Re Restoring Integrity (Digest)

Re: Letter of the UP Law Faculty Entitled “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” A.M. No. 10-10-4-SC March 8, 2011 Facts: On April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court decided on the case of Vinuya, et al. v. Executive Secretary, in the ponencia of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo. On May 31, 2010, the counsel for Vinuya, et al. (the “Malaya Lolas”), Attys. H. Harry L. Roque, Jr. and Romel Regalado Bagares, filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision. They again filed for a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration on July 19, 2010 raising the charge of plagiarism against the judgment of the court. They argued that there was extensive plagiarism of at least three sources and the true intents of these works were twisted by the ponencia to suit the arguments denying the petition. On the same day, the alleged issue on plagiarism was brought out to the media. Three days later, Justice Del Castillo wrote to his colleagues on the Court in reply to the charge of plagiarism. On July 27, 2010, the Court formed the Ethics Committee and on August 2, 2010, the committee required Attys. Roque and Bagares to comment on the letter. On August 9, 2010, the Restoring Integrity statement dated July 27, 2010 was posted on Newsweek’s website and on Atty. Roque’s blog, was featured in various online news sites, and was posted at the UP College of Law bulletin board a day after. On August 11, 2010, Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen of the UP College of Law submitted a copy of the statement to the Court through Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, but the copy did not contain the actual signatures of the signatories but only stated the names of the 37 UP Law professors with the (SGD.) notation beside their names. The Ethics Committee directed Atty. Roque to present the signed copy of the written statement and the committee found discrepancies between the submitted copy of Dean Leonen and the original signed document. The Court observed that the statement reflected the opinions and dissatisfactions of the educators on the allegations of plagiarism against Justice Del Castillo and his explanations and upheld such allegation as truth, and the Court also observed that the statement attacks and criticizes the Supreme Court and its members and threatens the independence of the judiciary, contrary to the obligation of the law professors and officers of the Court to uphold the dignity and authority of the Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they took as attorneys. The Court then directed the signatories to show cause why they should not be disciplined as members of the Bar for violation of Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Dean Leonen was directed to show cause for violation of Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03 for submitting a dummy of the statement to the Court. The controversy was docketed as an administrative matter. 35 of the UP Law professors filed a common compliance, while Prof. Raul T. Vasquez and Prof. Owen Lynch filed a separate compliance. Generally, they emphasized their noble intentions, they upheld the fact that Justice Del Castillo committed plagiarism, they have been singled out, and they exercised freedom of

expression and academic freedom. Prof. Vasquez conceded that the language used in the statement might have been exacting while Prof. Lynch manifested he is not a member of the Philippine Bar. Dean Leonen also filed a separate compliance for the submission of the dummy statement claiming there was an error committed by him and his clerk and that the statement’s signatory portion is evolving and dynamic. Issues: 1. Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution deny respondents their freedom of expression. 2. Whether or not the Show Cause Resolution violate respondents’ academic freedom as law professors. 3. Whether or not the submissions of respondents satisfactorily explain why they should not be disciplined as Members of the Bar under Canons 1, 11, and 13 and Rules 1.02 and 11.05 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. 4. Whether or not the separate Compliance of Dean Leonen satisfactorily explains why he should not be disciplined as a Member of the Bar under Canon 10, Rules 10.01, 10.02, and 10.03. 5. Whether or not respondents are entitled to have the Show Cause Resolution set for hearing and respondents are entitled to require the production or presentation of evidence bearing on the plagiarism and misrepresentation issues in the Vinuya case and the ethics case against Justice Del Castillo and to have access to the records and transcripts of, and the witnesses and evidence presented, or could have been presented in the ethics case. Ruling: 1. No, the Show Cause Resolution itself recognized respondents’ freedom of expression. The purpose of the statement of the faculty was to discredit the April 28, 2010 decision in the Vinuya case, establish as a fact that Justice Del Castillo was guilty of plagiarism pending an ongoing investigation, and undermine the Court’s honesty, integrity, and competence in addressing the motion for reconsideration. The statement was an institutional attack and insult. The right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced against the equally primordial concern that the independence of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or interference. 2. No, there is nothing in the Show Cause Resolution that dictates upon respondents the subject matter they can teach and the manner of their instruction. Academic freedom cannot be successfully invoked by respondents in this case. Lawyers when they teach law are considered engaged in the practice of law. Respondents are bound by their oath to uphold the ethical standards of the legal profession. 3. No, whether or not respondents’ views regarding the plagiarism issue on the Vinuya case had valid basis was wholly immaterial to their liability for contumacious speech and conduct. No matter how firm a lawyer’s conviction in the righteousness of his cause there is simply no excuse for denigrating the courts and engaging in public behavior that tends to put the courts and the legal profession into disrepute. 4. No, the Court deems it sufficient to admonish Dean Leonen for failing to observe full candor and honesty in his dealings with the Court as required under Canon 10. The Court cannot subscribe to Dean Leonen’s implied view

that the signatures in the statement are not as significant as its contents. If Dean Leonen was truly determined to observe candor and truthfulness in his dealings with the Court, there is no reason why he could not have waited until all the professors who indicated their desire to sign the statement had in fact signed before transmitting the statement to the Court as a duly signed document. 5. No, the request is unmeritorious. It should be clarified that this is not an indirect contempt proceeding and Rule 71 has no application to this case. As explicitly ordered in the Show Cause Resolution this case was docketed as an administrative matter.