Local media giant ABS-CBN News apologized to freelance writer Rj Nieto, for “inadvertently adding portions” of the latter’s report without proper citation. However, this apparently petty issue reveals an even deeper problem in IPR laws in the country.

The Initial Issue

CNN’s former Jakarta Bureau Chief and ABS-CBN’s outgoing News Bureau Chief Maria Ressa tweeted, “@rj_nieto Thanks for alerting us. We are investigating and @gingreyes will get back to you. Pls know ABS does not tolerate plagiarism.”

Ging Reyes, ABS-CBN’s North American Bureau Chief, will replace Ressa effective Friday, October 29th, while the latter will be on terminal leave up to the first quarter of 2011.

The article in question was originally published on October 23rd in a Charice fan site, http://www.charicemania.com under the heading “Charice in Sold-out Manila Concert Tonight, Talks About Glee”.

ABS-CBN allegedly copied the second, third, and fourth paragraphs verbatim, and incorporated them into their article entitled “Charice to Pose Sexy?” which appeared on October 24th, several hours after the first one.

Articles-in-question, Side-by-side

The allegedly plagiarized article contained 284 words, at least 150 of which were identical to the original version.

ABS-CBN’s editors deleted the plagiarized sections and issued an apology. A note said, “Editor’s note: We inadvertently added portions of a report published on Charice’s site as the concert was going on last Saturday evening. We are sorry. “

However, after some research, a deeper and more fundamental problem surfaced.

Institutionalized Plagiarism in the Philippines

Plagiarism has become a hot topic in the Philippines today, as the Philippine Supreme Court (RP SC) formally threatened disbarment against 81 members of the University of the Philippines College of Law (UP Law) for criticizing them.

UP Law’s initial request was to censure Justice Mariano del Castillo after the former explained that numerous sections of the decision for the case “Vinuya et. Al. VS Executive Secretary et. Al.”, were plagiarized.

However, the formal threat was given after UP Law stayed adamant in its stand over the issue, despite the Court’s decision, which was to acquit Justice del Castillo on grounds that the latter had no “malicious intent”.

Atty. Dianne Desierto, Faculty, UP Law

UP Law, after hearing of the acquittal, called for the resignation of Justice del Castillo.

Today, all 81 members of the UP Law Faculty are at risk of losing their right to practice their profession.

In an open letter, Law Reform Specialist and UP Law Professor Dianne Desierto sought help from the international law community for the beleaguered law school.

“All our bar licenses, without which we cannot teach, work, or practice as lawyers, are now at stake… We fervently hope for your help in this fight against institutional persecution.  We have no recourse left,” Desierto said.

The RP Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of any legal issue in the Philippines.

RP Supreme Court: Plagiarism is OK if you show no malice

In essence, the decision on the plagiarism case has allowed anyone in the country to “legally” copy anyone’s work without giving

"Intellectual theft is fine"

credit to the original author as long as the writer can show the absence of what the court defines as “malicious intent”.

In an opinion article published in BusinessWorld, UP Strategic Management Professor Rene B. Azurin stated, “In addition to now making ‘malicious intent’ an essential requirement for the crime of intellectual theft, this is a strange new legal doctrine being enshrined into the law of the land.”

Azurin added, “Recidivist thieves … [are]…celebrating the formal promulgation of a suddenly acceptable excuse for shameless thievery. “

The Philippine judicial system is similar to most commonwealth countries as it follows the concept of common law, which gives judges quasi-legislative authority by allowing then to set the definitions for previously-written statutes.

The faculty claimed that parts of the decision were directly lifted from works such as “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens” published in the 2009 Yale Journal of International Law, whose proponents were internationally renowned foreign law experts, Professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent.

Other groups performed independent investigations, which allegedly showed even more instances of plagiarism in the same text.

International Reaction

Works by other law experts such as Dr. Mark Elllis, Executive Director of the International Bar Association and Dr. Christian Tams of the University of Glasgow School of Law were also allegedly plagiarized.

Both of them, including Criddle, have issued formal complaints to the RP Supreme Court.

In a letter addressed to the RP SC, Tams said, ““…the relevant sentences were taken almost word by word from …my book Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law (Cambridge University Press 2005)… I do not think it can be considered an appropriate form of referencing.”

Tams added, “I am at a loss to see how my work should have been cited to support – as it seemingly has – the opposite approach. More generally, I am concerned at the way in which your Honourable Court’s judgment has drawn on scholarly work without properly acknowledging it.”

Criddle gave the death blow after saying, “Speaking for myself, the most troubling aspect of the court’s jus cogens discussion is that it implies that the prohibitions against crimes against humanity, sexual slavery, and torture are not jus cogens norms.  Our article emphatically asserts the opposite.”

In another letter addressed to the same institution, Ellis added, “I am … concerned that your esteemed Court may have misread the arguments I made in the article and employed them for cross purposes.  This would be ironic since the article was written precisely to argue for the appropriate legal remedy for victims of war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.”

The original authors explained two issues: that their material was plagiarized and twisted.

What’s in it for YOU?

With this decision, plagiarism can only be penalized if the accused shows malicious intention. “Inadvertently” lifting someone else’s work without according proper credit may be unethical, but nonetheless legal.

Instead of taking the blame, the court shifted everyone’s attention to Microsoft Corporation’s word processor, Microsoft Word, for not having the capability to monitor deletions or additions in its text.

However, it is common knowledge that under the software’s “Tools” menu, a “Track Changes” option exists. This feature is available at least as early as MS WORD’s 1997 version.

It was there all the time.

In the same BusinessWorld article, Azurin said, “Think about that a bit. That’s exactly like saying that weapons should be blamed for crimes but not the wielders of these inanimate objects. That’s exactly like blaming a gun for a murder and acquitting the shooter.

“That’s exactly like saying that a knife should be at fault because its sharp edge just happened to cut a victim’s throat and because it (the knife) should have known that it should only do its cutting when the cutting is permitted by law,” he added.

Now, this is one mind-boggling dilemma for struggling writers like me.

Someone bigger can just claim my work as his own, and I will not be able to do anything about it.