Lawyer. vegetarian. ashtangi. Subscribe (it's free!) or click "Skip to Content" below
Too many judges issuing defective arrest & search orders alarms SC – Inquirer
“The Supreme Court has reminded judges of lower courts to be careful in issuing warrants of arrest and search warrants so as not to violate constitutional rights and judicial procedures…” at
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/771242/sc-alarmed-by-defective-arrest-seizure-warrants-reminds-judges-on-guidelines#ixzz42BdDUoEy
Justice del Castillo’s Defenses in the Plagiarism Complaint 
(Or — those who don’t know the difference between copyright infringement and plagiarism have no business sitting as justices in the Supreme Court. ) This is based on the news item in the Inquirer, and does not offer any legal conclusion as to whether or not plagiarism had been committed, but merely traverses the common defenses presented by respondents in plagiarism cases.
The quote here of Supreme Court Justice del Castillo’s defenses against the plagiarism complaint filed against him (filed in the SC ethics committee) is based on the Inquirer news story today, “UP profs tell justice to quit for plagiarism”; i haven’t read Justice del Castillo’s pleading (“Answer” or “Reply”) nor the Complaint itself.
Justice del Castillo’s “defenses” are classic excuses of respondents in plagiarism cases – you’ll find them in most if not all plagiarism cases litigated in administrative bodies of the academe – they are, as it were, recurring themes that have become to sound like a broken disc (i was going to say “broken record” of an analog era).
Here are the defences as quoted in the Inquirer:
Quote “Denying the accusation, Del Castillo said that in the decision “there was every intention to attribute all sources, whenever due.”
Quote “ “At no point was there ever any malicious intent to appropriate another’s work as our own,” Del Castillo said in a published statement.
Quote “He also quoted from the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, which provides that “any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings … shall not constitute infringement of copyright.” Close-quote.
The first and the second (“there was every intention to attribute…” etc. and “At no point was there ever any malicious intent to appropriate…” etc.”) are your “no-intent” excuses or defenses. As everyone knows, lack of intent is not a defense in plagiarism. Furthermore, it is also basic that intent is determined from one’s acts, not from one’s avowals or disavowal. Unless a person is sleepwalking or acting under hypnosis, when a respondent typed up or wrote or copied another person’s work and put it under his/ her name, that act is made with knowledge of what one was doing; there is no such thing as plagiarism by accident or plagiarism by negligence, or plagiarism by failure-to-review-my-assistant’s-work. Alas, those are not defenses. The mere act of putting another person’s work under or in your name is a misrepresentation that that work is yours.
Finally, Justice del Castillo uses a provision in the Intellectual Property Code on works not subject to copyright and the limits of copyright.
As everyone knows, copyright, often referred to as economic rights, is the exclusive right of the author to reproduce or make copies of his/ her work, and make profits thereby. Copyright is infringed when another person makes copies, (by xeroxing, “burning”, downloading, pirating) the author’s work without permission from the author. you can use quotes or parts of the work as subject of review and criticism, but not the entire work, you have to buy or pay for the material if you will download or use it in its entirety unless it’s free or part of the public domain or made available with permission, etc.
In other words, when the Intellectual Property Law exempted “works of government”, such as texts of laws, etc, from copyright, it simply means one can reproduce or make copies of (by xeroxing, etc.) laws, executive orders, bills, Supreme Court decisions, without violating the Intellectual Property Code. In particular, Justice del Castillo quotes a provision on the limits of copyright: there is no copyright infringment of “any use made of a work for the purpose of any judicial proceedings…” . This simply means you can quote part of a work in a judicial proceeding without infringing the copyright of the author. (but when you reproduce the entire book of the author or a substantial part of it, you’ve infringed the author’s copyright). It doesn’t mean however that you can lift or copy paragraphs off another person’s work without quotes and without attribution and put it under your name — when you do that, you are misrepresenting to the world that you wrote those paragraphs.
That’s plagiarism — an entirely different offense. In plagiarism, the respondent steals not just the copies but the creation itself by putting it under his/her name and misrepresenting to the world that the work is his/hers. The proscription against plagiarism is found under the provision on “moral rights” of the Intellectual Property Code (the right of the author to have the work attributed to him/her or in his/her name.)
whenever i ask my students,”Which is the worse violation, copyright infringement or plagiarism?” There is always a chorus: “Ma’am, plagiarism!!!!”. And when i ask why, they know the answer: “Ma’am, in copyright infringement, you’re just stealing the profits of the author; in plagiarism, you’re not just stealing –you are lying, stealing, and, cheating, you are stealing the entire work, you are lying to the public, you are cheating everybody who reads your work, and the person who does this is morally depraved!!!” (well, my students answer this in bits and pieces, it’s a series of questions). And when i ask “And do you know what the penalty for plagiarism is, in the University?” There is a louder chorus: “Ma’am, expulsion!!!!” (in the University, the orientation for freshmen includes a lecture on what happens in cases of plagiarism.)
o, mabuti pa ang mga estudyante ko. In other words, a Supreme Court justice who cannot make a distinction between: 1) making copies of a work, and, 2) copying another person’s work, has no business sitting as justice in the Supreme Court.
photo rightclicked from the DOJ websited used here for educational and non-commercial purposes.
