House body tightens noose on SC justice

DEL CASTILLO Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo has 10 days to answer the plagiarism complaint filed against him by the House of Representatives justice committee. Inquirer photo

In a move that surprised its chairman, the House of Representatives’ committee on justice on Wednesday voted to declare the long-pending impeachment complaint against Supreme Court Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo sufficient in substance.

Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr. observed that the 40-7 vote on the plagiarism complaint accusing Del Castillo of betrayal of public trust was a “turnaround” from the 11-10 vote that declared it sufficient in form on May 18. The 55-member committee had repeatedly postponed voting on sufficiency of substance.

“I’m really surprised. Probably this decision is really a decision to [go on] with the proceeding. I’m not sure if this indicates an impeachment already, but for sure, it’s a turnaround from the previous position,” Tupas told the Philippine Daily Inquirer at the end of the committee hearing.

He said Del Castillo would be given 10 days starting Wednesday to respond to the complaint.

The magistrate has been accused of plagiarizing international law experts in writing a Supreme Court decision that rejected a petition filed by Filipino women forced into prostitution by the Japanese Imperial Army during World War II.

The impeachment complaint was filed in December 2010. But two months earlier, the high court voted 10-2 to dismiss an ethics complaint against Del Castillo for lack of merit.

At a news briefing, Supreme Court administrator and spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez expressed regret over the committee vote, saying the tribunal had already cleared Del Castillo of allegations of plagiarism.

“It’s unfortunate that they seemed to have not taken consideration of that decision by the court. Yet again, there are still remedies available for Justice Del Castillo,” Marquez said.

“It’s a political decision, so we leave that to the members of the House of Representatives. We have to respect the vote,” he said.

‘Best timing’

Speaking at a press conference, House Minority Leader Edcel Lagman described the 40-7 vote as in “the best timing for a bad precedent.”

Lagman said the vote was “obviously rushed to give political support to the relentless assault of President Benigno Aquino III on the Supreme Court, particularly the Chief Justice.”

“It portends of more adverse actions against the Supreme Court and its members in the months to come,” Lagman said.

But Tupas denied that the vote was meant to back the President’s stance against the Supreme Court.

“For us in the committee on justice, it’s purely a House matter. With respect to the Supreme Court, we don’t have a comment on that,” he said.

He also said the committee on justice needed to act on the complaint as Congress had only 10 more session days before its Christmas break.

According to Tupas, the committee still has to vote two more times—first on sufficiency of grounds, which will be held in the first week of January, and then on probable cause.

He said Del Castillo would be asked to appear before the committee in between the two voting occasions.

Dissenters

The committee members who voted against sufficiency in substance were Lagman, Zambales Representative Milagros Magsaysay, Bohol Representative Arthur Yap, Isabela Representative Rodolfo Albano, Representative Emmeline Aglipay of the party-list group Diwa, Quezon Representative Danilo Suarez and Occidental Mindoro Representative Ma. Amelita Villarosa—all allies of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Lagman questioned the timing of the voting, saying it gave political support to Mr. Aquino’s continuing criticism of the high court.

He insisted during the hearing that plagiarism was not a criminal act under the Revised Penal Code or even the Intellectual Property Law.

Tupas agreed, but said the main issue was whether Del Castillo had betrayed public trust in not acknowledging the works of foreign authors in his ponencia.

Lagman said that since plagiarism in itself was not a criminal act, it would be premature for the committee to put the complaint to a vote. He also said the allegations in the complaint itself were contradictory.

“But then since numerical superiority is the deciding factor in a political exercise like an impeachment proceeding, the minority will always lose despite the fact that the merits of our contention are very clear,” he said.

Lagman attempted to have the voting suspended for another week until the committee had perused the Supreme Court per curiam decision—or a very brief opinion rendered without elaborate discussion of the principles and reasons behind it—exonerating Del Castillo.

But this was vehemently opposed by Marikina Representative Romero Quimbo, the House assistant majority leader and Liberal Party deputy spokesperson.

Lagman accused the majority group in the committee of “concealing” from the minority members copies of the Supreme Court decision. He said the decision itself would deter committee members from voting for sufficiency of substance.

Said Suarez: “We are worried that this thing is being railroaded as part of the political marching orders from the top.”

Exclusive to Congress

Quimbo stressed the need to complete the process, saying the power of impeachment was an exclusive domain of Congress. He said not voting on the complaint would mean handing this power to the Supreme Court, which had exonerated Del Castillo.

He added: “Assuming all facts here are true, are these sufficient? This matter can take us 10 months and giving it one more week is unfair to the complainants.”

Aglipay said the Supreme Court decision on the “comfort women” would be unaffected even if the supposed plagiarized portions were taken out.

“When you look at the complaint, who was betrayed?” Aglipay said. “[Del Castillo] said it was not intentional on his part not to cite [the sources]. How would you know if it was not intentional or it was deliberate on his part? It is when it is repeatedly done. I don’t think this is sufficient to mislead the people.”

Suarez pointed out that the allegation of intellectual dishonesty, which includes plagiarism, could not fall within betrayal of public trust because the committee had ruled that plagiarism in itself was not a criminal act.

But Ilocos Norte Representative Rodolfo Fariñas said it would be best to proceed with the voting because any resolution on impeachment would still have to be approved in the plenary.

Frat ‘brod’

An administration lawmaker who is Del Castillo’s fraternity brother at Ateneo Law School’s Aquila Legis claimed that the order to impeach the magistrate had come from the top.

According to the source, a Cabinet member and high official of the ruling Liberal Party spoke with committee members on the urgency of impeaching Del Castillo for two straight nights this week.

After the meetings, the Ateneo lawmakers had no choice but to comply, said the source, likening it to the impeachment case against then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, which, he claimed, was also ordered by Malacañang.

The source, who requested anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the issue, said the “brods” and schoolmates in Congress tried to delay the proceedings as much as they could rather than cross President Aquino. With reports from Gil C. Cabacungan Jr. and Marlon Ramos

Originally posted at 12:28 pm | Wednesday, December 07, 2011