Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 60 views

    Dissenting Opinion of Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Irish Salinas
    Sereno dissents from the majority opinion that judges cannot commit plagiarism. She argues that judges are ethically bound to properly attribute the ideas and words of others used in judicial decisions. Sereno analyzed the Vinuya decision and found extensive passages copied without attribution from other sources, contrary to standards of honesty and diligence required of judges. While judicial writing need not be literary, judges should still attribute original work to avoid misrepresenting the work as their own. Proper attribution upholds the integrity and independence required of the judiciary by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Dissenting Opinion of Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Irish Salinas
    60 views1 page
    Sereno dissents from the majority opinion that judges cannot commit plagiarism. She argues that judges are ethically bound to properly attribute the ideas and words of others used in judicial decisions. Sereno analyzed the Vinuya decision and found extensive passages copied without attribution from other sources, contrary to standards of honesty and diligence required of judges. While judicial writing need not be literary, judges should still attribute original work to avoid misrepresenting the work as their own. Proper attribution upholds the integrity and independence required of the judiciary by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Original Title

    DISSENTING-OPINION-OF-SERENO.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sereno dissents from the majority opinion that judges cannot commit plagiarism. She argues that judges are ethically bound to properly attribute the ideas and words of others used in judicial decisions. Sereno analyzed the Vinuya decision and found extensive passages copied without attribution from other sources, contrary to standards of honesty and diligence required of judges. While judicial writing need not be literary, judges should still attribute original work to avoid misrepresenting the work as their own. Proper attribution upholds the integrity and independence required of the judiciary by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    60 views1 page

    Dissenting Opinion of Sereno

    Uploaded by

    Irish Salinas
    Sereno dissents from the majority opinion that judges cannot commit plagiarism. She argues that judges are ethically bound to properly attribute the ideas and words of others used in judicial decisions. Sereno analyzed the Vinuya decision and found extensive passages copied without attribution from other sources, contrary to standards of honesty and diligence required of judges. While judicial writing need not be literary, judges should still attribute original work to avoid misrepresenting the work as their own. Proper attribution upholds the integrity and independence required of the judiciary by the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    DISSENTING OPINION OF SERENO

    In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism Against Associate Justice Del Castillo
    AM No 10-7-17-SC, February 8, 2011

    DOCTRINE:
    A judge is ethically bound to give proper credit to law review articles, novel
    thoughts published in legal periodicals, newly handed down decisions, or even a
    persuasive case from another jurisdiction. While the judge may unwittingly use the
    language of a source without attribution, it is not proper even though he may be
    relieved of the stigma of plagiarism.

    FACTS:
    Sereno contends a judge need to answer to only two standards – diligence
    and honesty. By honesty here is meant that good faith attempt to attribute to the
    author his original words and analysis, and the work of diligent and honest judge
    will never display severe plagiarism evident in the Vinuya Decision. In the said
    decision, the following conclusions were made: (a) that plagiarism requires the
    element of “malicious intent”; (b) the rules against plagiarism applicable to the
    academic community do not apply to judicial decisions; (c) a judge cannot be be
    guilty of plagiarism as understood by the academic world; (d) that this lack of
    liability extends as well to benefit lawyers, and; (e) that the Vinuya Decision is the
    product of hard, honest, original work. It was found in the table of comparison
    provided by Sereno, the instances of plagiarism as they occur in the Vinuya Decision,
    that parts of it was made with no attribution. The researchers of Associate Justice
    Del Castillo contends that there was an accidental deletion of the missing footnotes
    and that there is no plagiarism committed. Sereno later argues that the explanation
    given by the researcher, would require at least four movement to delete one
    footnote or reference. If by some chance the cursor happened to be at precise
    location of the citations, and the citations were subsequently deleted by an
    accidental click of the mouse, this would still have necessitated a total of 177 clicks,
    and what should have been done was simply cite the author from whom she took
    that analysis and summarization of the said sources in the first place.

    ISSUES:
    Is there an exemption to judicial writings from plagiarism?
    RULING:
    Yes. As from the words of Joyce C. George, that the judge is not writing a
    literary work and, more importantly, the purpose of the writing is to resolve a
    dispute. However, George does not also imply that the judicial function confers upon
    the judges the implicit right to use the writing of others without attribution. Plainly,
    George is of the opinion that though a judge may not be held liable for an act of
    judicial plagiarism, he should still attribute. Because a judge cannot evade the
    provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct “A judge should participate in
    establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and shall
    personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the
    judiciary will be preserved.

    You might also like