MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court Justice Mariano del Castillo plagiarized at least 20 more times in the decision on the comfort women case (Isabelita Vinuya v. Executive Secretary Alberto Romulo), apart from those already brought to the attention of the Court, according to Peter Payoyo, a former professor of the University of the Philippines College of Law.

In a 16-page letter to Chief Justice Renato Corona dated October 28, 2010, Payoyo, who now resides in the Netherlands, wrote that “beyond any doubt in mind – plagiarism was committed.”

“The Vinuya decision, I am very sorry to say, suffers more referencing irregularities and instances of serious unacknowledged copying than what the Court may perhaps been led to believe,” Payoyo, who holds a doctorate in law, said in his letter that was circulated to  the SC justices two weeks ago.

Newsbreak obtained a copy of the letter, accompanied by a table, which describes the plagiarized parts in detail.

Payoyo was referring to the SC decision that denied the petition of 70 Filipino comfort women to compel the Philippine government to support their claim for apology and other forms of reparations against the Japanese government for the sexual abuse they suffered during World War II.

Del Castillo, who penned the Vinuya decision, was accused of plagiarizing the works of Ivan Criddle, Evan Fox-Descent, Christian Tams, and Mark Ellis. [See: The Supreme Court plagiarism scandal]

On October 12, 2010, the SC cleared Del Castillo of plagiarism saying he acted in good faith and blamed instead the Microsoft Word program. “As it happened, the Microsoft word program does not have a function that raises an alarm when original materials are cut up or pruned,” the Supreme Court said.

Newsbreak asked Del Castillo to comment on the letter of Payoyo. Jose Midas Marquez, Court administrator and spokesperson, said Del Castillo “has already submitted to the Court his response to Dr. Payoyo’s assertions.”

“Please take note that Dr. Payoyo’s letter refers to the issues involved in AM. No. 10-7-17-SC (In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo), which is still the subject of a motion for reconsideration, and hence, sub judice,” Marquez said.

New findings

More than two weeks after the Court absolved Del Castillo, Payoyo wrote Chief Justice Corona. He pointed out “a matter that was obviously overlooked by the Court in its recent deliberations.”

He stressed that his intention is not to “add fuel” to the situation, but “to plead for the cause of competent legal research.”

Payoyo showed that Del Castillo “systematically and extensively lifted” from “Legal Nature and Legal Consequences of Diplomatic Protection: Contemporary Challenges,” published in 2006 by Mariana Salazar Albornoz.

Payoyo showed that “numerous passages from Albornoz were copied to the main body as well as the footnotes of Vinuya, but Albornoz was never cited.”

Payoyo also found out that Albornoz concludes with “a more progressive or activist approach to diplomatic protection,” while Vinuya, “which mobilizes the extensive research work undertaken in Albornoz, propounds a judgment in support of the conservative or traditional approach to diplomatic protection.”

Apart from Albornoz, “Vinuya had palpably appropriated as its own an entire section from a decision of the International Court of Justice,” Payoyo, an expert on the law of the sea, wrote.

In addition, the Vinuya decision also contains three paragraphs copied verbatim from a research work by foreign affairs specialist Larry Niksch.

Impeachment case vs. Del Castillo

Meanwhile, Del Castillo faces an impeachment complaint in the House of Representatives.

On December 14, 2010, Filipino comfort women, along with 11 members of Congress, filed an impeachment case grounded on betrayal of public trust.

The complainants argued that Del Castillo “betrayed public trust when he committed acts that undermined public confidence in the judicial system and in the moral authority and integrity of the judiciary.”

Iloilo representative Niel Tupas, Jr., chair of the House committee on justice, said they are still waiting for the plenary to refer the complaint to his committee. Once referred to the justice committee, it will be determined whether the case is sufficient in form and substance.

Tupas said this impeachment proceeding is very important. “It will show that the check-and-balance system is working.”