Shortly after the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, counsel for the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and supplement asserting plagiarism in the decision. Authors alleged to be plagiarized also wrote to the Court noting misrepresentation of their works. In response, UP Law faculty issued a statement alleging plagiarism against Justice del Castillo and treating it as fact. The statement insulted the Court and attempted to educate it on the case. As a result, the Supreme Court issued a resolution directing the faculty to show cause for potential disciplinary action for violating ethics rules, given the inappropriate language used. The Court found the manner of criticism exceeded reasonable bounds, while the faculty argued their academic freedom was denied, but
Shortly after the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, counsel for the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and supplement asserting plagiarism in the decision. Authors alleged to be plagiarized also wrote to the Court noting misrepresentation of their works. In response, UP Law faculty issued a statement alleging plagiarism against Justice del Castillo and treating it as fact. The statement insulted the Court and attempted to educate it on the case. As a result, the Supreme Court issued a resolution directing the faculty to show cause for potential disciplinary action for violating ethics rules, given the inappropriate language used. The Court found the manner of criticism exceeded reasonable bounds, while the faculty argued their academic freedom was denied, but
Shortly after the Supreme Court decision in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, counsel for the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration and supplement asserting plagiarism in the decision. Authors alleged to be plagiarized also wrote to the Court noting misrepresentation of their works. In response, UP Law faculty issued a statement alleging plagiarism against Justice del Castillo and treating it as fact. The statement insulted the Court and attempted to educate it on the case. As a result, the Supreme Court issued a resolution directing the faculty to show cause for potential disciplinary action for violating ethics rules, given the inappropriate language used. The Court found the manner of criticism exceeded reasonable bounds, while the faculty argued their academic freedom was denied, but
Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by Castillo (Justice del Castillo), to suit the
it the arguments laid down in said
the Faculty of the UP College of Law on the Allegations of Plagiarism and decision. Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” Rule 10.2 | March 8, 2011 & June 7, 2011 | Villarama, J; De Castro, J • Vis-a-vis the Court’s formation of an ethics committee tasked to investigate the veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were Nature of Case: Administrative Matter in the SC purportedly plagiarized sent their respective letters to the Supreme Petitioner: Supreme Court Court, noting the misreading and/or misrepresentation of their articles. Respondent: UP Law Faculty Hence, in their articles, they argue that the crimes of rape, torture and SUMMARY: Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in sexual slavery can be classified as crimes against humanity, thus Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, the counsel for the petitioners therein filed, 1) a attaining the jus cogens status; consequently, it shall be obligatory upon Motion for Reconsideration reiterating the fundamental responsibility of the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. However, states in protecting its citizens’ human rights specifically pertaining to jus the Vinuya decision cited them to support the contrary stand. cogens norms; and, 2) a supplement thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was plagiarized from different sources and that the true intents of the • In response to this controversy, the faculty of UP College of Law came plagiarized sources were twisted by the ponente to suit the arguments laid up with a statement entitled “Restoring Integrity: A Statement by the down in said decision. Thereafter, an ethics committee tasked to investigate Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law on the the veracity of the alleged plagiarism, the authors who were purportedly Allegations of Plagiarism and Misrepresentation in the Supreme Court” plagiarized sent their respective letters to the Supreme Court.Due to this, the (Restoring Integrity Statement), which statement alleged plagiarism faculty of UP College of Law came up with a statement (Restoring Integrity against Justice del Castillo, treating the same not only as an established Statement), which alleged plagiarism against Justice del Castillo, treating the fact, but as a truth. Said statement was posted online and at the same not only as an established fact, but as a truth. Said statement was posted College’s bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. online and at the College’s bulletin board and was submitted to the Supreme Court. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Resolution directing • The first paragraph concludes with a reference to the decision in Vinuya respondents to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of v. Executive Secretary as a reprehensible act of dishonesty and the Bar for violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility. misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land. The authors also not only assumed that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they DOCTRINE: The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be went further by directly accusing the Court of perpetrating balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the extraordinary injustice by dismissing the petition of the comfort Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. In cases where the women in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. They further attempt to critics are not only citizens but members of the Bar, jurisprudence has educate this Court on how to go about the review of the case. The insult repeatedly affirmed the authority of this Court to discipline lawyers whose to the members of the Court was aggravated by imputations of statements regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or deliberately delaying the resolution of the said case, its dismissal on extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and common decency. the basis of “polluted sources,” the Court’s alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners, as well as the supposed alarming lack of concern of FACTS: the members of the Court for even the most basic values of decency • Shortly after the promulgation of the Supreme Court decision in and respect. Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (the Vinuya decision), the case involving the Filipino comfort women during the Japanese occupation, the counsel • The manner in presenting the arguments and the language used therein, for the petitioners therein filed, first, a Motion for Reconsideration the Court believed, were inappropriate considering its signatories are reiterating the fundamental responsibility of states in protecting its lawyers. Thus, the Supreme Court issued a Show Cause Resolution citizens’ human rights specifically pertaining to jus cogens norms and, directing respondents to show cause why they should not be second, a supplement thereto asserting that the Vinuya decision was disciplined as members of the Bar for violations of the Code of plagiarized from different sources and that the true intents of the Professional Responsibility. Conversely, compliance to such resolution plagiarized sources were twisted by the ponente, Justice Mariano del was unsatisfactory, except for one respondent.
