i o n of original creative w o r k (e.g. the concept of p l a g i a r i s m has only gained currency p r i m a r i l y i n the academic field. etc. It is an act of intellectual dishonesty. is "to take (ideas. etc. LA . In the case of In re: Charges of Plagiarism. Del Castillo. t h o u g h t s . A . 12 October 2010.). N o . Plagiarism thus refers to the act of appropriating the ideas of another a n d presenting t h e m as one's own. an academic paper. w r i t i n g s . However. 10-7-17-SC.r a n k i n g public officials. U p u n t i l recently. I N T R O D U C T I O N This A d v i s o r y seeks to clarify the concept of plagiarism i n the P h i l i p p i n e legal context and guide concerned parties on the legal i m p l i c a t i o n s of such a n act. T o plagiarize.) f r o m (another) a n d pass t h e m off as one's o w n . the Supreme Court cited the lexical definition of p l a g i a r i s m as o r d i n a r i l y understood: A t its m o s t basic. various events have sparked spirited debates o n the nature a n d extent of plagiarism outside the academe. a literary or scientific publication.

It u n d e r m i n e s the c o m m o n expectation that credit s h o u l d be given where it is due. although. amount to a c r i m e punishable by i m p r i s o n m e n t and fine. or good faith/honest mistake can be established. If negligence. i n the case cited above. as the Supreme C o u r t has ruled i n the Del Castillo case. at its core. the 8 e d i t i o n o f Black's L a w D i c t i o n a r y defines p l a g i a r i s m as the "deliberate a n d k n o w i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a n o t h e r person's o r i g i n a l ideas or creative expressions as one's o w n . it w o u l d be inaccurate and misleading to say that "plagiarism is not a c r i m e " i n the P h i l i p p i n e s . based on the definition of p l a g i a r i s m p r o v i d e d i n an oft-cited legal reference material: Indeed. even as the Supreme Court has prescribed a higher evidentiary threshold for p r o v i n g the existence of p l a g i a r i s m . t h Therefore. literary a n d artistic w o r k s "are protected by the sole fact of their creation. otherwise k n o w n as the Intellectual Property Code ("IPC"). " T h u s . 2. Such works refer to intellectual creations i n the literary a n d artistic d o m a i n s w h i c h include all forms of creative expression . . quality a n d purpose". conscious effort to steal another's w o r k a n d pass it off as one's o w n . 8 2 9 3 . a n d that one s h o u l d not appropriate the fruits of another's labor without securing due consent or giving due acknowledgement. and is a mere transgression of ethical a n d m o r a l standards. i n some instances. is a breach of standards of honesty.writings.2 of R e p u b l i c A c t N o . U n d e r Section 172.However. However. a n act of p l a g i a r i s m presupposes deliberate intent. irrespective of their mode or f o r m of expression. the two are not synonymous. there can be no finding of p l a g i a r i s m . as will be explained below. because the law actually provides penalties for it. W h i l e plagiarism per se is not a crime. integrity and justice. plagiarism. In any case. the Supreme C o u r t prescribed a standard of plagiarism w h i c h requires an element of deliberate intent. as well as of their content. P l a g i a r i s m under the Intellectual Property Code The act of plagiarizing the w o r k s of another bears the closest affinity to the act of copyright infringement. S U M M A R Y O F T H E L A W A . it still remains a fact that plagiarism is an actionable w r o n g d o i n g a n d can even. p l a g i a r i s m presupposes intent a n d a deliberate.