Pañero Atty. Felisberto Verano is taking the fall for the entire scenario of an attempt to get a release order of his clients signed, he had conversations with the DOJ secretary in December and had coursed the order-for-signature through the office of his brod, DOJ Undersecretary Blancaflor, but to the end he had kept silent and vague and will keep silent and vague about the rest of it; everything else and all other communication being perhaps covered by the privileged nature (or confidential nature) of the attorney-client relationship (the exception to this rule is in regard to the commission of future crimes: privilege can be waived) and all communication with other lawyers as public officials and government lawyers under the general cloak of confidentiality of “attorney-work product” (geez, i’m actually pulling that out), which includes communication between and among co-counsel and lawyers (except in regard to the commission of future crimes; privilege can be waived.)
Did i actually just say that? Yes i did. Lawyers will carry the contents of certain conversations to their grave, those born and arising from the attorney-client relationship, which includes not just conversations with the client but with other lawyers; and when you look at that, it is in keeping with the highest fidelity to their client’s cause.
There were many conversations and communication that took place before the release order landed on the DOJ secretary’s hands, documents don’t walk by themselves. As everybody knows, before any sheaf of paper lands on your boss’s desk, it goes through his staff or at the very least his executive secretary. Before his staff/ executive secretary reads and entertains it, it must be brought there by authorized persons. In this case, it was brought there by the staff of Usec Blancaflor. As everybody knows, before your staff (the usec’s staff) brings any sheaf of papers to your boss’s desk , they will clear it with you (the usec). And as everybody knows, you don’t put any sheaf of papers that’s marked “through your (the usec’s) office”, and therefore in your name on your boss’s desk without having read it (of course! It’s your boss’s desk!) or at the very least without knowing the contents. If you’re out of town, you usually have it emailed (so easy, three seconds) or read to you over the phone because it’s in your name, it’s coursed through your office. Nobody issues a blanket order to their secretary, “bring everything on my desk to the boss’s desk”; “or “Every document on my desk that’s for the boss, goes there”. Nobody does that. You read it first or have it read to you.
As the Supreme Court has held in many cases, intent is determined not from what a person says as explanation after the fact; we do not determine it by trying to read the mind of the person; rather, intent is determined from the overt acts of the person.
Here, the release order was marked, “through the undersecretary”, the staff was asked to bring it to the desk of the DOJ secretary, it was brought there; there was even a scribbled note on the Manila envelope: no other conclusion can be had there but that, the undersecretary himself wanted the DOJ secretary to sign the release order. Of course! Your boss’s name is there for his signature and you authorize your staff to put the release order there, you authorized the procurement of your boss’s signature, you authorized the procurement of the signing for the release of the Alabang boys.
The writing of drafts is part of law practice. In certain jurisdictions in the U.S., when a lawyer files, say, a Motion to Dismiss, he/ she is allowed to attach to the motion, a proposed order; and the same goes to the Opposition of opposing counsel, he/she is allowed to attach a proposed order.
Writing of drafts (or ghostwriting) by lawyers, by itself, without more, is not necessarily unethical; in fact, in certain cases when the lawyer himself does not know how the draft will be used, (some lawyers tell their clients not to tell them how the draft will be used, to shield themselves), the lawyer manages to shield himself/herself from whatever it is that he/she wants to shield himself/herself. Naive, but it can somehow protect the lawyer.
In this case however pañero did not shield himself because his clients needed his connections, and, as most or all lawyers in his position do, he used all his connections for his client’s cause.
And so therefore, in a twisted turn of my head and in my imperfect world, Atty. Verano’s taking the fall to keep and hold sacred the privileged nature of any and all communication arising from the attorney-client relationship might, perhaps in the planet Saturn, be the highest form of fidelity to the clients’ cause, therefore in keeping with the fiduciary nature of such relationship as required by the attorney-client relationship.
On my planet earth, the media spin to pin down pañero is a coverup for the big fishes.
When you talk to a lawyer and it is in regard to furthering the client’s cause, you can be sure the lawyer will hold the sacredness of that conversation forever.