1
ISSUE/S & RATIO: conduct and speech, coupled with undue intervention in favor of a party in a 1. WON the Show Cause Resolution denies respondents their freedom of pending case, without observing proper procedure, even if purportedly done in expression – NO their capacity as teachers. 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 Respondents cannot successfully invoke academic freedom in this case. The charged one of its members of plagiarism that motivated the said Resolution. It constitutional right to freedom of expression of members of the Bar may be was the manner of the criticism and the contumacious language by which circumscribed by their ethical duties as lawyers to give due respect to the respondents, who are not parties nor counsels in the Vinuya case, have courts and to uphold the public’s faith in the legal profession and the justice expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said pending case for system. The Court believes that the reason that freedom of expression may be so the “proper disposition” and consideration of the Court that gave rise to said delimited in the case of lawyers applies with greater force to the academic Resolution. The Show Cause Resolution painstakingly enumerated the freedom of law professors. The Court reiterates that lawyers when they teach law statements that the Court considered excessive and uncalled for under the are considered engaged in the practice of law. Unlike professors in other circumstances surrounding the issuance, publication, and later submission to this disciplines and more than lawyers who do not teach law, respondents are bound Court of the UP Law faculty’s Restoring Integrity Statement. 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 The right to criticize, which is guaranteed by the freedom of speech and of professional responsibility applicable to acts of members of the Bar as the fact expression in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution, must be exercised of their being law professors is inextricably entwined with the fact that they responsibly, for every right carries with it a corresponding obligation. Freedom are lawyers. is not freedom from responsibility, but freedom with responsibility. Thus, proscribed are the uses of unnecessary language, which jeopardizes high esteem RULING: PETITION DISMISSED. in courts, creates or promotes distrust in judicial administration, or tends necessarily to undermine the confidence of people in the integrity of the members DISSENTING OPINION: of the Court. In other words, while a lawyer is entitled to present his case with Sereno, J: vigor and courage, such enthusiasm does not justify the use of offensive and • Ordering the 37 respondent members of the UP Law Faculty to “show abusive language. Language abounds with countless possibilities for one to be cause” in this indirect contempt case is like ordering the little boy who emphatic but respectful, convincing but not derogatory, illuminating but not exclaimed that “the emperor has no clothes” to explain why he should offensive. not be crucified for his public observation. • The subject UP Law Faculty members have been prematurely adjudged A long line of cases shows that the Court has held that the right to criticize the guilty and asked to explain why such prejudgment should be reversed courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial simply for expressing what they believed was the truth. There may concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due have been exaggeration in the UP Law Faculty's process of expression, influence or interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but but this tempest is nothing that the Supreme Court has not similarly members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of weathered in the past and faced with equanimity. this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements regarding the courts and • “With all due respect to my colleagues, it is not the place of the Court fellow lawyers, whether judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair to seek revenge against those who, in their wish to see reform in the comment and common decency. judiciary, have the courage to say what is wrong with it.” • Indirect contempt is committed in any of the acts enumerated in Section 2. WON the Show Cause Resolution violates respondents’ academic 3, Rule 71 of the Rules of Court. The majority Resolution, which is the freedom as law professors - NO written charge required by said rule, fails to cite which particular mode of committing indirect contempt appears to have been violated. It is There is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents axiomatic to due process that the accused be informed specifically of the the subject matter they can teach and the manner of their instruction. charge against them. A proceeding for indirect contempt is criminal in Moreover, it is not inconsistent with the principle of academic freedom for this nature; thus, adherence to due process is more stringently required of Court to subject lawyers who teach law to disciplinary action for contumacious this Court.
