In Re del Castillo Plagiarism Controversy (Part II) : The February 8, 2011 Per Curiam Resolution

RESOLUTION

PER CURIAM:

                                                             

 [T]he Court’s decision in the present case does not set aside [the different norms assumed by educational institutions in treating plagiarism].  The decision makes this clear, thus:

To paraphrase Bast and Samuels, while the academic publishing model is based on the originality of the writer’s thesis, the judicial system is based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which encourages courts to cite historical legal data, precedents, and related studies in their decisions.  The judge is not expected to produce original scholarship in every respect.  The strength of a decision lies in the soundness and general acceptance of the precedents and long held legal opinions it draws from.

            xxx                              xxx                              xxx

In Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010 (Sereno Dissenting Opinion)

DISSENTING   OPINION

            [I am posting here a digest of the rather lengthy Dissenting Opinion of Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno in A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC promulgated last October 12, 2010. Taken together with her subsequent Dissenting Opinion from the Per Curiam Resolution promulgated on February 8, 2011, this opinion will enable you, dear readers, to compare the reasoning of the majority and the minority in this administrative matter. It is hoped that in being able to do so, you will get a glimpse of how the gods at Padre Faura can sometimes use sophism to justify a pre-ordained result in a controversy.

In Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010

D E C I S I O N

PER CURIAM:

I.      THE FACTS

In the landmark decision of Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, promulgated last April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court DISMISSED the petition filed by a group of Filipino “comfort women” during the Japanese military occupation of the Philippines. The Court, speaking through Justice Mariano C. del Castillo, held that the petition seeking to compel the Executive Department to espouse the petitioners’ claims for official apology and other forms of reparations against Japan before the International Court of Justice and other international tribunals has NO MERIT because: (1) the prerogative to determine whether to espouse petitioners’ claims against Japan belongs exclusively to the Executive Department; and (2) the Philippines is not under any international obligation to espouse the petitioners’ claims.