Random conversations

Back to the plagiarism issue that, until now, hounds Justice del Castillo of the Supreme Court, and is making life uncomfortable for thirty seven professors of law from the University of the Philippines.

I recall a conversation from a partner in the biggest lawfirm in the country. She said, for the first time in a long while, she was proud of being a UP graduate. A few weeks later, her name pops up in the official statement of the Lyceum law school, where she teaches. As has been reported, the Lyceum faculty (many of whom are UP graduates) stood staunchly beside the UP Law faculty in condemning plagiarism. What is interesting from the statement is they were able to dig up Supreme Court memoranda that contradicted the logic behind the resolution clearing Justice del Castillo of the plagiarism charge as he had no 'malicious intent.'

I spoke to a graduate of UP just the other day. Her daughter attends the Ateneo School of Law, and mother and daughter apparently had a discussion on where Ateneo stood, exactly, in the midst of the Supreme Court plagiarism charges. Up to now, neither the Ateneo faculty nor its law students have released a statement on what they think of a teacher in their midst, accused of not only plagiarizing text from international law authors, but worse, twisting the text to fit conveniently into a pre-destined conclusion. (Or rather, two teachers, as the Justice has looked towards his research assistant as responsible for the unquoted quotes.) 

As well, the Ateneo faculty and students have not spoken up on the contempt charges faced by the UP Law faculty, this considering some of them are likewise teaching in Ateneo. Bottom line from the daughter, the Ateneo law school community isn't going to be speaking up any time soon.

I contrast this against the UP law students, whose statement's militant tone is so typically (and heart-warmingly) brash. The students, not at all mindful that they might one day be called to account for lending their signatures, have provocatively called the Supreme Court threat to punish their faculty as an act of 'cowardice,' the logic apparently that rather than be brave and admit that their decision contained plagiarized text, the court would rather brandish their punitive powers.

Over lunch this week, some young lawyers were discussing the controversy. The general consensus was that too much pressure was being exerted by the legal and educational community as well as by the press, what with full page ads from the Catholic Educators Association, strong statements from the La Salle faculty as well as the Loyola campuses, and various columnists who've pretty much pilloried both justice and researcher. Given this pressure, and the barbs thrown left and right, we pondered the serious question as to how the Supreme Court could still react with grace. (Alright, so we also traded a lot of gossip on the personal life of the researcher.)

 I have a lunch date with one of the respondents. We're supposed to be tackling fund raising duties, but that's been parked, as she's busy preparing for her official response to the Supreme Court.I dropped a couple of exploratory hints, but got no advance nuggets as to what the direction of the response is going to be. Our lunch date will have to be after they file.

 Hopefully, when they do file their response to the show-cause order, it's not going to be too incendiary. Rather, it should suggest a middle ground that both sides can live with, a compromise not of principles, but only of emotions.While I subscribe to the view that Justice Sereno's dissent was more persuasive (that's legal jargon for 'I thought she was right on the money'), to expect a complete reversal of position from the full court might to be too ambitious at the moment. 

What to ask for then? Admit that they were too hasty in speaking up, but insist that their intent was for the good of the judiciary as a whole? Pray for the indulgence of the court, and ask that only a warning be issued? Or state simply there is no ground to cite them for contempt, as there is no 'malicious intent'?

For sure the conversation at lunch will be interesting.