MIL ePortfolio: “Accidental deletion of sources: Plagiarism Scandal of Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo”

Name: Russel Simon D. Berdin 12-1 STEM

“Accidental deletion of sources: Plagiarism Scandal of Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo”

Supreme Court (SC) dismissed the plagiarism case of Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo from the case of Vinuya et al vs. Executive Secretary, where she used three foreign authors’ works without the attributions.They defended that he did not have malicious intent.

According to an Inquirer.net report, Del Castillo’s legal researcher told them that she accidentally deleted the footnotes, and the court recognized her defense. Del Castillo also said that his computer did not have a software program that can detect plagiarism.

Below is some of the passage that was considered as plagiarized. Under the section “Freedom of Expression and Association” in the Ang Ladlad decision, the ponente wrote:

"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."

It was proved that it was a paraphrased quotes from Section 49 of the Handyside vs. United Kingdom (1979) decision by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

"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. (Emphasis supplied)"

This is a plagiarism because it is obvious that the sources are combined to create a new passage, and there are some parts being paraphrased. If sources are to be properly credited, it must be mentioned in the text or in the footnote.The excuse of not having a software program that could detect plagiarism is not a forgivable justification.They don’t have an excuse for not having a plagiarism detector because until now, even students are still taught how to cite manually. If this was all true, plagiarism is still present whether Del Castillo forgot or his legal researcher accidentally deleted the citations. It does not matter whether the person did it purposely or intentionally. Thing is, the person did it and he or she is liable for it.

Source: https://www.pinoymoneytalk.com/supreme-court-justice-plagiarism/