I find this Wikipedia entry about plagiarism interesting:
Plagiarism, as defined in the 1995 Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is the “use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure, up to and including expulsion. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination.
Plagiarism is therefore stealing by copying or closely imitating another’s thoughts or language and passing them off as one’s own. Stealing even when not criminalized is a serious anti-social behavior.
What happens when a portion of a judge’s decision is plagiarized with the aggravating circumstances that 1) it is taken from one of the litigant’s pleadings and 2) the stolen part is also the main justification for deciding the case in favor of the same litigant whose thoughts or arguments were taken?
Here’s what I mean.
The Appellant’s Brief in PP v. L/Cpl. Daniel Smith states as follows:
. . . by complainant’s account, virtually no force was employed by appellant to consummate sexual intercourse with complainant. Complainant did not allege that appellant had any sort of weapon with him at the time that made her fear for her life; neither did complainant allege that appellant, at any time, inflicted physical harm on her (e.g., boxed her, slapped her, kicked her, etc). Complainant did not assert that appellant threatened to take her life or any of her relatives if she did not have sex with him, or uttered any other words that could have led her to think that, if she did not submit to his advances, harm would surely befall her or her family. Instead, complainant’s only act of resistance is that she tried to push appellant away, only that she was already weak, and appellant was too heavy. This hardly shows any sort of force or intimidation on appellant’s part that left complainant no other choice but to capitulate to his desires (See pages 28 and 29 of Appellant’s Brief).
The Court of Appeals, per Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa, reversing the lower court’s guilty verdict in the Smith case, also makes the following statement or finding (without any proper attribution to the Appellant’s Brief and clearly passing it off as if it were the appellate court’s own thoughts):
From Nicole’s account virtually no force was employed by appellant to consummate the sexual intercourse with her. She never alleged the appellant had any sort of weapon with him that made hear fear for her life, neither did he inflict any physical harm on her nor did he threaten to take her life or any of her relatives if (she) did not have sex with him. Her only act of resistance according to her was when she tried to push him away, only that she was already weak and appellant was too heavy. This does not show any sort of force or intimidation on appellant’s part that led Nicole no other choice but to give in to his desire (See page 51 of the Decision).
Question 1): Did Justice Zenarosa plagiarize the Appellant’s Brief?
Question 2): If plagiarism is committed, should Justice Zenarosa and the two other justices who concurred in the decision, like the dishonest student or the unethical journalist, suffer a punishment equivalent to expulsion or termination?
Popularity: 1% [?]
Decisions of our Supreme Court are plagiarize from American Supreme Court … Our government is plagiarized from American government … our constitution is plagiarize from America … our language is plagiarize from America … our marketer of cool are plagiarize from America … our songs are plagiarize from America …
SO WHAT THE FAK IS STOPPING US FROM BECOMING PART OF AMERICA ?????? Why do we have to let Flips run FlipLand like Hell than run by Americans like Heaven? IT’S BEYOND ME! WE HAVE A MISPLACED NATIONALISM AND PATRIOTISM … FLIPS IS MORE ABOUT FAKERY!!! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
PROUD TO BE PINOY?????
Why don’t you take Puerto Rican citizenship?
I don’t need citizenship. I pick-up good culture here and there. I retain some good ones from Flips. I pick-up from Norway. I pick-up from Ireland. I pick-up from Timbuk2. BUT FLIPS? They are so proud of their culture!!!! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
Be realistic.
The US will NOT consider the Philippines to become a US state nor a US territory ever again.
Do you really think that the US would want to get a HEADACHE by feeding, sheltering, sending to medical facilities so that the life span would be over mid-60′s, create jobs, give quality education, etc., to 96 million people in the Philippines?
The land area of the Philippines is the same size as Arizona.
Arizona has 6 million people while the Philippines has 96 million and still counting.
If the US would consider adding the Philippines as a US state or as US territory again, they already did it several decades ago when the population was not 96 million yet and when the country was not as miserable.
That’s NOT going to happen because the US will NOT even consider that in the first place.
Be REALISTIC.
