LOYOLA SCHOOLS SPEAKS OUT AGAINST PLAGIARISM: ROCKWELL SCHOOL, WHAT ABOUT?

We are reprinting the statement issued by the Vice-President for the Loyola Schools John Paul Vergara and clearly, they have made a stand in contradiction to the save face definition of the Supreme Court on Plagiarism.

A lot of schools have made similar stands. Is that Rockwell school included in the memorandum? Well, we have to sit back and wait. We do hope they will soon.

-------------

4 November 2010

MEMO TO:    The Loyola Schools Community

FROM       :    John Paul C. Vergara    

                        Vice President for the Loyola Schools

SUBJECT:    Treatment of Plagiarism Cases in the Loyola Schools in Light of the Recent Supreme Court Decision

On October 12, 2010, the Supreme Court issued its decision on A.M. No.10-7-17-SC (In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc. against Associate Justice Mariano C. Castillo), where it was indicated that "plagiarism presupposes intent, and a deliberate, conscious effort to steal another's work and pass it off as one's own". Since this statement seems to contradict what has long been our understanding of the essential nature of plagiarism, the Loyola Schools of the Ateneo de Manila University is compelled to issue this memorandum restating its policy and practices that relate to acts of plagiarism:

1. The Loyola Schools takes very seriously all cases of academic dishonesty including acts of plagiarism.

2. As articulated in the Loyola Schools Code of Academic Integrity (A Student Guide), the objective act of "plagiarism is identified not through intent but through the act itself. The objective act of falsely attributing to one's self what is not one's work, whether intentional or out of neglect, is sufficient to conclude that plagiarism has occured. Students who plead ignorance or appeal to lack of malice are not excused.

3. Aspects pertaining to intent are considered during the determination of the appropriate sanctions. The specific context of the violation is studied to ensure that the sanctions are proportional to the gravity of the offense, which incorporates awareness, willfulness, and acknowledgement of wrongdoing, among others.

4. The foregoing Supreme Court decision notwithstanding, the Loyola Schools' understanding and definition of what constitutes plagiarism has not changed. Cases of plagiarism will continue to be handled in the same manner, and with the same regard for due process, as stipulated in the Student Handbook.

The Loyola Schools reiterates its position that academic honesty and the acknowledgement of sources is not simply a matter of the correct use of quotation marks, placement of footnotes, or acquisition of permissions; it is a question of personal discipline and moral character. The school's resolve on the stringent requirements in the proper acknowledgement of sources goes to the heart of its mission in forming persons for others-persons who value truth, respect, gratitude, integrity and justice.

Thank you for your attention.

NO TO PLAGIARISM! ASSERTING ACADEMIC FREEDOM--- A Statement of the University of the Philippines Diliman Executive Committee*

Below is the statement approved by the UP Diliman Executive Committee in its October 27, 2010 meeting.

NO TO PLAGIARISM! ASSERTING ACADEMIC FREEDOM--- A Statement of the University of the Philippines Diliman Executive Committee

We, the University of the Philippines Diliman Executive Committee, denounce plagiarism and uphold academic integrity.

 As educators, scholars and researchers, our worth is measured by the integrity, excellence and discipline we bring to our work. Plagiarism undermines that integrity and destroys the value of scholarship.

We strongly disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision to exonerate Justice Mariano del Castillo from charges of plagiarism based on the lack of malice or negligence on his part (in In Re: Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, 15 October 2010).

The lack of malice or intent does not excuse the act of plagiarism.

The Court has undermined academic freedom by threatening to discipline 37 faculty members of the U.P. College of Law for taking a principled position on a grave academic concern.

We stand by the U.P. College of Law Faculty for speaking out against plagiarism.

We ask the Supreme Court to withdraw the “show cause” order against the 37 faculty members of the U.P. College of Law.

U.P. Diliman Executive Committee, 27 October 2010*

________________________________

 

*Composed of the Deans/Directors of the different Colleges and Schools in U.P. Diliman, including the Chancellor, Vice Chancellors, University Registrar, and three (3) members-at-large

-even in the Philippines, the Supreme Court said so!

