In the earlier case of Ang Ladlad, (GR No. 190582, April 8, 2010) Justice Del Castillo appeared to have committed plagiarism as well. Our study is only preliminary but the exigencies of the situation have compelled us to make this public.
In the Ang Ladlad decision allowed a gay rights group to run in the party-list elections, and was released 20 days earlier than the Vinuya decision. The ponente here is also Justice Del Castillo.
————————-
The relevant passages are as follows:
Del Castillo ponente (Ang Ladlad), p. 21
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. Absent any compelling state interest, it is not for the COMELEC or this Court to impose its views on the populace. 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.
The European Court of Human Rights case of Handyside v. United Kingdom, 7 December 1976, 1 EHRR 737 para. 49:
Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man … 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 pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no ‘democratic society’.
—————-
We wonder if this is also the fault of MS Word
[...] by Harry Roque [...]
yeah right. The fact that del Castillo also plagiarized his decision in the case of Ladlad, on top of what he did in the Comfort women cases, proves without any shadow of doubt that he is engage in misconduct. This also debunks also his defenses in the administrative case filed against him which saw him exonerated by this stupid supreme Court. Hey, I my self was a victim of del castillo in a decision rendered by the Court of Appeals chaired by then del Castillo, he ruled that when Karina David sent four people to my Office in the evening to copy personal files in the computer assigned in the said Office, he did not encroach on the duty of a judge because of O.M. 10 s. 2002 which provides that there is no right to privacy in the use of CSC computer except Karina David. Obviously erroneous decision considering that O.M. was not published, not issued by the enbanc commission, and its no privacy clause violates article 3 of the Constitution. Heres more his wife Dean Cynthia Roxas del Castillo is the cousin of Karina Roxas del Castillo. He should have inhibited himself. What do you know? If he can issue an anomalous decision now pending review by him also as Supreme Court justice for the last four years, what do you expect? Come on, lets all file an impeachment case against this fellow. My Case under G.R. 181881 is pending for the last four years while I was dismissed on the basis of unsigned computer print out taken in the evening of january 3, 2007. I will join VACC in the mountains for this highly stupin Supreme Court.
Apparently, the most honorable Justice Del Castillo and/or his clerk/”ghostwriter” has/have a penchant for the Art of Cut and Paste.
MS Word is just a computer software, but in a world where pigs can fly if the Supreme Court says so, then MS Word is once again to blame for this unfortunate little incident.
A Taiwanese lawyer told me that if a Justice in Taiwan committed what the Most Honorable Justice Del Castillo did, that Justice would publicly apologize for his ineptitude and promptly resign. Alas, here in the Philippines, people would overturn long held jurisprudence regarding plagiarism just to save their own asses and vindictively censure anyone who points out their glaring mistakes.
May be we should bring this case of del castillo before the international court of justice. Is it possible? The second instance of plagiarism debunks any defenses in the original complaint including the lame decision of lack of motive on the part of writer. Truly, this people might also be behind some news report accusing Harry Roque and dean leonen of also plagiarizing their published books. To tame the tide. This is travesty of justice. While comfort women die on continued basis we let go of a liar, attributing the misconduct to a computer. A computer is garbage in and garbage out, that no amount of justification that there was error in the computer encoding by way of accidental deleting of the citations, will not in the least imply that that del castillo is misconduct or malice free. Wow this is too much.
It should have been a simple case of delicadeza! Thanks for your comments!