UP professors stand firm on plagiarism issue

MANILA, Philippines - Professors of the University of the Philippines’ College of Law have stood firm on their statement against the alleged plagiarism committed by a Supreme Court(SC) justice in writing a ruling last April on a case involving the demand for reparation of Filipino “comfort women” who were used as sex slaves by Japanese soldiers during World War II.

Responding to the show cause order of the court, the 37 law professors led by UP College of Law Dean Marvic Leonen said they did not violate canons of the Code of Professional Responsibilities of Lawyers when they signed the statement “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.”

In an eight-page compliance filed by professor Rosa Maria Juan-Bautista on behalf of the UP professors, they insisted that Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo committed plagiarism and misrepresentation despite a ruling of the Court clearing him from such allegations.

They invoked their academic freedom and freedom of expression under the Constitution.

“The exercise of academic freedom grants the University the exclusive discretion to determine if, in its opinion, plagiarism exists based on established standards and the courts may not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless there is a clear showing that the university has arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its judgment,” they argued.

They also stressed that they could not be penalized for issuing the “accusing statement” since it was only an opinion “protected by the Constitution – right or wrong and whether the Supreme Court agrees with the law professors or not.”

The professors believe their action does not warrant any sanction since it posed “no danger of character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to public safety, public morale, public health, or any other legitimate public interest as would justify the Honorable Supreme Court to curtail the freedom of expression of the opinion of the faculty members of the UP College of Law.”

Bautista also denied the allegation that their statement was issued to tarnish the integrity of the Court.

“What we professors wanted to do was to shield the Supreme Court from the mistake or negligence or recklessness of one member. We signed the letter in good faith and with the best intentions to protect the Supreme Court by asking one member to resign,” she explained.

She and her colleagues asked the Court to uphold their academic freedom and freedom of expression by allowing them to continue to speak their opinions on the plagiarism issue.

Leonen said they still stand by their call for the Court to institute ways and means to prevent similar occurrences of alleged plagiarism.

“We are more than willing to sit down with the Court’s representatives and contribute our academic resources to find ways to lessen its docket as well as to continue to improve court staff’’s ability to do research,” said Leonen, citing that UP treats plagiarism as a mortal sin that could cost a student’s diploma.

He stressed that criticism of the Court is not tantamount to disrespect and lawyers are always expected to be independent and candid in their assessments to be able to assist the public in understanding decisions of the court.

“Critique will always come with some degree of irreverence. Otherwise those who wish to speak their truths may not be able to address those in power. We teach our students that injustice suffered by those who are powerless deserve their most effective voice. We teach them that that is what ennobles our calling as lawyers,” he said in a statement.

Leonen warned the justices that “timidity within the legal academia may result in a failure of democracy.”

The UP law professors and lawyers, all under administrative supervision of the SC, were ordered to explain why a “dummy” statement was submitted even if it was supposedly “not a true and faithful reproduction” of the UP faculty of law.

Court administrator Midas Marquez earlier explained that the SC is looking into possible violation of code of ethics of lawyers committed by the UP law professors.

He explained that the Code bars lawyers from making public statements that tend to influence public opinion while a case is pending.

Chief Justice Renato Corona signed the order. Nine others justices concurred – Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Perez and Jose Mendoza.

Three justices dissented, namely Senior Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Conchita Carpio-Morales and Ma. Lourdes Sereno, while Associate Justice Roberto Abad was on leave.

Associate Justice Del Castillo, subject of the plagiarism charge, took no part in the voting.

An earlier probe of the SC showed that only 37 out of 81 members of the faculty signed the statement condemning the alleged plagiarism and calling for the resignation of the magistrate.

“And retired Justice Vicente Mendoza did not sign the statement, contrary to what the dummy represented. The Committee wondered why Dean (Leonen) submitted a dummy of the signed document when UP has an abundance of copying machines,” the Court stressed in its ruling last week clearing Del Castillo.

With this, the Court directed the committee on ethics to turn over to the full court the signed copy of the manifesto “for consideration in relation to the separate pending matter concerning that supposed faculty statement.”