Vice-President Jojo Binay is receiving lots of criticisms after he virtually exonerated the Bar Exams Blast suspect after it turned himself to authorities through the facilitation of the Vice-President and former justice secretary Bello.

The suspect is Anthony Nepomuceno who is being tagged by the National Bureau of Investigation as the person who was identified by witnesses that threw a hand grenade in a pack of law students in front of De La Salle University during the last day of the 2010 bar exams.

Nepomuceno is a member of the Alpha Phi Omega (APO) fraternity of which VP Binay and Bello are members.

On the report of Inquirer.net, Binay said to reporters,

“We believed him when he said that the accusations against him were not true…He said it was unfortunate that he was being implicated. But according to our questioning, I think he had nothing to do with it.”

President Aquino though distanced himself from the issue saying that the court will be one that will render judgment on Nepomuceno based on the merits of the evidence presented by the NBI and DOJ.

A day after such remarks by the Vice-President, he seemed to have immediately got caught with amnesia of absolving his fellow APO member.  The VP shared that he never said that Nepomuceno is not guilty and was just misquoted.  Now, he is leaving everything into the hands of the Justice Department on an official statement that was published by media outfits.

“The Vice President reiterates his statement to media that the matter is now in the hands of the proper authorities. He has made it clear that the perpetrators of the bombing, regardless of affiliation, should be charged appropriately.  As a lawyer, he upholds the principle of due process and the courts will have the last word on the guilt or innocence of the accused.”

Binay has not foreseen himself to get entangled in the middle of crossfire after he sent a bad signal on a very controversial and emotional case.  Indeed, he does not have the power to exonerate or absolve Nepomuceno of the crime hurled against him but as the second-highest public official of the country, he should have taken a neutral stand on the issue especially that the person involved is his “brod” in a fraternity; and not flaunt to the world that his “brod” is as meek as a lamb.

Legally, VP Binay has not done anything wrong, but in the eyes of a distrusting and discontented public, he has added one more reason why he is named by other camps a “trapo.”

Speaking without thinking is shooting without taking aim. ~Spanish Proverb

One of the popular online sharing services today received a very bad news from the United States Federal Court after the music industry that filed suit due to copyright infringement won the case five months ago.

LimeWire was ordered by the court to shut down its online service after the US judge ruled to favor the case filed by 13 music companies who cried for copyright infringement committed by the company.  Added to the complaint by the music industry against LimeWire is unfair competition brought about the file-sharing service.

George Searle, a top honcho of the company was saddened and very much dissappoited by the court order.  Further he said on AFP,

“We are extremely proud of our pioneering history and have, for years, worked hard to bridge the gap between technology and content rights holders.  However, at this time, we have no option but to cease further distribution and support of our software.”

But such a bad news may not easily dampen the spirit of the people behind LimeWire as they are also planning to put up a new online service in the future to replace LimeWire.

Most recently, there are lots of cases filed against copyright infringement committed by companies and websites on US courts like Dana White of UFC really running against online streaming sites and services that run UFC fights without their consent.  Many of these sites has been slapped by closure and seizure by federal courts just like what happened to LimeWire.

Image from BlogExMachina

The famous octopus who has taken the center stage during the 2010 World Cup for predicting the results of different matches perfectly has already died.

Paul the Octopus was found dead on his tank at the SeaLife Aquarium in Oberhausen, Germany.  Paul is 2 and half years old.

Paul on predicting the results of World Cup games in particular the games with which Germany played received praises for his precision and at the same time the ire of soccer fans when the octopus predicted a loss for Germany and a win against its opponent; which happened.  It even predicted correctly a win by Spain over the Netherlands during the World Cup Finals match.  This made the Spaniards to even request for them to have Paul the Octopus transferred in Spain.

Caretakers at the SeaLife Aquarium said that Paul was still fine when they checked on him but was then found dead early Tuesday.  People at the park said that the famous sage dead of natural causes.

With Paul’s death, how about a crab as a new sage for the 2011 World Cup?

Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo has been most recently one of the most controversial Supreme Court justice due accusations of plagiarism on the majority decision he penned on the Vinuya et al vs. Executive Secretary for which a purported 22 parts of the decision were directly lifted from foreign sources without attribution.

The issue spurred academic and legal discussions with the UP College of Law standing tall and asked for the resignation of the Associate Justice.  With such a valiant move for truth, justice and decency, the least thing actually that the educators from the state university could ask for as an easy way out for the unforgivable act of del Castillo, the Supreme Court of the Philippines chastised these lawyers but had absolved their colleague for any wrong doing saying del Castillo is as meek as a lamb.

Check out full article here of the plagiarism issue on Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo entitled: “Legalizing Plagiarism and Judicial Vengeance.”

Now, with del Castillo’s name instantly so famous (an appointee of GMA,) he easily could rival that Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton; prodding eyes are digging up everything that he has penned as an Associate Justice.

Just today, browsing over Facebook, Rodel Rodis posted a note with what is purportedly another act of plagiarism.

The case is that of the controversial Ang Ladlad vs Comelec, with which the Ang Ladlad group led by Danton Remoto rallied to the Supreme Court to reverse the decision of the Commission on Elections disqualifying their group as a legitimate partylist entity.

Ang Ladlad eventually received a favorable result from the Supreme Court and had been given the chance to run during the May 2010 national elections.

Rodel Rodis shared an excerpt from the decision penned (or was just signed by Associate del Castillo as he blamed his legal researcher for failing to put the necessary footnotes on the Vinuya case) by the controversial associate justice and be the judge.  Here is the full text I actually lifted from the article Mr. Rodis wrote which is also published on PinoyMoneyTalk.com (sorry for copying the whole part of purported plagiarized texts as you have explained everything the best way anyone could have done).

Plagiarism Case #1?

“Under the section “Freedom of Expression and Association” in the Ang Ladlad decision, the ponente wrote:

Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic society, and this freedom applies not only to those that are favorably received but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb. Any restriction imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.

The sentence was a mix-and-match of direct and paraphrased quotes lifted from Section 49 of the Handyside vs. United Kingdom (1979) decision by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR):

“The Court’ supervisory functions oblige it to pay the utmost attention to the principles characterizing a ”democratic society“. Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of such a society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. Subject to paragraph 2 of Article 10 (art. 10-2), it is applicable not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness without which there is no “democratic society”. This means among other things that every “formality”, condition”, “restriction” or “penalty” imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”

It can be claimed that the SC decision merely rephrased parts of the ECHR decision. This style, however, still reeks of Patchwork Plagiarism, wherein various “sources are combined to create a new passage.” If sources are to be properly credited, the original source must be mentioned in the text or credited as a footnote — basic attribution rules that were omitted in the SC decision.

Plagiarism Case #2?

In the same paragraph, the Ang Ladlad decision continued:

Otherwise stated, the COMELEC is certainly not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one. (Emphasis supplied)

Reading it would lead one to believe that this was an original quote from the SC. However, this line was lifted from the United States Supreme Court decision on Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale, 530

U.S. 640 (2000), which in turn borrowed it (but properly credited it) from Hurley vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston Inc., 515 U.S., at 579 (1995):

While the law is free to promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it is not free to interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may strike the government. (Emphasis supplied)

In fairness, the two sources were mentioned in the Ang Ladlad decision. The problem, though, is that they were credited only for another borrowed thought in Footnote 46 and not for the phrase directly copied above. Crediting the original source of that phrase is in order.

Plagiarism Case #3?

It can’t be denied that the SC’s Ang Ladlad decision was peppered with useful nuggets of wisdom, especially in the area of gender discrimination and freedom of expression. Unfortunately, some of these words of wisdom were not the own words of the ponente but rather, quotes lifted from sources not properly attributed to.