include. a n d it can no longer be publicly "recycled" without that author's permission. scholarly. or authorize the reproduction. public performance or other public c o m m u n i c a t i o n of the work. drawings a n d illustrations. the protection accorded b y intellectual property laws extends to works w h i c h have been derived f r o m other works. The author of an original w o r k enjoys "copyright or economic rights" w h i c h . a n d other alterations of literary o r artistic w o r k s . In fact. computer programs and. a n d c o m p i l a t i o n s of data a n d other materials w h i c h are o r i g i n a l by reason of the selection o r c o o r d i n a t i o n o r arrangement o f their contents. prevent. he/she still retains "moral rights" over the work. an original work is the property of its author. enjoys the protection of the law f r o m the m o m e n t of its creation. scholarly. adaptations. pictures. creativity a n d c r i t i c a l t h o u g h t w h i c h t h e I P C o d e e q u a l l y r e c o g n i z e s as worthy of copyright protection. Thus. abridgments. T h e fact that a n a u t h o r anchors his/her w o r k o n the w o r k of a n o t h e r does not m e a n that the laws w i l l p r o v i d e h i m / h e r less protection. public display. the law protects as "new w o r k s " any of the following: (a) D r a m a t i z a t i o n s . scientific or artistic work. plans a n d sketches. " M o r a l rights". p u b l i c distribution. IPC] i n c l u d i n g works derived f r o m t h e m [Section 173. or translating a previous work. Transforming pre-existing works i n a meaningful m a n n e r requires the same level of originality. arrangements. the protection accorded by the law to the author of an original work is so extensive that. rental. S i m p l y put. coordinating or arranging previously-gathered data. a n d his/her "derived" or "transformed" work w i l l be protected by law as an original creation.musical and dramatic compositions. the right to c a n y out. I P C ] . under the intellectual property regime i n the country. without prejudice to the latter's subsisting copyright. Thus. scholarly o r artistic w o r k s . scientific a n d artistic w o r k s " [Section 172.1. i n general. or by selecting. abridging. among others. T h i s means that i f an author creates a w o r k b y adapting. under Section 177 of the IPC. the general rule is that any literary. A s to "derivative works" u n d e r Section 173 of the IPC. the said author is deemed by l a w as an original author. under Section 193 of . t r a n s l a t i o n s . even if the said author authorizes its redistribution t h r o u g h assignment or licensing contracts. expressed i n whatever form. transformation. all other "literary. a n d (b) C o l l e c t i o n s of literary.

among others: 1. w h i c h w o u l d prejudice his/her h o n o r or reputation.htm> (last accessed 18 September 2012). however. he o r s h e c o m m i t s p l a g i a r i s m h u t n o t c o p y r i g h t infringement. a n d the right to object to any distortion. r e p u b l i s h e s a v o l u m e o f G e o r g e B a n c r o f t ' s n i n e t e e n t h . B u t the p e r s o n d o e s i n f r i n g e o n t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r ' s c o p y r i g h t . the law respects a n d values the fact of authorship of original works. available URL: <http://v\ ww. Copyright has a l i m i t e d t e r m of protection. P L A G I A R I S M : C U R R I C U L A R M A T E R I A L S F O R H I S T O R Y I N S T R U C T O R S .org/governance/pd/curriciilum/plagiarism defining. among others. incorporates a n entire chapter o f a m o r e recent h i s t o r i c a l w o r k i n t o a n e w b o o k w i t h o u t the p e r m i s s i o n o f the c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r .historians. p l a g i a r i s m per se is not punishable as a crime under the I P C unless it also amounts to c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t . In s u m . there is no copyright infringement if the copyright of the w o r k has already expired a n d there is no longer any legal g r o u n d to enforce the copyright M i c h a e l R a w s o n .the IPC. for e x a m p l e . include. If a p e r s o n .e. modification or derogatory action i n relation to the author's work. the right to be acknowledged as the author of a work whenever it is p u b l i c l y used. The i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d suffer the c o n d e m n a t i o n of the historical profession.c e n t u r y classie History of the United States of America a n d c l a i m s to he t h e a u t h o r . t h e p e r s o n is n o t guilty o f p l a g i a r i s m i f h e o r s h e cites t h e s o u r c e . but w o u l d not have b r o k e n any c o p y r i g h t laws. since the copyright e x p i r e d m a n y years ago. There is no such t e r m l i m i t a t i o n for p l a g i a r i s m . [ E m p h a s i s supplied] Thus. However. even i f plagiarism is c o m m i t t e d . Plagiarism u n d e r m i n e s the protection accorded by intellectual property laws to authors because its effect is the u n a u t h o r i z e d appropriation of an original idea a n d its subsequent presentation as the plagiarist's o w n . After this t e r m . the original w o r k is deemed to have entered the "public d o m a i n " a n d can already be freely used b y anyone.. a n d m a y have c o m m i t t e d f r a u d . d u r i n g the life of the author a n d for fifty (50) years after his/her death. i. The two acts are distinct because. 1 r . whether or not the w r o n g e d a u t h o r is p r o p e r l y credited. A helpful example can be derived from the illustration d r a w n by Professor M i c h a e l R a w s o n for the members of the A m e r i c a n Historical Association : 1 If a p e r s o n .