The Americans will be committing suicide if they make Philippines the 51st state of the union …
There will be enhanced corruption in America …
hahaha renato.. LOL
We Flips are plagiarize! So what? I don’t care about plagiarizing …. but the plagiarize Flips is not the same as the original … We wanted to be like Amerikanos … speakengese like them …. act like them ….. laugh like them …. gentlemen like them … skin color like them ….We spend so much industrial-strengl skin-whitening Eskinol with lemon just to be looking like Americans …. ha!ha1ha1ha!
HOW WE HATE OUR SKIN COLOR … THAT WHEN I WENT TO RESTAURANT IN MAKATI …THEY DIDN’T GIVE ME THE WINDOW TABLE …. THEY GAVE ME THE TABLE CLOSE TO THE KITCHEN DOOR WHERE FOOTTRAFIC WS HEAVY BECAUSE I WAS A BROWN SKIN …..HA!HA!HA!HA!
WAIT UNTIL I CONSUME MY SKIN WHITENING ESKINOL LOTION WITH LEMON …. HA!HA!HA!HA! PAIYAKIN KO SILA!!!! HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
I know Leytenian is a bigot and racist because Leytenian look up to Seraficas, Larrzabals … Leytenian only eat at La Di Da which I cannot afford most of all I’ll be banned and excommunicated there becuase i’m brown skin only for the likes of Palmolive skin HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
Abe espouses originality in logic for Subic rape case, consistent with his blogposts of many weeks which asks for :
…there is reasonable doubt, so GUILTY
UP n,
A court’s decision does not have to be original. In fact, it stands on more solid ground if supported by established precedents.
What I find reprehensible is for a judge to lift an argument from another source and claim it as his own. To ask the very least, won’t that be intellectual dishonesty?
Given the suggestions from some quarters that the CA decision in the Smith case has some trappings of backroom negotiations, could anyone be blamed to look at the breach of judicial ethics to be so reckless as to wonder whether the justices involved are even entitled to a presumption of innocence in the substantive sense to begin with?
What defense is there left to avail of – intoxication? But then granting that the malefactresses had one drink too many but if they did not drop to the floor, will they even believe themselves?
Abe: Is this — plagiarism by an appelate judge on a “not-guilty” document — a legal matter? Would you know of one or more specific Republic Act so-and-so laws that may have been broken by one or more of the appelate judges?
No, Upn, I am not aware of any specific law, specially criminal law, that may have been violated. Some other lawyers may know. But I always think that plagiarism is intellectual dishonesty. I’m just being hyperbolic (satirical, maybe) in the above to underscore my point.
Abe,
I thought you said you practice law in RP. Have you heard about a Supreme Court Jurist who resigned in a huff after being castigated by the press for penning a decision written by the lawyer of a big telecommunication company involved in the case?
Don’t you know that judges, after reviewing the evidence of the case and found that this paricular party won, he would call for the lawyer of that party inside his chamber and ask him/her to write the decision?
Don’t you know that a judge after comparing the briefs of the parties would find one brief more logical, sensible and in accordance with the law and jurisprudence and therefore would pen the decision lifting the arguments from that brief?
NO ABE, this is not plagiarism. The reason the parties are required to submit briefs so the court can be guided in arriving at what is the truth and the law. When a judge is doubtful of the parties’ position, they are even required to submit extended briefs or counter-briefs so he can evaluate the facts and the laws more clearly.
jcc, while I’m gravely critical of our judicial system (and the cluelessness and recklessness of even the SC in certain high profile decisions – and you can check out some fairly recent commentaries of mine here , here, and here) I remain cautious because I’m still on the roll of attorneys in the Philippines. So, I am not suggesting felonious ghostwriting here for that would again be jumping into conclusion.
I am focused on plagiarism the casual commission of which by students Sassy has complained about in the other thread.
Now, let me ask you, what is your understanding of plagiarism?
You have defined it Abe, what is there to define? If CA lifted the arguments of the party in his brief and made them its own because of the honest belief that they were in accord with what it consider to be the true facts of the case, does that diminish the “truth” in its decision simply because they were lifted from the other party’s brief?
As I said, these briefs were required under our procedure to guide the appellate court in the disposition of the case. If one brief has more substance and logic to it as against the other, would that serve your own sense of justice if the CA made its own against the better brief and comes up with a sloppy decision?
