I have been away for vacation in a place where internet access was difficult. I have not dwelt on this important issue which has been discussed lengthily in this blog but under the topic of Morong 45!. I’m writing about the subject for my column tomorrow but meanwhile I’m opening a thread on this with the searing dissenting opinion of Justice Lourdes Sereno and the UP Law school faculty who are facing sanction by the Supreme Court for not criticizing plagiarism in the High Court.
Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion:
What is black can be called “white” but it cannot turn white by the mere calling. The unfortunate ruling of the majority Decision that no plagiarism was committed stems from its failure to distinguish between the determination of the objective, factual existence of plagiarism in the Vinuya decision[1] and the determination of the liability that results from a finding of plagiarism. Specifically, it made “malicious intent”, which heretofore had not been relevant to a finding of plagiarism, an essential element.
The majority Decision will thus stand against the overwhelming conventions on what constitutes plagiarism. In doing so, the Decision has created unimaginable problems for Philippine academia, which will from now on have to find a disciplinary response to plagiarism committed by students and researchers on the justification of the majority Decision.