FOREIGN VICTIMS OF “VINUYA” SPEAK IN FAVOR OF UP LAW AND THE COMFORT WOMEN

Holding the UP Law Faculty in Contempt Would Be a Grave Mistake

by Evan Criddle And Evan Fox-Decent

[Opinio Juris is delighted to post these remarks by Professors Evan Fox-Decent (McGill) and Evan Criddle (Syracuse) on the fallout from the allegations that their article was plagiarized by a member of the Philippines Supreme Court]

We are writing to lend support to the University of Philippine’s College of Law, which now faces a very serious charge of contempt from the Philippine Supreme Court (PSC). 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.

A few months ago the PSC rendered its decision in Isabelita Vinuya et al. v. Executive Secretary et al. (full text of this decision available at:http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/april2010/162230.htm ). The complainants asked the PSC to order the Philippine government to seek reparations from Japan for the Japanese military’s mistreatment of Philippine women during World War II. During the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, the Japanese military interned scores of Philippine women and placed them in sexual slavery. The Vinuya decision discusses jus cogens or peremptory norms of international law, as these norms enjoy a status that cannot be overridden by treaty. The PSC concluded the no such norm prohibited sexual slavery, and thus that jus cogens was irrelevant to the case.

In its jus cogens discussion, the PSC quoted without attribution numerous selections from an article by Evan Criddle and myself, an article featured here at Opinio Juris. In the aftermath of Vinuya, Professor Criddle noted that the most troubling aspect of the PSC’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.

The complainants in Vinuya filed a motion for reconsideration, pointing to more than 30 tracks lifted without attribution from our article. The complainants also alleged that material from Mark Ellis and Christian Tams had been used without proper attribution. The motion is available here: http://harryroque.com/2010/07/18/supplemental-motion-alleging-plagiarism-in-the-supreme-court/. The University of the Philippine’s College of Law issued a statement critical of the apparent plagiarism, available here.
The PSC held a hearing to review the plagiarism charge and delivered a split decision. The majority acknowledged that some of our article’s text was used in Vinuya without appropriate referencing, but chalked this up to clerical errors. The minority doubted that so many selections could be used innocently without attribution, raising the possibility that the lack of attribution stemmed from the Vinuya Court reaching conclusions directly contrary to those expressed by us, Ellis and Tams.

On 18 October 2010 the PSC issued an order giving members of the UP College of Law 10 days to show cause as to why they should not be sanctioned for issuing the statement critical of Vinuya.

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. This principle is especially important in the case of a law school, where discussion of cases is an integral part of legal pedagogy. 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. That a court would assert jurisdiction to sanction its detractors is, in our opinion, an abuse of judicial power. To the best of our knowledge, no court in a democracy has ever attempted to assert the kind of jurisdiction the PSC is asserting now against the UP College of Law.

We initially declined to comment on the substance of the plagiarism complaint, except as noted above. Readers can draw their own conclusions from the ‘tables of comparison’ (comparing the original text with text in Vinuya) provided by Justice Sereno who wrote with the minority in the plagiarism decision. Given the stakes involved now for members of the UP College of Law, we believe it is important for us to offer our opinion on the merits of the plagiarism charge. The point of our doing so is only to underline that the UP College of Law issued its critical statement in good faith and has clean hands in its dispute with the PSC. 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.

A cursory glance at the tables of comparison set out in Justice Serano’s opinion reveals repeated verbatim or near-verbatim uses of text from our article without attribution. If a law student submitted an essay with this much cut-and-paste text, without attribution, he or she would almost certainly be subject to disciplinary action. We say this with all due respect to the PSC, and only to emphasize to others in the legal community that we believe the UP College of Law acted in good faith when it criticized the use of our article in the Vinuya opinion. The College has clean hands in this dispute, and in our view deserves support.

SOURCE: http://opiniojuris.org/2010/10/26/holding-the-up-law-faculty-in-contempt-would-be-a-grave-mistake/

MORE PLAGIARISM IN THE DEL CASTILLO’s PONENCIA IN “ANG LADLAD”

TAKEN FROM ATTY HARRY ROQUE'S BLOG

http://harryroque.com/2010/10/26/more-plagiarism-in-the-del-castillos-ponencia-in-ang-ladlad/trackback/

One of my former students who is now pursuing further studies in the US made an independent review of the ponencia of SC Justice Mariano del Castillo in the “Ang Ladlad” case and listed the following instances of plagiarism:

 