Would your position be the same if CA “plagiarized” the brief of the prosecution and come up with the affirmance of the conviction? Or we only see the “plagiarism” because it happened to be against our own position?
Like you Abe, my name is still in the rolls of attorney, but I shall be critical of the court’s fault and will be cheering for its good decision.
FYI, I had been in the sala of RTC J. Zenarosa on several occasions. I have lost a case in her sala which I considered I should have not lost. Her reputation in QC is diferent from the “sterling quality” she is being portrayed in the press together with the two other woman jurists. But my instinct tells me that the Nicole case is one where no jurist would barter his/her soul with because it was in the “public radar”, and the CA is just recovering from the effects of some of its members being axed for corruption. Give it some more time, it will go back to its old ways.
So, jcc, if a scientist, say DJB, lifted a scientific finding from the research work of another scientist, say blackshama, and DJB passes backshama’s finding as his (DJB’s) own, you would think there’s no professional dishonesty committed if it’s done because of DJB’s honest belief that the copied scientific finding is in accord with scientific truth and DJB further believes it to be scientifically true anyway?
Hoooo hoooo, ho Abe. Hold your horses. Make an analogy which we lawyers call, “in all fours”. Appellate briefs are specifically required so the magistrates can copy them if these briefs make sense.
Scientific research is entirely on a different plane.
You’re saying that appellate briefs are specifically recquired as if I’m ignorant of the procedure. Well, like you, jcc- and I’ll just trust your claim about your “credentials”- I have practiced both in the lower and appellate courts (and also taught criminal procedure) in the Philippines for years.
Now, if you want to stick to the issue (since this to me is a serious matter that may involve another ethics violations of three justices of the CA) the simple question is: Is it intellectually honest or not for the CA justices in PP v. Smith in copying the arguments from the Apellant’s Brief without proper attribution as if to show that those arguments are the justices’ and not appellant’s?
What makes lawyers and judges different from students, journalists and scientists in the context of plagiaristic behaviors?
so you are simply telling me Abe that these jurists’ infraction is their failure to attribute their arguments as the arguments of the appellant and not that their arguments are bereft of any substance?
so what is so palpably objectionable in that? their failure to attribute, may be objectionable but not entirely wrongful. for all you know, could be some indavertence or slip up.
jcc, please re-read the two quoted statements and tell us again if it was an appropriation on the part of Justice Zenarosa of something that belongs to another or only a slip-up.
Just to give you one more example. If you, say as an expert, have been asked by the court to submit an amicus curiae brief for its guidance in resolving a difficult issue before it, and you worked hard to research and prepare your brief in compliance with the request, would you honestly still say that well, it “may be objectionable but not entirely wrongful … it could be some inadvertence or slip-up.”
On the other hand, I believe I have thoroughly expounded in a couple of posts here in FV that the reasons upon which the CA has grounded its decision to reverse the lower court’s judgment are “bereft of substance,” even ludicrous, and do not comport with either settled legal principles or ordinary experience. The plagiarism – because I see the infraction as a clear case of dishonest appropriation – is just on top of such an unfortunate judicial misadventure.
Philippines needs more advocate of women’s rights in its courts.
we were not even there in the first place Abe to be able to say categorically that Nicole was actually raped. eve if we were present we would not be able to know if Ms. Nicole was resisting or enjoying the communion with Mr. Smith consistent with your posture that “she was dead drunk”. every objective truth is a personal truth. but as i said, my agreement with the CA decision acquitting Mr. Smith is no more legitimate than the other fellow who disagreed with the decision and describes it as a travesty of justice.
Noy, I know that if I consume 6 glasses of Long Island Iced Tea, I’d be as dead as Ricky Hatton even before hitting that canvas. That’s why based on my own personal experience, I believe Nicole was so dead drunk she could not possibly have given consent to having sex upon passing out (NB: the fact is not disputed that Nicole couldn’t even put her pants up even when people on the street were taken aback by her condition on the curb).
So, let’s do something. Try consuming (or have some consume) what Nicole imbibed on that fateful night and drink a glassful of water on the rocks (the appellate court believes the melted ice in the glass lessened the effects of the alcohol). Then post the result of your experiment here.