system. 28 J a n u a r y 1999. W h e n e v e r this misrepresentation is committed. speeches. discovery or mere data as such" is not protected by copyright. but the consent of the concerned government agency shall be secured if a person wishes to use such work for profit.. the limitations to copyright protection under the I P C are: a. even i f there is no plagiarism because there was no undue c l a i m of authorship. the exemptions p r o v i d e d i n these provisions refer to use of materials i n a m a n n e r that does not u n d e r m i n e the interests of the author.R.g. copyright infringement will still be c o m m i t t e d if the w o r k was reproduced without the authority of the copyright holder.g. procedure. he/she cannot be held liable for copyright infringement. i n the case of Joaquin v. administrative or legal text. A n y w o r k of the G o v e r n m e n t of the P h i l i p p i n e s (e. News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the character of mere items of press i n f o r m a t i o n . However. etc. e. laws. Drilon. m e t h o d or operation. on the other h a n d . i f the show itself was reproduced and broadcast without the broadcaster's permission. A n "idea. 108946. The IPC. provides for various exempting circumstances that w o u l d absolve any person f r o m a charge of copyright infringement.. use for notfor-profit or educational purposes or for mere private . lectures. A m o n g others. plagiarism has already been c o m m i t t e d as well. Basically.) is not protected by copyright. addresses. are not copyrightable. F o r example. as well as any official legislative. copyright infringement w i l l have been c o m m i t t e d . b. Conversely. concept. c. Plagiarism per se refers merely to the passing off of another person's w o r k as one's own. N o . principle. rules. d. if another person decides to produce another dating game show. Thus.of the original author. the Supreme Court has r u l e d that the mere format and concept of a dating game show is not copyrightable. Use of materials i n a m a n n e r consistent w i t h Section 184 and the "fair use" doctrine i n Section 185 of the I P C absolves a person from a copyright infringement claim. G.

