Scribd
Upload
25 views5 pages

Talk Show Script For Group 3 1B Legres

The case involved plagiarism charges against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his decision in the Vinuya case. The charges stemmed from passages lifted from published works without proper attribution. While the passages were originally attributed in drafts, the researcher accidentally deleted the attributions in the final version. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding the researcher's explanation credible and that the passages were not twisted to misrepresent the authors' views. The case highlighted the importance of carefully preserving attributions when drafting to avoid plagiarism allegations.

Uploaded by

PIKACHUCHIE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views5 pages

Talk Show Script For Group 3 1B Legres

The case involved plagiarism charges against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for his decision in the Vinuya case. The charges stemmed from passages lifted from published works without proper attribution. While the passages were originally attributed in drafts, the researcher accidentally deleted the attributions in the final version. The Supreme Court dismissed the case, finding the researcher's explanation credible and that the passages were not twisted to misrepresent the authors' views. The case highlighted the importance of carefully preserving attributions when drafting to avoid plagiarism allegations.

Uploaded by

PIKACHUCHIE
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

TALK SHOW SCRIPT FOR GROUP 3 1B LEGRES

Host 1: Rahma CHIO.


Host 2: Norhamidah GUIAPAL
Guest 1: LUMACAD, Mar Louie
Guest 2: ABBAS, Sally

Host 1: Good evening. you are watching GROUP 3-1B LEGAL HELP
DESK on the Legal Research Channel. This show is about making you
aware of the Supreme Court decisions and give the FACTS, ISSUES
AND RULING of the case assigned to us. I am Atty Rahma CHIO..

Host 2: And I am Atty. Norhamidah GUIAPAL, tonight we will be


discussing the case IN THE MATTER OF THE CHARGES OF
PLAGIARISM, ETC., AGAINST ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO.

Host 1: our guests for tonight is Atty. Mar Louie Lumacad, Managing
Partner of the Lumacad-Tumakbo Law Office and Atty. Sally Abbas
Dean of Notre Dame Ateneo Lasalle far Eastern University of the
Philippines.

Guest1 & 2: Good evening Panyeras. Thank you for having us

Host 1&2: Good evening. Good evening.

Host 1: This is quite an interesting topic. In this contemporary time,


almost everything is made available on the internet, in just a few clicks
you will have what you are looking for. Consequently, due to the easy
and fast access to some intellectual properties, we cannot deny that
plagiarism happened.

Host 2: Yes, just like what happened in the case of ASSOCIATE


JUSTICE MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO. Before we proceed to the case,
can you give us some information about plagiarism and the
consequence of PLAGIARISM.
Guest1: Ahhhhhhh,,, youuuu know.. At its most basic, plagiarism means
the theft of another person’s language, thoughts, or ideas. To plagiarize,
as it is commonly understood according to Webster, is "to take (ideas,
writings, etc.) from (another) and pass them off as one’s own."8 The
passing off of the work of another as one’s own is thus an indispensable
element of plagiarism.

Guest2: Yes, Plagiarism under Philippine law is punishable under the


cybercrime prevention act if it corresponds to a copyright infringement
under the intellectual property code.
Intellectual property code is a special law. under the IPC, the act of
plagiarism when it amounts to copyright infringement carries a penalty of
3 to 6 years imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 to 150,000 pesos under
the cybercrime prevention Act.

Host 1: Thank you so much Atty. For your very substantial talks on
plagiarism.
So, let us now proceed to the case.

Host 2: Yes, let us first ask about how did this case came about?

Guest 1: well, it started in the Vinuya case ano.. when Petitioners


Isabelita C. Vinuya and about 70 other elderly women, all members of
the Malaya Lolas Organization, filed a special civil action of certiorari
with application for preliminary mandatory injunction against the
Executive Secretary, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of
Justice, and the Office of the Solicitor General.

They claimed that during World War II, the Japanese army
systematically raped them and a number of other women, seizing them
and holding them in houses or cells where soldiers repeatedly abused
them.

They were requesting assistance in filing claims against the Japanese


military officers who established the comfort women stations. But that
Department declined, saying that petitioners’ individual claims had
already been fully satisfied under the Peace Treaty between the
Philippines and Japan.
The Court in its decision dismissed petitioners’ action. Justice Mariano
C. del Castillo wrote the decision for the Court. On July 19, 2010,
petitioners filed the supplemental motion for reconsideration that Atty.
Roque announced in his blog. It accused Justice Del Castillo of
"manifest intellectual theft and outright plagiarism" 1 when he wrote the
decision for the Court and of "twisting the true intents of the plagiarized
sources. The authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.

