8/3/2019 In Solidarity With the UP 37

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/in-solidarity-with-the-up-37 1/3

In Solidarity with the UP 37by Charlie Yu on Friday, November 19, 2010 at 3:57pm

In Solidarity with the UP 37

Charlie Yu

(Restore Integrity March, UP, November 18, 2010)

 

Magandang Gabi Po Sa Inyong Lahat.

 

We are here today because we believe that there is a fundamental distinction between what is right and what is

wrong. Out of that belief, we are here because we are willing to stand up for what is right and to condemn what is

wrong.

It is not wrong to adopt the beautifully crafted research work of another.

It is not wrong to borrow the brilliant ideas of another.

It is not wrong to aspire to become a good researcher, thinker and writer.

However,

It is wrong to get another’s research output and to pass it off as ours.

It is wrong to let the public think that the brilliant idea of another is ours.

It is wrong to achieve one’s aspiration to become a great researcher, thinker and writer by copying

another’s work in order to mislead the public to think that it is our work.

That is exactly what happened in this case.

 

The majority opinion came up with 3 Findings:

1st – that the explanation regarding the accidental removal of proper attributions to the 3 distinguished

authors is credible.

2nd – that the omission of attributions did not bring about an impression that Justice Del Castillo himself 

created the passages lifted from the published articles.

3rd – that the decision did not “twist” the works of the distinguished authors.

In all 3 Findings, the majority opinion relied on an overriding premise –

that it did not make sense to intentionally omit attribution to these authors because they are highly

respected professors of international law whose works are published in journals with exceptional

reputations; and

8/3/2019 In Solidarity With the UP 37

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/in-solidarity-with-the-up-37 2/3

that Justice Del Castillo and his researcher gained nothing from the omission.

***The Court would like us to believe then that they know of these authors and their works. That may not be true. If 

they did- if any one of them in the majority opinion knew of these authors and their works, then why is it that not a

single one of them detected the plagiarized work?

On the other hand, if they knew of the works and the fact of plagiarism, yet they concurred in the decision, didn’t

that make them a party to plagiarism? Is it not expected that when Justices of the SUPREME Court append their

signature on a decision, they knowingly do so and fully agree with the contents of said decision.

 

Is it because they are equally wrong in lending their signatures to a decision filled with plagiarized paragraphs that

they need to absolve one of their own in order to escape liability?

 

***When the majority of the Court said that Justice Del Castillo and his researcher gain nothing from omitting

attribution, they have obviously become a part of this grievous wrong.

When a student cites a secondary source in order to give the impression that he/she did a fantastic research work,

with a flawless analysis, and that he/she is a great thinker and writer, that student – if not detected – contrary to the

opinion of the Court, gained something – respect and accolade of his fellow students, of his teachers, and of the

reading public.

It is not true, then, that there was nothing to be gained. Plagiarists are plagiarists because they lack what it takes to

do the proper research and analysis and THINKING but would like others to think that they have the brilliance of 

another.

 

Kapag hindi mo kaya, aminin mo. Huwag kang kumopya. At kung kokopya ka lang, bigyan mo naman ng kaunting

pag-galang yung pinag-kopyahan mo at i-cite mo yung mga kinopya mo.

 

Huwag ka naman mag-yabang na ang galing-galing mo manaliksik, mag-analisa at sumulat … yun pala kinopya mo

lang at ninakaw mo ang gawa ng iba.

 

 Just because there were citations of the source of the secondary source does not excuse one from the act of 

plagiarism. The Court said that since Justice Del Castillo cited the source of the secondary source, from where he

plagiarized his ponencia, that proved that there was no plagiarism because he did not attribute the copied work to

himself.

8/3/2019 In Solidarity With the UP 37

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/in-solidarity-with-the-up-37 3/3

WHAT A FARCE!!!

 

The fact that Justice Del Castillo plagiarized the work of another is already hard evidence that he wanted to create

the impression that he brilliantly put together and came up with the analysis which he represented to the public as

his own.

 

If that is not plagiarism, then what is?

 

***If there is anything twisted here, it is the logic of the Court.

*There are many rumors that may mga namamagitan daw para ma-save ang institution.

How does one save the institution? By silencing the dissent? By asking the brave dean and professors to

take a more moderate and apologetic stance? By pressuring principled professors to compromise with their

standards and convictions?

The way to save an institution is to remove those who, through their acts, prejudiced the institution.

A. The way to save the institution is to re-visit the decision and to understand why the arguments cited from the

legal authorities led to a conclusion that is the complete opposite of what the Court decided.

 

B. The way to save the institution is to re-write the decision, with all the proper citations this time.

 

C. The way to save the institution is to have the erring parties resign from the Court.

 

Anything less than that would not be acceptable.

 

To you, the Dean and the Professors of the UP College of Law, we are here today to stand in solidarity with you

because we believe that you are right and that you would not succumb to the pressures brought upon you by any

party, no matter how SUPREME they may be.

 

Mabuhay kayong lahat!