i n a m a n n e r that infringes intellectual p r o p e r t y rights s h a l l be p u n i s h e d by a m i n i m u m fine of O n e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d pesos ( P i o o . use. U n d e r Section 33 (b) of the law: Piracy or the unauthorized copying. the author a n d the w o r k are given proper attribution a n d acknowledgement. a r e If plagiarism amounts to copyright infringement. a l t e r a t i o n . it penalizes acts . Thus. d i s s e m i n a t i o n . b u t not l i m i t e d to. modification. The over-arching rule is that. c o m m u n i c a t i o n . a n d the said v i o l a t i o n or act cannot be subsumed under any of the l i m i t a t i o n s or exemptions p r o v i d e d under the same law.C o m m e r c e A c t aims to preserve the integrity of channels of i n f o r m a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n the country i n order to facilitate lawful commerce and other e c o n o m i c activities. uploading.c o n s u m p t i o n . 0 0 0 to 1. or when any of the acts i n Section 217.500. the internet. electronic s i g n a t u r e o r c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s i n c l u d i n g legally protected s o u n d r e c o r d i n g s o r p h o n o g r a m s or i n f o r m a t i o n m a t e r i a l o n protected w o r k s . d i s t r i b u t i o n . the imposable penalty is one to three years of i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d a fine of 5 0 . B. substitution. the person c o m m i t t i n g it m a y also be h e l d c r i m i n a l l y liable under R e p u b l i c A c t N o . a n d the same act constitutes copyright infringement as discussed i n the preceding section.3 c o m m i t t e d . unless it also constitutes copyright infringement u n d e r the I P C . t h r o u g h the use of t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n networks. There is infringement when any of the copyright or economic rights under Section 177 of the I P C is violated b y another person. i m p o r t a t i o n .C o m m e r c e A c t " ) .000 pesos for the first offense. o o o . a n d six years a n d one day to nine years of i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d a fine of 5 0 0 . 0 0 0 to 5 0 0 . r e m o v a l . P l a g i a r i s m under the E . whenever applicable. plagiarism does not i n itself result i n a c r i m i n a l violation. or b r o a d c a s t i n g of protected m a t e r i a l . such as. In s u m . storage.000 pesos for the t h i r d a n d subsequent offenses. m a k i n g available t o the p u b l i c . 0 0 0 to 150. downloading. reproduction. o o ) a n d a m a x i m u m c o m m e n s u r a t e to the damage i n c u r r e d a n d a m a n d a t o r y i m p r i s o n m e n t of six (6) m o n t h s t o three (3) years The E .C o m m e r c e Act If plagiarism is c o m m i t t e d i n the f o r m of "online piracy" by using the internet or other t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s networks. three years a n d one day to six years of i m p r i s o n m e n t and a fine of 1 5 0 . 0 0 0 pesos for the second offense. 8792 (otherwise k n o w n as the E l e c t r o n i c C o m m e r c e Act or " E .

T h a t the penalty to be i m p o s e d shall be one (1) degree h i g h e r than that p r o v i d e d for by the Revised Penal C o d e . as a m e n d e d . Plagiarism under the Cybercrime Prevention A c t Signed into l a w o n 12 September 2012 by President Benigno S. as the case m a y be. as a m e n d e d . i n a d d i t i o n .C o m m e r c e Act. C. the violator can be h e l d liable under the IPC. he/she w i l l likewise be liable under the E . Section 6 of the law provides: A l l crimes defined a n d p e n a l i z e d by the R e v i s e d P e n a l Code. A q u i n o III. focuses o n copyright infringement c o m m i t t e d online. if an act of plagiarism amounts to a copyright infringement under the IPC. if the plagiarism was c o m m i t t e d through an ICT network or facility like the internet.C o m m e r c e A c t . online fraud. i f c o m m i t t e d by. a n d such a p p r o p r i a t i o n amounts to copyright infringement under the I P C .that use information and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technology ("ICT") networks to c o m m i t c r i m i n a l and other illicit activities.e.. The p r o v i s i o n quoted above. then the violator may likewise be held liable under the Cybercrime Prevention Act i f he/she uses ICT for its c o m m i s s i o n . i n the form of "online piracy"). and/or (2) the E . p l a g i a r i s m i s p u n i s h a b l e a s a c r i m e i f it was committed w i t h d e l i b e r a t e i n t e n t a n d a m o u n t s t o c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t under the IPC. S u m m a r i z i n g the law. If copyright infringement was c o m m i t t e d . if a person uses the internet to appropriate the intellectual creation of another without attribution (i. cybersex and c h i l d pornography. a special law. a n d special laws. a n d special laws. i n the context of plagiarism. Republic A c t N o . Section 33 (b) of the law. W h i l e the p r i m a r y focus of the Cybercrime Prevention Act is the definition a n d p u n i s h m e n t of specific "cybercrimes" such as cyber-attacks. T h u s . it also provides for a general c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y for all other violations of the Revised Penal Code and other special penal laws when c o m m i t t e d through information a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technologies. 10175 (otherwise k n o w n as the "Cybercrime Prevention Act" of 2012) seeks to keep I C T networks a n d facilities free of c r i m i n a l activities. Therefore. pursuant to the aforequoted p r o v i s i o n . t h r o u g h a n d w i t h the use of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technologies s h a l l be covered by the relevant p r o v i s i o n s of this A c t : P r o v i d e d . he/she can also be h e l d liable under (1) the C y b e r c r i m e P r e v e n t i o n A c t . 7 . i f the plagiarism takes the f o r m of "online piracy" as described i n Section 33 (b) of the law.