Host 1: So it sprouted from the Vinuya case, when the Justice Justice
Castillo was the ponente.

Guest 1: yes yes..

Host 2: So the case presented two issues right? (everybody agreeing)

1. Whether or not, in writing the opinion for the Court in the Vinuya
case, Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the published works of
authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis.

2. Whether or not Justice Del Castillo twisted the works of these


authors to make it appear that such works supported the Court’s
position in the Vinuya decision.

Guest 1 & 2: yes yes..

Host 1: Wow! Verry interesting topic so far, we still have a lot to discuss
GROUP 3-1B LEGAL HELP DESK will return after this messages.

---- commercial break -----

Host 1: You are still watching with our guests is Atty. Mar Louie
Lumacad and Atty. Sally Abbas.

Host 2. Okay Attorneys Lets discuss the Ruling of the Case. Atty. Sally.

Guest 2: The supreme court Dismissed the case. As to why, the


Supreme court stated in its ruling that:
Unless amply explained, the above lifting from the works of Ellis and
Criddle-Descent could be construed as plagiarism. But one of Justice
Del Castillo’s researchers, a court-employed attorney, explained how
she accidentally deleted the attributions, originally planted in the
beginning drafts of her report to him, which report eventually became the
working draft of the decision. She said that, for most parts, she did her
research electronically. For international materials, she sourced these
mainly from Westlaw, an online research service for legal and law-
related materials to which the Court subscribes.

Host1: Ahhh so the Secretary of Justice Del Castillo accidentally deleted


the attributions. So what happened after that?

Guest 2: well, Justice Del Castillo’s researcher showed the Committee


the early drafts of her report in the Vinuya case and these included the
passages lifted from the separate articles of Criddle-Descent and of Ellis
with proper attributions to these authors. But, as it happened, in the
course of editing and cleaning up her draft, the researcher accidentally
deleted the attributions.

Host 2: And the Supreme Court finds the researcher’s explanation


credible?

Guest 2: Yes, The Court adopts the Committee’s finding that the
researcher’s explanation regarding the accidental removal of proper
attributions to the three authors is credible. Given the operational
properties of the Microsoft program in use by the Court, the accidental
decapitation of attributions to sources of research materials is not
remote.

The Court also adopts the Committee’s finding that the omission of
attributions to Criddle-Descent and Ellis did not bring about an
impression that Justice Del Castillo himself created the passages that he
lifted from their published articles. That he merely got those passages
from others remains self-evident, despite the accidental deletion. The
fact is that he still imputed the passages to the sources from which
Criddle-Descent and Ellis borrowed them in the first place.

In the Petitioners allegation that the decision twisted the passages from
Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis. The Court adopts the Committee’s
finding that this is not so. The Supreme Court stated that to twist means
"to distort or pervert the meaning of."19 For example, if one lifts the lyrics
of the National Anthem, uses it in his work, and declares that Jose
Palma who wrote it "did not love his country," then there is "twisting" or
misrepresentation of what the anthem’s lyrics said. Here, nothing in
the Vinuya decision said or implied that, based on the lifted passages,
authors Tams, Criddle-Descent, and Ellis supported the Court’s
conclusion that the Philippines is not under any obligation in international
law to espouse Vinuya et al.’s claims.

By these reasons the Supreme Court Dismissed the case.

Host 1: Wow. So the Lesson that this case wanted to teach us is that we
need be careful in our drafts right? Because we might accidentally delete
some of the important contents there like the footnotes mentioned in the
case and it would really cause such an issue.

Host 2: right partner, unless we go back to the old way of drafting it


manually using a typewriter.

Host 2: it was a very interesting topic Atty. Mar, Atty Sally. We thank you
for joining us tonight. Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge
with us.

Guest 1 & 2: thank you also for having us.

Host 1: alright, that is all the time we had for tonight. We thank you for
tuning in to our show. Im Atty. Rahma CHIO

Host 2: and I’m Atty. Norhamidah GUIAPAL. Join us again next time as
we discuss Supreme Court decisions here GROUP 3-1B LEGAL HELP
DESK on the Legal Research Channel. Good night.

You might also like