In the earlier case of Ang Ladlad, (GR No. 190582, April 8, 2010) Justice Del Castillo appeared to have committed plagiarism as well. Our study is only preliminary but the exigencies of the situation have compelled us to make this public.
In the Ang Ladlad decision allowed a gay rights group to run in the party-list elections, and was released 20 days earlier than the Vinuya decision. The ponente here is also Justice Del Castillo.
Read U.P. College of LawProfessor Harry Roque's blog here:
Harry Roque's Blog: Further Mistakes from MS Word or more Plagiarism from Justice del Castillo?
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Justice Mariano del Castillo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court Justice Mariano del Castillo. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
Former U.P. Law Dean Pangalangan on the Supreme Court decision regarding plagiarism: "The latest injustice to the comfort women": opinion.inquirer.net
"PROF. HARRY Roque was reading the Supreme Court’s decision in the case that he filed in behalf of the comfort women, and he felt that certain passages looked eerily familiar. He then instructed a young associate in his firm, the Roque Butuyan Law Offices, to check out these passages in the Internet.
Romel Bagares, the associate, was shocked to find entire pages filled with text lifted verbatim—not just from the body of the article but also the footnotes—from three academic articles published abroad, and all these without making it clear to the reader that the text was not original to the ponente, Justice Mariano C. del Castillo."
Read the rest here:
Former UP Law Dean Pangalangan on the Supreme Court decision re plagiarism "The latest injustice to the comfort women": opinion.inquirer.net
Romel Bagares, the associate, was shocked to find entire pages filled with text lifted verbatim—not just from the body of the article but also the footnotes—from three academic articles published abroad, and all these without making it clear to the reader that the text was not original to the ponente, Justice Mariano C. del Castillo."
Read the rest here:
Former UP Law Dean Pangalangan on the Supreme Court decision re plagiarism "The latest injustice to the comfort women": opinion.inquirer.net
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Commentary: On SC clears Justice Mariano del Castillo in plagiarism charges by some U.P. Law Faculty
By Chanda Shahani
The Supreme Court has cleared Justice Mariano del Castillo of bad faith in the issue of judicial plagiarism charges levied against him by several faculty of the U.P. College of Law, some of whom hold ranking positions within the U.P. System. In a rebuke to some of the faculty, the Supreme Court acknowledged sloppy workmanship of one of the Justice's researchers and the technical limitations of MS Word to detect cut-and-pasted portions of the decision. But the Supreme Court also criticized the protest letter of the faculty, saying that it was made to appear that more faculty had actually signed the letter than actually did; impliedly asserting misrepresentation on the part of some of the faculty, that a majority of the faculty of the U.P. College of Law had signed the actual document.
Perhaps the Supreme Court may wish to consider going beyond MS Word and purchasing off-the-shelf anti-plagiarism software such as Viper, which are now being used overseas to detect plagiarism. In our case, the Diliman Diary reasserts its previous position supporting the faculty of the Ateneo Law School who said that it was premature for Justice del Castillo to even consider resigning over this issue pending the release of the Supreme Court's investigation. Now that the investigation has cleared Justice Castillo, we note that there is now additional data strengthening our suspicion that those who go on the attack are themselves vulnerable to attack (please see: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/09/7.html), as the documents they submitted questioning Justice del Castilo's professionalism very unprofessionally made it appear that there was an overwhelming number of signatories from the U.P. College of Law Faculty on their side, as was made abudantly clear by the Supreme Court. To read about this, please click on this link:
SC clears Justice Mariano del Castillo in plagiarism mess - Nation - GMANews.TV - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News
Now that the Supreme Court findings are out, we are now hugely motivated to start to screen recent court decisions favoring the U.P. Administration by running the U.P. Administration's arguments, opposing arguments and corresponding judicial decisions (soft copies of course) through the Viper software to see if some of the same signatories of the missive criticizing Justice del Castillo should not themselves be impliedly rebuked if it can be ascertained that the justice's "plagiarized" the U.P. Administration's arguments, lock-stock-and-barrel. After all, what would motivate a researcher of a judge or Justice, or even the judge or Justice to lift entire paragraphs from the arguments of only one opposing side? MS Word cannot detect plagiarism. The Viper software can detect plagiarism but it cannot make any conclusions about the dark side of the human psyche that may occasionally prevail over the ideal that justice should be blind. It is only the vigilance of concerned citizens, media, bloggers and other parties who can monitor these developments. The problem of jettisoned Honor by those from U.P. was recently and brilliantly alluded to by no less than U.P. School of Economics Professor Solita C. Monsod (please see: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/10/up-diliman-school-of-economics.html).
We are not questioning the right of the U.P. Administration to file cases or defend itself from suits, but as a community blog covering the Diliman area, of which the U.P. Administration is very much an inhabitant of, we wish to make sure that U.P. does not betray its own self-stated ideals of Honor and Excellence in fighting its legal fights. And at the end of the day, what is so wrong with that?
(Chanda Shahani is the Editor of the Diliman Diary)
The Supreme Court has cleared Justice Mariano del Castillo of bad faith in the issue of judicial plagiarism charges levied against him by several faculty of the U.P. College of Law, some of whom hold ranking positions within the U.P. System. In a rebuke to some of the faculty, the Supreme Court acknowledged sloppy workmanship of one of the Justice's researchers and the technical limitations of MS Word to detect cut-and-pasted portions of the decision. But the Supreme Court also criticized the protest letter of the faculty, saying that it was made to appear that more faculty had actually signed the letter than actually did; impliedly asserting misrepresentation on the part of some of the faculty, that a majority of the faculty of the U.P. College of Law had signed the actual document.