Whenever there is doubt that a particular piece of i n f o r m a t i o n is already "public knowledge" and requires no attribution. P L A G I A R I S M S H O U L D B E A V O I D E D . it has become veiy easy to retrieve the same for whatever use or purpose. It is a specie of dishonesty. W i t h o u t cultivating the habit o f attributing sources a n d o r i g i n a l works. it is consistent w i t h m o r a l a n d ethical standards for every person to refrain f r o m consciously c o m m i t t i n g it. Plagiarism is. once developed into a habit. a n d at some p o i n t w i l l be called out for p l a g i a r i s m . Unnecessary or superfluous citation is always better than no citation at all. The presence or absence of sanctions against it s h o u l d not be the d e t e r m i n i n g factor for one's conduct. persons w h o routinely access data for their eveiyday use w i l l not develop the discipline of differentiating between their o w n w o r k and those of another. 2. W h i l e . is the best protection against charges of p l a g i a r i s m . theft of the intellectual property of another. p l a g i a r i s m per se does not automatically constitute a crime. A D V I S O R Y G i v e n the above. at its core. . take a cautionary stance and cite. W H E N DOUBT. u n d e r the law. a n d not merely copied f r o m u n w i t t i n g authors. W i t h the proliferation of readily-available and accessible i n f o r m a t i o n via the internet a n d other ICT m e d i a . fraud a n d lack of integrity. plagiarism s h o u l d still be strongly discouraged i n all its forms and regardless of sanctions. CITE. the following advisory points are issued: 1. W h e n i n doubt. cite. take the cautionary stance and cite. C U L T I V A T E T H E H A B I T O F A T T R I B U T I O N . W e must all strive to achieve the highest standards of public discourse by ensuring that the ideas we express are products of our own thought. Being conscious of properly citing sources. Whenever there is doubt that the use of a material measures up to the standards of "fair use" under the I P C .III. the E .C o m m e r c e Act or the Cybercrime Prevention Act. IN W h i l e there is only a specific class of acts w h i c h amount to c r i m i n a l l y punishable violations of the I P C . R E G A R D L E S S O F T H E P R E S E N C E O F S A N C T I O N S A G A I N S T IT.

The value attached to the originality of ideas is not d i m i n i s h e d by the fact that such ideas are expressed i n blogs a n d other less f o r m a l social m e d i a platforms. IN DETECTING CASES OF In an era of internet-based "cut-and-paste" research a n d w r i t i n g . The vigilance of the p u b l i c w i l l also create a powerful deterrent effect against potential acts of p l a g i a r i s m i n the future and apply strong pressure on all writers a n d researchers i n the public sphere to adhere to standards of intellectual honesty and integrity. 9 . W h i l e p l a g i a r i s m is mostly c o m m i t t e d i n an academic setting (especially i n the context of violating prescribed citation a n d style rules). Thus. E v e n i f not strictly a crime. E N C O U R A G E INSTITUTIONS PLAGIARISM MEASURES. 4. everyone can be a v i c t i m of p l a g i a r i s m . Teachers and professors have l o n g acquired the skill of detecting plagiarism among their students t h r o u g h several "tell-tale" signs like inconsistent w o r d usage. Other institutions like private corporations. government offices. However. 5. shifting tones. it does not mean that intellectual works exhibited elsewhere enjoy less protection. societies a n d associations s h o u l d be encouraged to adopt anti-plagiarism measures. i f done deliberately. TO ADOPT ANTI- The value of intellectual honesty and integrity should not be a purely academic concern. regardless of the presence or absence of sanctions. p l a g i a r i s m should still be viewed as a pernicious act that reflects adversely on the character of a person. These same techniques can be used to detect plagiarism i n other settings. violators w o u l d be h e l d to account a n d rectify their errors. for as l o n g as o r i g i n a l ideas are c o m m i t t e d to a f o r m readily available to the public. E V E R Y O N E C A N B E A V I C T I M O F P L A G I A R I S M . a n d unusually sophisticated language i n certain passages that stand out vis-a-vis the rest of the text. i f vigilance is observed i n detecting cases of p l a g i a r i s m .3. A person deliberately a p p r o p r i a t i n g them without proper attribution w i l l still be c o m m i t t i n g p l a g i a r i s m . it is very easy to c o m m i t plagiarism w i t h i m p u n i t y . The generation of o r i g i n a l ideas and their expression i n whatever f o r m is the h a l l m a r k of intellectual development. A L W A Y S B E V I G I L A N T PLAGIARISM.