In the latter part of the decision, for instance, it was written:

However, as far as this Court is concerned, our democracy precludes using the religious or moral views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community. (Emphasis supplied)

Again, this phrase was originally written somewhere else — in Section 19 of the Supreme Court of

Canada decision on the case Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 710, 2002 SCC 86:

Religion is an integral aspect of people’s lives, and cannot be left at the boardroom door. What secularism does rule out, however, is any attempt to use the religious views of one part of the community to exclude from consideration the values of other members of the community. (Emphasis supplied)

Simply adding “or moral views” does not give the ponente right to own the phrase. The source of the line should have been credited.

I don’t know if the good Associate Justice will once again blame his legal researcher (which reveals that he does not write his own decisions!…or review whatever his legal researched writes for him!?) on this particular SC decision he had written or at least signed; or once again blame Microsoft Word: or simply hide under the lame excuse of “no malice”.

The SC is now slowly transforming itself into a laughing stock not only among legal circles but also among students who are chastised by their teachers everytime they commit the blunder of not giving proper credit to sources.

By now, Mr. Go, who revealed so many erroneous entries on Philippine textbooks may have more headache of not only erroneous entries on textbooks for elementary and high schools students but this time on purported plagiarized SC decisions that will be studied by law students.

By now, Bill Gates should be very disappointed too with his Microsoft Word being blamed by a Filipino Associate Justice on an issue of plagiarism.

And by now, Gloria Arroyo must be very damned proud of her appointee following her footsteps for_________  (you can supply any lines you want on this one).

Are these lines plagiarized or simply overlooked by the Associate Justice?

Image from Plaridel.wordpress

The SSS or Social Security System offers a housing loan program to all its members.  Most recently, this housing loan program has been expanded to cover the ever-growing number of our OFWs or Overseas Filipino Workers.

This program aims to assist our OFWs to have their own homes through an easier paying scheme and to keep up to the mandate of the government to give all the Filipino citizens their own homes at a low cost in effect minimizing illegal settlers.

Application and inquiries about the SSS Housing Loan if you are qualified can be done by visiting the nearest SSS office Branch near your place.

These are some of the SSS Housing Loans a member can avail given he or she has complete requirements and is eligible:

• Housing Development Loan

• Apartment and Dormitory

• Housing Loan for OFWs

• Housing Loan for Workers Organization Members

• Housing Loan for Repairs and Improvement

• Individual Housing

• Assumption of Mortgage

• Direct Housing Development Plan

• Pari-passu

• Corporate Housing Program

Source:  SSS.gov.ph

Latest Philippine Weathers News Updates: Just after the Philippines has been devastated by Super Typhoon Juan, it is expecting another typhoon to enter its territory early next week.

The purported new typhoon will named “Katring” and is brewing in the Marianas Islands down the Pacific and with its direction going up, it may hit the northern part of the country by Tuesday next week.  But another scenario is that “Typhoon Katring” may simply go up and hit Japan instead.

The Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) has been very vigilant on monitoring tropical depression which may also become a super typhoon.  With its new mandate of really giving the freshest and up-to-date weather updates and bulletins, the PAGASA is trying to make all the people and all stakeholders are prepared when typhoons hit the country.

With the most recent Super Typhoon Juan, the PAGASA has been issuing Philippine weather bulletins every hour compared to the previous years of every six hours.  This this new weather development of the bureau, people can now be more informed properly and be more prepared.

With the upgrading of the equipment of the weather bureau, the government is aiming for a more prepared country during disasters and natural calamities.

The PAGASA is still expecting at least 4-6 typhoons to enter the country before the year ends.

After the majority of the Supreme Court Justices absolved their colleague Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo for plagiarism as regards to the majority decision he penned on the Vinuya et al vs. Executive Secretary case involving the Filipina comfort women asking the Japanese government for compensation, the highest court of the land is committing another grave mistake of asking all the UP law professors who spilled the beans of Castillo’s unforgivable act to explain themselves why they should not warrant a sanction.  On a 10-3 vote, the Supreme Court is asking 37 UP law professors including its dean to explain why they should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility of Lawyers.  This came about after the lawyers of the comfort women included in the 37 UP law professors asked for the resignation of Associate Justice Castillo.