Perhaps the Supreme Court may wish to consider going beyond MS Word and purchasing off-the-shelf anti-plagiarism software such as Viper, which are now being used overseas to detect plagiarism. In our case, the Diliman Diary reasserts its previous position supporting the faculty of the Ateneo Law School who said that it was premature for Justice del Castillo to even consider resigning over this issue pending the release of the Supreme Court's investigation. Now that the investigation has cleared Justice Castillo, we note that there is now additional data strengthening our suspicion that those who go on the attack are themselves vulnerable to attack (please see: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/09/7.html), as the documents they submitted questioning Justice del Castilo's professionalism very unprofessionally made it appear that there was an overwhelming number of signatories from the U.P. College of Law Faculty on their side, as was made abudantly clear by the Supreme Court. To read about this, please click on this link:
SC clears Justice Mariano del Castillo in plagiarism mess - Nation - GMANews.TV - Official Website of GMA News and Public Affairs - Latest Philippine News
Now that the Supreme Court findings are out, we are now hugely motivated to start to screen recent court decisions favoring the U.P. Administration by running the U.P. Administration's arguments, opposing arguments and corresponding judicial decisions (soft copies of course) through the Viper software to see if some of the same signatories of the missive criticizing Justice del Castillo should not themselves be impliedly rebuked if it can be ascertained that the justice's "plagiarized" the U.P. Administration's arguments, lock-stock-and-barrel. After all, what would motivate a researcher of a judge or Justice, or even the judge or Justice to lift entire paragraphs from the arguments of only one opposing side? MS Word cannot detect plagiarism. The Viper software can detect plagiarism but it cannot make any conclusions about the dark side of the human psyche that may occasionally prevail over the ideal that justice should be blind. It is only the vigilance of concerned citizens, media, bloggers and other parties who can monitor these developments. The problem of jettisoned Honor by those from U.P. was recently and brilliantly alluded to by no less than U.P. School of Economics Professor Solita C. Monsod (please see: http://diliman-diary.blogspot.com/2010/10/up-diliman-school-of-economics.html).
We are not questioning the right of the U.P. Administration to file cases or defend itself from suits, but as a community blog covering the Diliman area, of which the U.P. Administration is very much an inhabitant of, we wish to make sure that U.P. does not betray its own self-stated ideals of Honor and Excellence in fighting its legal fights. And at the end of the day, what is so wrong with that?
(Chanda Shahani is the Editor of the Diliman Diary)
Monday, September 6, 2010
Fr. Joanquin Bernas, S.J., Ateneo law professors oppose U.P. Law professors call for SC justice to resign
Editor's note: The Diliman Diary has been inspired to conduct its own in-depth inquiry into recent court cases involving the Diliman community and in particular, several lawyers who are at the forefront of condemning Supreme Court Justice Mariano del Castillo for having allegedly plagiarized an earlier decision and demanding his resignation even before the Supreme Court as a body has formed its own conclusions on the matter.
While we actually support the inquiry into the matter, we do not wish to just stop there, as we are also made aware that a can of worms has correspondingly been opened and we are openly wondering whether it may be established that those who are condemning the officials of the court for "judicial plagiarism" may not themselves be direct beneficiaries of such court decisions by themselves providing pre-written or "soft copies" to officials of the court which substantially reflect their own pleadings, and thereby making a mockery of the ideal that Justice should be blind.
We are therefore narrowing in on a convenience sample of recent cases of public interest involving the University of the Philippines to prove (or even disprove) our point. If we come across significant findings, our public duty is to complain before the judicial authorities first, and inform our readers of the results only if official action has been taken, assuming that anything amiss has been found in the first place.
Like Academic plagiarism, Judicial plagiarism may be easily established by comparing, say, a plaintiff's or defendant's pleadings versus a court decision in a line by line comparison of all sets of documents. We hope, for the sake of a good night's sleep, as well as the inetgrity of the entire judicial system, that we are able to prove ourselves wrong. In the meantime, here is an article from philstar.com about the Ateneo Law professors opposition to the U.P. Law Professors manifesto (just click on the link):
Fr. Bernas, law professors oppose call for SC justice to resign | Home Other Sections Breaking News
While we actually support the inquiry into the matter, we do not wish to just stop there, as we are also made aware that a can of worms has correspondingly been opened and we are openly wondering whether it may be established that those who are condemning the officials of the court for "judicial plagiarism" may not themselves be direct beneficiaries of such court decisions by themselves providing pre-written or "soft copies" to officials of the court which substantially reflect their own pleadings, and thereby making a mockery of the ideal that Justice should be blind.
We are therefore narrowing in on a convenience sample of recent cases of public interest involving the University of the Philippines to prove (or even disprove) our point. If we come across significant findings, our public duty is to complain before the judicial authorities first, and inform our readers of the results only if official action has been taken, assuming that anything amiss has been found in the first place.
Like Academic plagiarism, Judicial plagiarism may be easily established by comparing, say, a plaintiff's or defendant's pleadings versus a court decision in a line by line comparison of all sets of documents. We hope, for the sake of a good night's sleep, as well as the inetgrity of the entire judicial system, that we are able to prove ourselves wrong. In the meantime, here is an article from philstar.com about the Ateneo Law professors opposition to the U.P. Law Professors manifesto (just click on the link):
Fr. Bernas, law professors oppose call for SC justice to resign | Home Other Sections Breaking News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)