Holding UP Law in contempt is a grave mistake — int’l law experts

Two internationally prominent foreign law professors whose joint work was allegedly plagiarized by a Philippine Supreme Court justice have taken up the cudgels for the 37 law professors of the University of the Philippines who are risking serious sanctions for criticizing the supposed plagiarism. Publicists and eminent law professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Decent on Tuesday warned the high court that it will commit a "grave mistake" should it decide to sanction the UP law professors for calling for the resignation of Justice Mariano del Castillo. Under Philippine laws, sanctions for lawyers held in contempt by the SC range from censure, suspension, fine, and reprimand, up to disbarment in the extreme case. "We are writing to lend support to the UP College of Law, which now faces a very serious charge of contempt from the Philippine Supreme Court. If the members of the College are held in contempt, they face the loss of their bar licenses and with that the loss of their ability to teach and practice law," Criddle and Fox-Decent said in a letter posted in the law blog Opinio Juris. The professors, also known as “publicists" for being reputed sources of international law, also said that sanctioning the faculty members violates their right to free expression. "Professor Criddle and I believe that it is not the place of a court to sanction individuals or institutions that have been critical of it. The idea that a law school or its members cannot express an opinion on a case is contrary to the best practices of law schools everywhere, and an affront to free expression," they said. Criddle and Fox-Decent wrote "A Fiduciary of Theory of Jus Cogens," one of the three foreign works that Del Castillo is accused of copying from without attribution when he wrote his ruling on World War II comfort women. The two other sources were "Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime" by Mark Ellis, and "Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law" by Christian Tams. On August 8, the UP law professors called on Del Castillo to resign for plagiarizing from other authors’ works to craft parts of his ruling. In a statement, the group said Del Castillo breached the “high standards of moral conduct" expected of the court when he allegedly did not identify the sources of the information he used in his ponencia. “In light of the extremely serious and far-reaching nature of the dishonesty and to save the honor and dignity of the [Supreme Court] as an institution, it is necessary for the ponente of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without prejudice to any other sanctions that the court may consider appropriate," they said. (See: Resignation of SC justice in plagiarism issue sought) At the height of the controversy, Criddle, Fox-Decent, Ellis and Tams had also come out with statements saying Del Castillo had taken their works out of context and twisted the substance. “The most troubling aspect of the [SC’s] jus cogens discussion is that it implies that sexual slavery, crimes against humanity, and other abuses are not covered by jus cogens, whereas we had emphatically argued that they are" Criddle said. No malice intended But on October 12, the Supreme Court cleared Del Castillo, saying his researcher had "no malicious intent" when she inadvertently deleted the footnotes where attribution of the sources was made. (See: SC clears Justice Mariano del Castillo in plagiarism mess) Eight days later, the court issued a resolution ordering the 37 law professors to explain why they should not be punished for making a supposedly sensitive public statement while investigations into the plagiarism case were ongoing. (See: Supreme Court threatens to sanction law faculty critics) The court cited the Code of Professional Responsibility that bars lawyers from making public statements that tend to influence public opinion while a case is pending. "The publication of a statement by the faculty of the UP College of Law regarding the allegations of plagiarism and misrepresentation in the [SC] was totally unnecessary, uncalled for, and a rash act of misplaced vigilance," the high court said. "The UP Law faculty would fan the flames and invite resentment against a resolution that would not reverse the said decision. This runs contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the administration of justice," the court said. But in defense of the UP law professors, Criddle and Fox-Decent said the faculty members "issued [their] critical statement in good faith and has clean hands in its dispute with the Philippine Supreme Court." "While the UP statement contains some harsh and uncompromising language, it emerged in the wake of a controversial decision, and is clearly within the scope of speech protected under any reasonable interpretation of freedom of expression," said the two foreign authors.—DM/JV, GMANews.TV