Ladlad ponencia by J. del Castillo	Original source
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.	The Court’s supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterising a “democratic society”. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. This means, amongst other things, that every “formality”, “condition”, “restriction” or “penalty” imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Source: Section 49 of Handyside vs. United Kingdom (1979), a decision by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one.	While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government. Source: Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston Inc., 515 U.S. 557, at 579.
However, as far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community.	Religion is an integral aspect of people’s lives, and cannot be left at the boardroom door. What secularism does rule out, however, is any attempt to use the religious views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community. Source: Section 19 of Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710, 2002 SCC 86, a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada
[42] x x x  See also, L. and V. v Austria (2003-I 29; (2003) 36 EHRR 55) and S.L. v Austria (2003-I 71; (2003) 37 EHRR 39),  where the European Court considered that Austria’s differing age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relations was discriminatory; it ‘embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority’, which could not ‘amount to sufficient justification for the differential treatment any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race, origin or colour’.	In L. and V. v Austria65 and S.L. v Austria66 the ECtHR considered that Austria’s differing age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relations was discriminatory; it ‘embodied a predisposed bias on the part of a heterosexual majority against a homosexual minority’, which could not ‘amount to sufficient justification for the differential treatment any more than similar negative attitudes towards those of a different race, origin or colour’.67 65 L. andV. vAustria 2003-I 29; (2003) 36 EHRR 55. 66 S.L. vAustria 2003-I 71; (2003) 37 EHRR 39. 67 L. andV. vAustria, supra n. 65; and S.L. vAustria, ibid. at para. 44. Source: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles by Michael O’Flaherty and John Fisher, Human Rights Law Review (2008) 8(2), 207-248, at 217. Note: (1)    The Human Rights Law Review is published by the Oxford University Press. (2)    The journal article by O’Flaherty and Fisher was never cited in the Ladlad ponencia.
[44] x x x Note that in Baczkowski and Others v. Poland, Application No. 1543/06; Judgment of May 3, 2007, the ECHR unanimously ruled that the banning of an LGBT gay parade in Warsaw was a discriminatory violation of Article 14 of the ECHR, which provides: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. It also found that banning LGBT parades violated the group’s freedom of assembly and association. Referring to the hallmarks of a “democratic society”, the Court has attached particular importance to pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. In that context, it has held that although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position.	63. Referring to the hallmarks of a “democratic society”, the Court has attached particular importance to pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. In that context, it has held that although individual interests must on occasion be subordinated to those of a group, democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position (see Young, James and Webster v. the United Kingdom, 13 August 1981, Series A no. 44, p. 25, § 63, and Chassagnou and Others v. France [GC], nos. 25088/95 and 28443/95, ECHR 1999-III, p. 65, § 112). Source: Paragraph 63 of Baczkowski and Others v. Poland, Application No. 1543/06; Judgment of May 3, 2007, a decision by the European Court of Human Rights.
[46] x x x x So, too, in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (530 U.S. 640 [2000]), the US Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts of America could not be compelled to accept a homosexual as a scoutmaster, because “the Boy Scouts believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill in its youth members; it will not “promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.” When an expressive organization is compelled to associate with a person whose views the group does not accept, the organization’s message is undermined; the organization is understood to embrace, or at the very least tolerate, the views of the persons linked with them. The scoutmaster’s presence “would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.”	When an expressive organization is compelled to associate with a person whose views the group does not accept, the organization’s message is undermined; the organization is understood to embrace, or at the very least tolerate, the views of the persons linked with them. We therefore held, for example, that a State severely burdened the right of expressive association when it required the Boy Scouts to accept an openly gay scoutmaster. The scoutmaster’s presence “would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior.” Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640, 653 (2000). Source: Justice Antonin Scalia’s Dissenting Opinion in Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party, et al., 552 US 442, at 463.
[49] The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has dealt with the matter in its General Comments, the interpretative texts it issues to explicate the full meaning of the provisions of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In General Comments Nos. 18 of 2005 (on the right to work) (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The right to work, E/C.12/GC/18, November 24, 2005), 15 of 2002 (on the right to water) (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 15: The right to water, E/C.12/2002/11, November 26, 2002) and 14 of 2000 (on the right to the highest attainable standard of health) (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health, E/C.12/2000/4, August 14, 2000), it has indicated that the Covenant proscribes any discrimination on the basis of, inter-alia, sex and sexual orientation. The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has also dealt with the issue in a General Comment. In its General Comment No. 4 of 2003, it stated that, “State parties have the obligation to ensure that all human beings below 18 enjoy all the rights set forth in the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] without discrimination (Article 2), including with regard to ‘‘race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status’’. These grounds also cover [inter alia] sexual orientation”. (Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, July 1, 2003, CRC/GC/2003/4). The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), has, on a number of occasions, criticized States for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, it also addressed the situation in Kyrgyzstan and recommended that, “lesbianism be reconceptualized as a sexual orientation and that penalties for its practice be abolished” (Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women regarding Kyrgyzstan, February 5, 1999, A/54/38 at par. 128).	