Plagiarism and Judicial Integrity

The faculty of the UP College of Law will come out with a statement on the allegations of plagiarism against the Supreme Court in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary (G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010). The statement will carry my sentiments so there is no need for me to elaborate on my position here. I add only a few thoughts:

I cringe at the thought that at some point in the future, the works of the judiciaries of the world will be compiled and examined to see what States do to vindicate the rights of their citizens. In that collection, the Philippines will offer a Supreme Court decision saying that comfort women who were raped by invading Japanese soldiers during the Second World War "appear to be without a remedy to challenge those that have offended them before appropriate fora." That decision will be founded on plagiarized works, that in fact argued the exact opposite: that these victims do have remedies under international law.

The Supreme Court should take steps to avoid this potentially appalling spectacle. Its shortcomings will have consequences not only on the integrity of the Court, but also on the dignity of every member of the bar. The obvious step is not to dismiss the charges as baseless but to call out those who did wrong and mete out the proper penalties. It should then reexamine the Vinuya if only because the bases for that decision now appear to be based on a misunderstanding of its sources.

The status quo is a no-win situation for the profession. The Supreme Court must take the steps, however painful they may be, that will restore its credibility not only before the eyes of the international legal community, but the petitioners in Vinuya who had placed their faith in the Court as an impartial and competent tribunal.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Alternative to Oposa

I do not mean to suggest that the Philippine Supreme Court has abandoned the environment. Sometimes the solutions to our problems need not be remedies that straddle generations or excite international attention. There is still one alternative that the Supreme Court has preserved: local governments. Local governments in the Philippines are not all allies of the environment. Too many local officials equate economic development with large-scale resource extraction activities such as mining and logging. But when cases reach the Supreme Court, the Court has been remarkably supportive of local governments and community efforts to protect the environment. Two decisions of the Court come to mind. The first is Tano v Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the power of the local governments to enact laws to protect the environment pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court pointed out that the Code seeks “to...
Read more

Local government avalanche is Congress' fault

A recent Newsbreak report, GMA Creating Too Many LGUs , by Miriam Grace Go (August 22, 2007), unfairly blames President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the increase in the number of local government units in the Philippines. This increase, particularly in the case of cities has been going on ever since the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect. It is encouraged by two features of the Code: (a) the formula for the distribution of the internal revenue allotment that favors cities, and (b) the relative ease in making cities. Politicians determined to increase the financial resources of their governments have been campaigning to upgrade into cities ever since they discovered these weaknesses in the Code. In 1986, there were 73 provinces, 60 cities, and 1,530 municipalities in the country. Just before the Estrada administration collapsed, there were already 110 cities. On March 5, 2001, less than two months into office, President Arroyo signed 14 bills on the conversion of municipalities i...
Read more

Clinton: End Game

Image
Senator Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House has ended and even she knows it. The math has not been in her favor for some time now. She tried to run on her strengths as a US Senator and her "34 years of experience" in government service to no avail. Her record could not stand up to Senator Obama's charm. She was unlikable; he was eloquent, even enchanting. His record is not so bad either. She was part of the old Washington crowd that was part of the problem. Obama was a fresh face who promised change "we can believe in." So Clinton tried different angles. She tried drama by shedding tears and launching sharp angry attacks against Obama. She tried comedy--by doing the comedy circuit on television. She tried adventure by claiming to have survived sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia. All these tricks worked a little; it kept the campaign alive, if barely. They tried to change the rules--bring in Florida and Michigan despite the fact that they were penaliz...
Read more