• Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
• 0916-6406737 / 0918-9120137
• 07 December 2011

            The Committee on Justice’s sustaining by a vote of 40 to 7 the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano Del Castillo is the best timing for a bad precedent.

               It gives political support to the relentless assault of President Aquino against the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice Renato Corona and majority of the Justices.

               It portends of more partisan tirades and adverse actions against the High Court.

             The Castillo impeachment complaint has remained unacted since the Committee on Justice on 18 May 2011 or almost six months ago found the complaint sufficient in form by a close vote of 11 to 10.

              The voting was patently premature because while the complainants alleged as the actionable decision the Supreme Court ruling in the Vinuya case, they failed and refused to submit to the Committee and its members authentic copies of said decision.

              Similarly, while the complainants alleged and minimized the import and relevance of the Supreme Court per curiam decision exonerating Justice Castillo of any wrong doing based on “plagiarism”, they also refused and failed to provide the Committee the certified copies of said decision.

              The reason for the refusal of the complainants to furnish the Committee with said relevant documents is obvious and self-serving because the subject records will validate that the complaint is devoid of substance.

              The Vinuya decision if read in its entirety will show that even if the alleged plagiarized articles are discarded, the principal thrust or ratio decidende of the decision – that the Government cannot be compelled to initiate action on behalf of comfort women – will not be affected or eroded.

              The decision of the Supreme Court finding Justice Castillo not culpable of plagiarism will defeat the bare allegations of the complainant, since the High Court ruled that “a judge writing to resolve a dispute, whether trial or appellate, is exempted from a charge of plagiarism even if ideas, words or phrases from a law review article, novel thoughts published in a legal periodical or language from a party’s brief are used without giving attribution.”

              The Supreme Court further said that “on the whole, his (Castillo’s) work was original. He had done an honest work.”