Supreme Court summons 2 lawyers over plagiarism case

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has summoned two lawyers to face a special panel over their accusations of plagiarism against a senior magistrate.

SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said lawyers Harry Roque Jr. and Romel Bagares had been summoned to answer the reply made by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo denying their allegations of plagiarism.

Roque and Bagares had been representing the claims of comfort women during the Japanese occupation, urging the Philippine government to compel Tokyo to issue a public apology and provide compensation.

Both lawyers accused Del Castillo of copying foreign jurisprudence in writing the April 28 ruling that denied their claims.

Del Castillo denied the allegations in a letter addressed to the high court on July 22, explaining he had no malicious intent in including foreign jurisprudence and sources since the case gained international prominence.

The allegations prompted the high court to form the ethics committee to investigate the allegations.

“Atty. Roque and Atty. Bagares are given five days upon receipt of notice to comment on the letter of Justice Del Castillo and just focus on the issue of plagiarism and not to touch on the merits of the case that is still subject of appeal,” Marquez said.

The allegations stemmed from the ruling in the case of Isabelita Vinuya of Malaya Lolas Organization vs. Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto Romulo, former Foreign Affairs secretary Delia Domingo Albert, former Justice secretary and now Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and former Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo.

In a supplemental motion for reconsideration filed by Roque and Bagares, they accused Del Castillo of lifting quotes and footnotes from foreign jurisprudence without any attribution to its authors.

Del Castillo stressed the quotes from the foreign articles in the decision were “only appendages, or at the very least, provide small contribution to the resolution of the issues presented.”

In the same letter, Del Castillo stressed the case is still pending since the petitioner comfort women had filed a motion for reconsideration.

Del Castillo argued that he did not violate any law in writing the decision.

He pointed out the law on intellectual property (Republic Act 8293) provides that “any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings ... shall not constitute infringement of copyright.”