Supreme Whitewash

On reading the controversial "plagiarism" decision on WWII comfort women by Justice Del Castillo, who is not a known expert in international law, my first impression was that it was like a pakitang-gilas journal article by a researcher with international law background.

True enough, the questioned decision was drafted by his clerk who has "a master's degree in International Law and Human Rights from a prestigious university in the United States under the Global-Hauser program...."

And it just so happened by computer error that the unnamed lady researcher made a "grievous mistake" in editing her work, resulting in the unintentional deletion of proper attribution for copied texts. Thus, the Supreme Court TOTALLY cleared both the justice and his researcher there being no "malicious intent" following Webster's definition of plagiarism as passing off another's work as one's own.

But the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno argues, thus:

"What is black can be called 'white' but it cannot turn white by the mere calling. The unfortunate ruling of the majority Decision that no plagiarism was committed stems from its failure to distinguish between the determination of the objective, factual existence of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision and the determination of the liability that results from a finding of plagiarism. Specifically, it made 'malicious intent', which heretofore had not been relevant to a finding of plagiarism, an essential element."

And using a Harvard reference, Justice Sereno listed 24 counts of plagiarism.

However, both the majority and Sereno overlooked the fact that the case is not simply one of ordinary plagiarism for which reason they held different definitions-common meaning by Webster's and academic standards at Harvard, but fundamentally a high matter of judicial ethics governed by the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

Under the Code's section 1 of Canon 2 - Integrity: "Judges shall ensure that not only is their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer."

Thus, computer error is no excuse under the "highest tenets of judicial conduct." (Tan v. Rosete, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1563, Sep. 8, 2004) Surely, Justice Del Castillo should have taken one last hard look at his ponencia before SIGNING it for release, and should have readily known if indeed he wrote it himself, which words are his own or not.

Then upon signature by other justices and official promulgation, regardless of writer intent, the decision should already speak for itself to the objective standard of a "reasonable observer." You and me, that is.

"The exacting standards of conduct demanded from judges are designed to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary because the people's confidence in the judicial system is founded not only on the magnitude of legal knowledge and the diligence of the members of the bench, but also on the highest standard of integrity and moral uprightness they are expected to possess."(Tan, id.; emphasis, ours.)