The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has dealt with the matter in its General Comments, the interpretative texts it issues to explicate the full meaning of the provisions of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In General Comments Nos 18 of 2005 (on the right to work),37 15 of 2002 (on the right to water)38 and 14 of 2000 (on the right to the highest attainable standard of health),39 it has indicated that the Covenant proscribes any discrimination on the basis of, inter-alia, sex and sexual orientation ‘that has the intention or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of [the right at issue]’. The CESCR has consistently based this prohibition on the terms of the Covenant’s anti-discrimination provision, Article 2.2, which lists invidious categories of discrimination as including ‘sex’ and ‘other status’. Presumably, since the CESCR distinguishes ‘sex’and ‘sexual orientation’ in its General Comments, it locates sexual orientation within the rubric of ‘other status’. The CESCR, in the General Comments, also invokes the article addressing equal rights of men and women, Article 3, as a basis for its prohibition of sexual orientation-related discrimination. This linkage of the categories of sex and sexual orientation-related discrimination is discussed subsequently in the context of the practice of the Human Rights Committee (HRC). The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has also dealt with the issue in a General Comment. In its General Comment No. 4 of 2003,40 it stated that, ‘State parties have the obligation to ensure that all human beings below 18 enjoy all the rights set forth in the Convention [on the Rights of the Child] without discrimination (Article 2), including with regard to ‘‘race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status’’. These grounds also cover [inter alia] sexual orientation’. The CRC thus appears to adopt the same approach as the CESCR in locating sexual orientation within the category of ‘other status’. x x x x The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), notwithstanding that it has not addressed the matter in a General Comment or otherwise specified the applicable provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, on a number of occasions has criticised States for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For example, it also addressed the situation in Kyrgyzstan and recommended that,‘lesbianism be reconceptualised as a sexual orientation and that penalties for its practice be abolished’.44 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) appears never to have engaged with issues of discrimination against persons who belong to both racial and sexual minority groups. This gap is startling when one considers the authoritative evidence of such persons facing forms of ‘double discrimination’, as reported, for instance, by the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.45 37 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 18: The right to work, E/C.12/GC/18, 24 November 2005. 38 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 15: The right to water, E/C.12/2002/11, 26 November 2002. 39 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 14: The right to the highest attainable standard of health, E/C.12/2000/4, 11 August 2000. 40 Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment No. 4: Adolescent health and development in the context of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1 July 2003, CRC/GC/ 2003/4. x x x x 44 Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women regarding Kyrgyzstan, 5 February 1999, A/54/38 at para. 128. 45 Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Commission on Human Rights, 28 February 2006, E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.3 at para. 40. Source: Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and International Human Rights Law: Contextualising the Yogyakarta Principles by Michael O’Flaherty and John Fisher, Human Rights Law Review (2008) 8(2), 207-248, at 214-216. Note: (1)    The Human Rights Law Review is published by the Oxford University Press. (2)    The journal article by O’Flaherty and Fisher was never cited in the Ladlad ponencia.
[51] The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, intended to address documented evidence of abuse of rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. It contains 29 Principles adopted by human rights practitioners and experts, together with recommendations to governments, regional intergovernmental institutions, civil society, and the United Nations.	The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity is a set of international principles relating to sexual orientation and gender identity, intended to address documented evidence of abuse of rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, and further of intersexuality requested by Louise Arbour according to the International Human Rights Law. Source: Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yogyakarta_Principles It contains 29 Principles adopted unanimously by the experts, along with recommendations to governments, regional intergovernmental institutions, civil society, and the UN itself. Source: Human Rights Watch World Report 2008, p. 36. Preview of the book (as well as the relevant page) is available at: http://books.google.com/books?id=4QL9BElMSbkC

My take:

HERE IS THE FACE OF THE JUSTICE THAT HAS CAUSED US INTERNATIONAL ATTENTION WHICH IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE. I HOPE HE WOULD DO A SACRIFICE FOR THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND ADMIT THE MISTAKE AND STEP DOWN SO WE COULD ALL MOVE ON.