The Plagiarism Issue

On the Vinuya et al vs. Executive Secretary on April 28, 2010, the Supreme Court denied the plea of the comfort women during World War II from asking compensation from the Japanese government as victims of sexual slavery.  The majority decision was penned by Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo.

Upon receipt of the decision, the lawyers of the victims that included UP law professor Harry Roque reviewed the decision and discovered lines and entire paragraphs lifted from different foreign sources some of which are from “Enforcing Erga Omnes Obligations in International Law” by Christian Tams, Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime” by Mark Ellis, and “A Fiduciary of Theory of Jus Cogens” by Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent.”  More startling is that the lawyers discovered that Associate Justice Del Castillo made a different interpretation of the ideas from the sources he did not cite saying that sexual slavery with which our comfort women suffered from during the WWII is not a higher law and may not compel nations to seek compensation and legal remedy against any perpetrator of the purported crime.

Of the decision he has penned, there were about 22 identified distinct texts lifted from sources that the associate justice had not even bothered to cite.

Del Castillo Absolved by a Supreme Kangaroo Court?

With all the fuss, the Supreme Court conducted its own investigation of the purported plagiarism committed by their colleague and ruled out on October 15, 2010 that charges against Del Castillo are dismissed “for lack of merit… the charges of plagiarism, twisting of cited materials and gross neglect against” despite 22 texts and even whole paragraphs copied without attribution.  The Supreme Court has absolved their colleague saying that they did not find any “malicious intent” on the part of the Associate Justice.

For Del Castillo’s part, he defended himself with the lamest excuse coming from an Associate Justice saying that it was his legal researcher who had failed to include two citations and that his computer does not have the program to warn him that he is already plagiarizing his decision on a very controversial case.  (Huwaat?!)

The UP Law Professsors then were outraged and issued a statement as regards to the result of the SC investigation on the plagiarism issue but were then immediately threatened by the SC to be cited for contempt.

Legitimizing Plagiarism and Judicial Vengeance

The issue of first absolving an associate justice for a clear act of plagiarism makes the Supreme Court of the Philippines a laughing stock among legal communities as one of its most controversial decisions was plagiarized and sadder if not more confusing is the twisted interpretation that one of its member rendered on the decision based on his sources.  The lame excuse of Microsoft has not alerted Associate Justice Del Castillo all the more gives the public a quick impression that the associate justice himself does not have the intellectual judgment or intellectual diligence to know that he is already plagiarizing or not; and would only rely on a computer program on making an honest Supreme Court decision.  This is the line of reasoning we usually hear from college students when caught without making proper attributions on their term papers, but for heaven’s sake, the Supreme Court is far from being a pack of some lazy college students.

Associate Justice Lourdes Sereno succinctly put the issue of plagiarism and its effect this way,

“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.”

Now, this makes plagiarism legal as long people who are accused of doing it say the following reason:  my research assistants has failed to put proper attributions; my computer has not told me I was already plagiarizing; I did not have any malicious intent on copying other’s work without attribution; and when worse comes to worse and a legal case is filed against someone who has been accused of plagiarism or violating the intellectual property code, use the Supreme Court decision over the issue of plagiarism on Associate Justice Del Castillo as one of your defense on sources of legal precedence.

The second issue of the UP Law Professors receiving judicial vengeance sends a chilling effect not only to lawyers but also to all those who are vigilant enough to always take a close look at the Supreme Court.  These people, who by their oath as lawyers are tasked to uphold the truth and by their license as educators are called to enlighten the minds on what is right, just and wise, are out to suffer from institutional persecution and from a hurting institutional ego – a big no-no for democratic society.

The action of the Supreme Court undermines the freedom of people to speak up and academic freedom that educators are bestowed with.  With such a move, majority of the Supreme Court Justices has seemingly fortified its walls as an impenetrable institution and at the same time made the impression of acting like a little kid who will immediately throw a punch at someone who gets his lollipop.

The Supreme Court Justices should get back to business and stop all these non-sense arrogant display of power over those people who are speaking what is true, right and proper.

Image from Zglaw.com