2
• One can infer from a reading of the majority Resolution which portions • It appears that the evil consequences the UP law faculty statement will of the text the UP Law Faculty Statement draw the charge of direct supposedly spawn are (1) the slurring of this Court’s dignity and (2) the contempt, i.e. (a) the accusation that “an extraordinary act of injustice has impairment of its judicial independence vis-à-vis the resolution of the been committed against the brave Filipinas who suffered abuse during a plagiarism complaint in Vinuya. Both are absent here. On the matter of time of war”; (b) the casting of the decision as “a reprehensible act of institutional degradation, the 12-paragraph, 1,553-word statement of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land”; (c) the UP law faculty, taken as a whole, does not exhibit that "irrational the further attempt to educate the Court on how to go about the review obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy the courts and of the case; (d) imputations of deliberately delaying the resolution of the their members" typical of unprotected judicial criticism. Vinuya case; (e) the dismissal of the petition on the basis of “polluted On the contrary, the statement, taken as a whole, seeks to sources”; (f) alleged indifference to the cause of petitioners; (g) the uphold the bedrock democratic value of keeping judicial processes free supposed alarming lack of concern of the members of the Court for even of any taint of dishonesty or misrepresentation. Thus, the UP law the most basic values of decency and respect, but it must still identify faculty statement is far removed from speech the Court has rightly the specific paragraph of Section 3, Rule 71 of which the UP Law sanctioned for proffering no useful social value, solely crafted to vilify its Faculty appears guilty. members and threaten its very existence. • This Court, as complaining party, must state plainly how its ability to view the motion for reconsideration of the Vinuya decision can be • The conclusion that the UP law faculty statement disrespects the Court affected in any way by the UP Law Faculty's statement. It must also and its members is valid only if the statement is taken apart, its state plainly how its ability to enforce its future orders would be eroded dismembered parts separately scrutinized to isolate and highlight by the release of the UP Law Faculty Statement. perceived offensive phrases and words. This approach defies common • The second paragraph of the text clearly indicate the Faculty’s sense and departs from this Court’s established practice in scrutinizing passionate desire to see the torch of justice carried with honor and speech critical of the judiciary. People v. Godoy instructs that speech dignity by the highest court of the land, its steps unfaltering from moral critical of judges must be "read with contextual care," making sure that or professional weakness. disparaging statements are not "taken out of context." Using this • “The timing of the “show cause” order; the implication in the related approach, and applying the clear and present danger test, the Court Decision that the complainants in the plagiarism charge against Justice in Godoy cleared a columnist and a publisher of liability despite the del Castillo are “hypocrites”; the needling over a small matter such as presence in the assailed news article of derogatory yet isolated submission of a dummy vis-à-vis the original signed copies; and the statements about a judge. We can do no less to the statement of the apparent effect that the submission of the Statement had on the Court members of the UP law faculty, who, after all, were impelled by nothing – all of these betray a Court that is bent on seeing itself redeemed not but their sense of professional obligation to "speak out on a matter of by hard and honest work, with the undertaking of proper remedial public concern and one that is of vital interest to them." actions for when a member is in breach of ethics, but by showing who, in the land of lawyers, has power.” • The academic bar, which the UP law faculty represents, is the judiciary’s partner in a perpetual intellectual conversation to promote Carpio, J: the rule of law and build democratic institutions. It serves the interest • I find the Compliance of the 37 legal scholars satisfactory and therefore of sustaining this vital relationship for the Court to constructively see no need to admonish or warn them for supposed use of respond to the academics’ criticism. Instead of heeding the UP law disrespectful language in their statement commenting on a public faculty’s call for the Court to "ensur[e] that not only the content, but also issue involving the official conduct of a member of this Court. The the processes of preparing and writing its own decisions, are credible majority’s action impermissibly expands the Court’s administrative and beyond question," the majority dismisses their suggestion as powers and, more importantly, abridges constitutionally protected useless calumny and brands their constitutionally protected speech as speech on public conduct guaranteed to all, including members of the "unbecoming of lawyers and law professors." The Constitution, logic, bar. common sense and a humble awareness of this Court’s role in the larger project of dispensing justice in a democracy revolt against such response.
3
LEGPROF 06 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 PL PDF