A l l are enjoined to disseminate a n d faithfully observe this Advisory. It should be treated as reprehensible conduct a n d s h o u l d not be allowed to proliferate s i m p l y because no l a w specifically punishes it as a c r i m e per se. Secretary 10 . P l a g i a r i s m s h o u l d not be tolerated a n d encouraged i n a society w h i c h values honesty. diligence and integrity.Thus. T h i s A d v i s o r y is issued by the D O J i n line w i t h its thrust to take a proactive stance and a d y n a m i c approach i n c r i m i n a l justice concerns. institutions should consider specifically designating plagiarism as a just cause for d i s c i p l i n a r y sanctions. This should apply specifically to institutions whose w o r k s and activities are i m b u e d w i t h public interest or are h i g h l y fiduciary i n nature. and those whose raison d'etre is precisely the generation of original ideas. A t t r i b u t i n g sources a n d acknowledging the progeny of o r i g i n a l ideas are consistent w i t h the standards of morals. ethics a n d justice that everyone s h o u l d subscribe to.

can amount to criminal violation of the Intellectual Property Code. Plagiarism should be avoided. which the Supreme Court has described as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own". the Advisory Opinion addresses a recurring issue in the criminal justice system and lays out the scope of protection of authors under the country's intellectual property laws and sets out the liabilities for infringers. recent events brought to fore the importance of knowing exactly what plagiarism is and to clarify the misconception that there is no crime of plagiarism under our laws. As the Advisory Opinion points out. plagiarism." said Secretary of Justice Leila M . the E-Commerce Act or the Cybercrime Prevention Act.Republika ng Pilipinas KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN Department of Justice Manila PRESS RELEASE 0 2 October 2012 DOJ ISSUES ADVISORYO N PLAGIARISM The Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued Advisory Opinion No. Series of 2012 explaining the meaning of plagiarism in the context of Philippine law and cases. regardless of the presence of . However. de Lima. prevent and resolve plagiarism as it is recognized as an undesirable act that breaches the standards of propriety by depriving another person of the fruits of creativity. The Advisory provides guidance on how to avoid. "Plagiarism is a concept more understood in academic circles as an offense against academic integrity anathema to the strict standards of originality of scholarly works which members of the academic community subscribe to. Consistent with the proactive stand of the D O J . 0 2 . if committed under certain circumstances. The highlights are as follows: 1.

2. sanctions against it. Encourage institutions to adopt anti-plagiarism measures. Cultivate the habit of attribution. the D O J hopes to continue to build community awareness and increase social trust for a peaceful and just Republic. With this Advisory Opinion. 5. 0 2 (Series of 2012) . When in doubt. 4. Always be vigilant in detecting cases of plagiarism. Everyone can be a victim of plagiarism. Enclosed: Advisory Opinion No. cite. 3.