I think the list of drinks below is not disputed in the CA decision (please correct me if my count is wrong):
1. Vodka Sprite (3 glasses)
2. B-52 (a mixture of Kahlua, Baileys and Grand Mariner)
3. Singapore Sling (half-glass)
4. B-53 (a mixture of Kahlua, Baileys and Vodka)
5. Long Island Iced Tea
6. Half a pitcher of Bullfrog (a pitcher is equivalent to six glasses and a 10-oz glass is a mixture of 1 shot vodka, 1 shot gin, 2 shots pineapple juice, 2 shots sprite, 1 shot lime juice)
Others may also try the experiment, if they wish, and post the result here. Then let’s talk again. I will accept the result of the experiments wholeheartedly. GAME?
Abe, CA would gladly try all the concoctions above ovver-and-over-and-over again ….. at a drop of your post …. :)
Nice try, Abe. But the ponencia explicitly attributes and references the Appellants brief. Indeed, they are “stapled” together. Besides…
Appellants brief is a public document. It is submitted under oath to the Court. It is of public record upon submission and affirmation. How could the Court commit plagiarism on a public document submitted as part of a case under its jurisdiction and adjudication.
However,are we justified to insinuate that the Lady Justice who penned the decision was so craven and bereft of intellectual ability to compose a bit of English and explain things in her own words, that she just had to “steal” from the Appellant’s Brief?
Is this is more anti-”manang” vituperation?
It’s not a Creative Writing Class the CA is all about, after all.
Dean, I’m sorry but I’m not even insinuating. I’m stating a definitional fact of plagiarism because those aren’t “her own words” but Smith’s lawyers.’ I’m surprised myself by the recklessness. Indeed, it’s supposed to be a decision based on facts, not something creative or speculative.
Now, to be more imaginative, I guess you may notionally compare those two statements vis-à-vis each other to the Abu Ghraib photos as facts of torture . . . oh well committed by those other sort of (U.S.) servicemen.
abe,
so what if it was copied or plagiarized from the appellant’s brief? does it deprive it with reason and logic? you seem to argue now that it is not so much of copying the arguments, but the entire decision itself is lacking in substance. then why bellyache on the lifting of the argument from the appellant’s brief when you can argue simply that the decision is not supported by logic and bereft of any substance? is this the variation of the argument that Mr. Smith mistook Ms. Nicole as a “whore” because other Americans too mistook Pinoys as “wild boars?”.
are we again insinuating here that we are better equipped to analyze the case than those who have the records at their disposal?
jcc, it is not bellyaching, it is heart-aching.
When three women justices of the CA jointly held that they are “better equipped to analyze the case” based on the cold transcript of the hearing and by plagiarizing the arguments of the defense lawyers (the same lawyers who prepared the so-called affidavit of recantation of the victim?) than the trial judge who arrived at the moral certainty that Smith, who may look great in his Marine uniform, is a rapist beyond reasonable doubt, by inter alia actually observing the demeanor of the witnesses on the stand, whereas the CA decision was largely based on speculation and by exception rather than by settled legal principles, then there’s enough reason for the heart to ache for justice.
If you happen to be in the East Coast one of these days, drop me a line. I’ll try to get you one of the best Long Island Iced Teas in town.
Mar’hay na aldao, bro.
Thanks for the invite bro, but what is your state? i think Michigan is east coast?
but Abe, compared with the CA justices, you and me are far detached from the evidence…
my clueless me… so abe, you are a new yorker?
I used to work in Manhattan some years ago. Hope the places I know are still open for business despite the recession.
btw, I have argued exclusively within the framework of the CA decision. The only thing extraneous perhaps is my experience with Long Island Iced Teas.
no. this is not a case of plagiarism…an appellant’s brief (or appellee’s brief) is the apellant’s “suggestion” of how the decision should be written. it is (as it is the practice) expected that judges and, in this case, justices would pick a few words or phrases from either briefs and adapt them as his/her own.
for those who are not in the know, decision-writing is different from journalism. the ethics of the latter do not usually apply to writing decisions and resolutions.
hope this enlightens.