More schools reject Supreme Court denial of plagiarism

Plagiarism has no place in the practice of law. Thus said the De La Salle University (DLSU) College of Law in asking the Supreme Court to reverse its ruling that absolved Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo from allegations he plagiarized portions of his earlier rulings on World War II comfort women. In a strongly-worded statement dated November 5, 2010, the DLSU law faculty, led by Dean Jose Manuel Diokno, criticized Supreme Court justices for supposedly tolerating intellectual dishonesty by a fellow member of the bench. "Our job as legal educators is to shape lawyers, not fixers. That is why we take plagiarism and other forms of cheating very seriously. We do not want intellectually dishonest lawyers because we know how easily they can succumb to graver forms of corruption. But all our efforts will be in vain if the highest court tolerates the practice," the DLSU law professors said. "Those who copy other people’s work and pass them off as their own have no place in the legal profession because the profession requires integrity," they added. Aside from the DLSU law school, the Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP) and the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Associations (COCOPEA) also issued their separate criticisms of the court's decision. The CEAP, which claims to be the largest association of Catholic schools and universities, urged the public to denounce the court's ruling. "We call on the rest of the Philippine academia and the entire citizenry to unite and speak with one voice and act collectively in defense of honesty and integrity," said the CEAP in a statement on Tuesday, November 9. Also on Tuesday, the COCOPEA said that having a cavalier attitude toward plagiarism will only invite intellectual dishonesty in the academe. "This academic atmosphere is not only deleterious to scholarly pursuits, but more so to the moral fiber of young minds. But more importantly, it detracts from the essential purpose of the Higher Education Institution (HEI) to be the cradle of original ideas. It is for this reason that the right of academic freedom is granted to HEIs," said the COCOPEA. COCOPEA serves as a coordinating council of five major organizations of private education institutions:

• CEAP - Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines;
• ACSCU - The Association of Christians Schools, Colleges, and Universities;
• PAPSCU - The Philippine Association of Private Schools, Colleges, and Universities;
• PACU - The Philippines Association of Colleges and Universities; and
• Tevsaphil - Technical Vocational Schools Association of the Philippines.

Malicious intent The statements of the DLSU law professors, the CEAP, and the COCOPEA are the latest addition to the snowballing adverse reaction to the court's controversial ruling that has already been heavily criticized in the legal community. On October 12, the Supreme Court promulgated its ruling that cleared Del Castillo from accusations of plagiarism. The decision said there was "no malicious intent" in the accidental deletion of footnotes and attribution marks in the ruling. Thus, the SC ruled, plagiarism was not committed. But the DLSU law professors said the lack of malicious intent should never absolve anyone who is accused of passing someone else's work as his own. "For us, plagiarism caused by negligence or recklessness is still plagiarism. The lack of malicious intent may mitigate the penalty, but does not negate the plagiarism itself," they said. Bad precedent The DLSU professors then asked: "By our academic standard, that is plagiarism. By the Court’s standard, it is not. What standard should we now apply to our law students, the country’s future lawyers?" "How can we now discipline our students who copy the works and writings of other authors without attribution when they can simply take refuge behind the Supreme Court ruling?" COCOPEA also asked. Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, one of the two dissenters in the controversial ruling, has raised the possibility that the court's decision may set a bad precedent on how plagiarism cases are dealt with in other institutions, not just in the courts. "Unless reconsidered, this Court would unfortunately be remembered as the Court that made 'malicious intent' an indispensable element of plagiarism and that made computer-keying errors an exculpatory fact in charges of plagiarism, without clarifying whether its ruling applies only to situations of judicial decision-making or to other written intellectual activity," said Sereno. The Ateneo de Manila University's Loyola Schools, its college department, has earlier said it will not follow the court's definition of plagiarism because the decision "contradicted" its own Code of Academic Integrity. On the other hand, the Ateneo School of Law, of whom Del Castillo is an alumnus, has yet to make public its take on the matter. The leadership of the University of the Philippines Diliman, as well as the UP College of Law, have spoken up against the alleged plagiarism in the Supreme Court. 37 UP law professors When the controversy broke out last July, 37 UP law professors called for Del Castillo's resignation. But the high court later saw this move as "unnecessary, uncalled for, and a rash act of misplaced vigilance." The court, in a resolution last October 20, ordered the law professors to explain or "show cause" why they should not be sanctioned for such act. The SC held the professors violated provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility for lawyers, which prohibits the airing of statements that tend to influence public opinion while a case is pending. The DLSU law professors said, however, that the court should withdraw the show cause order and reverse its earlier definition of plagiarism. "We therefore exhort the Court to abandon its new definition of plagiarism and dissolve the show-cause order against the law dean and professors of the University of the Philippines," they said. The embattled 37 UP law teachers also found allies in the leadership of UP Manila. In a statement of support, the UP Manila Chancellor's Advisory Council urged the high court to "listen to the arguments of the UP law professors." The CEAP, in its own statement, asked the SC the same request. "We appeal to the Supreme Court to withdraw its threat of sanction against the 37 law professors who exercised their academic freedom in the service of honesty and integrity," said the association.—JV/HS, GMANews.TV