3.
Fake News – Misinformation, Disinformation & Malinformation
According to Former SC spokesperson: "Since there is no law that criminizalizes or defines fake news as a crime, and the special
powers law does not also define what fake news is, it cannot be criminalized. That would be void"
As defined under the Anti-Fake News Act of 2017 filed by Senator Joel Villanueva,
Fake news creates impression and beliefs based on false premises leading to division, misunderstanding and further
exacerbating otherwise tenuous relations.
False news – or information cause or tend to cause panic, division, chaos, violence, hate, or which exhibit or tend to
exhibit a propaganda to blacken or discredit one’s reputation – which full knowledge that such or information is false,
or whith reasonable grounds to believe that the same is false
Ethical Journalistm Network: “Fake news is information deliberately fabricated and published with the intention to deceive and
mislead others into believing falsehoods or doubting verifiable facts.” – it combines three notions:
Misinformation – Information that is false, but not created with the intention causing harm
Disinformation – Information that is false and deliberately created to harm a person, social group, organization, or country
Malinformation – Information that is based on reality, used to inflict harm on person, organization country
Doctrine of – false allegation based on false opposition – malice from the beginning. If legit criticizing, it’s not actionalble.
4. Plagiarism
Plagiarism, a term not defined by statute, has a popular or common definition.
To plagiarize, says Webster, is "to steal and pass off as one’s own" the ideas or words of another.
Stealing implies malicious taking. Black’s Law Dictionary, the world’s leading English law dictionary quoted by the Court in its
decision, defines plagiarism as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of another person's original ideas or creative
expressions as one’s own."2 The presentation of another person’s ideas as one’s own must be deliberate or premeditated—a
taking with ill intent.
a) In the Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., Against
Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, RENATO CORONA CJ: A.M. No.
10-7-17-SC, February 8, 2011.
Facts Issue Held
A Supreme Court decision which Whether or not Justice del Castillo SC ruled that there is NO plagiarism.
dismissed a petition filed by the Malaya committed plagiarism Even if there is, the rule on plagiarism
Lolas Organization was issued in 2010. cannot be applied to judicial bodies.
in the case of Vinuya v. Romul. Roque, According to Black’s Law Dictionary:
the counsel in the case, questioned the Plagiarism is the “deliberate and
decision arguing that the ponente, knowing presentation of another
Justice Mariano del Castillo, person’s original ideas or creative
plagiarized three books in the decision expressions as one’s own.”.
of the said case. Roque claims that
Justice del Castillo twisted the true In this case, the attributions were
intents of these books to support the inadvertently deleted as evidenced by
decision: Namely: the original drafts of the decision which
a. A Fiduciary Theory of Jus contained attributions,. There is no
Cogens by Evan J. Criddle intent by Justice del Castillo to take
and Evan Fox-Descent, Yale these foreign works as his own.
Journal of International Law
(2009) Such error on the part of his legal
b. Breaking the Silence: Rape as researcher cannot constitute gross
an International Crime by negligence for Justice del Castillo
Mark Ellis, Case Western Hence, the petition was dismissed.
Reserve Journal of
International Law (2006);
c. Enforcing Erga Omnes
Obligations by Christian J. At its most basic, plagiarism means the
Tams, Cambridge University theft of another persons language,
Press (2005). thoughts, or ideas. To plagiarize, as it is
commonly understood according to
Webster, is to take (ideas, writings, etc.)
from (another) and pass them off as
ones [Link] passing off of the work
of another as ones own is thus an
indispensable element of plagiarism.
But in plagiarism, intent is immaterial.
On the foreign authors’ claim that their
works were used inappropriately
According to the Supreme Court, the
passages lifted from their works were
merely used as background facts in
establishing the state on international
law at various stages of its
development. The Supreme Court went
on to state that the foreign authors’
works can support conflicting theories.
The Supreme Court also stated that
since the attributions to said authors
were accidentally deleted, it is
impossible to conclude that Justice del
Castillo twisted the advocacies that the
works espouse.
Plagiarism itself is not a crime but
that plagiarism that also amounts to
copyright infringement is.
The researcher finished third in her
class and 4th in the bar examinations.
Her error was merely due to the fact
that the software she used, Microsoft
Word, lacked features to apprise her
that certain important portions of her
drafts are being deleted inadvertently.
Such error on her part cannot be said to
be constitutive of gross negligence nor
can it be said that Justice del Castillo
was grossly negligent when he assigned
the case to her.
b) Intellectual Creation (Art. 721, Civil Code)
Article 721. By intellectual creation, the following persons acquire ownership:
(1) The author with regard to his literary, dramatic, historical, legal, philosophical, scientific or other work;
(2) The composer; as to his musical composition;
(3) The painter, sculptor, or other artist, with respect to the product of his art;
(4) The scientist or technologist or any other person with regard to his discovery or invention.
c) Legal protection for intellectual creations
!2 of !5
(1) Sec. 172.1, Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines, as amended
Explain
SECTION 172. Literary and Artistic Works. -
172.1. Literary and artistic works, hereinafter referred to as “works”, are original intellectual creations in the literary and artistic
domain protected from the moment of their creation and shall include in particular:
(a) Books, pamphlets, articles and other writings;
(b) Periodicals and newspapers;
(c) Lectures, sermons, addresses, dissertations prepared for oral delivery, whether or not reduced in writing or other material
form;
(d) Letters;
(e) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions; choreographic works or entertainment in dumb shows;
(f) Musical compositions, with or without words;
(g) Works of drawing, painting, architecture, sculpture, engraving, lithography or other works of art; models or designs for works
of art;
(h) Original ornamental designs or models for articles of manufacture, whether or not registrable as an industrial design, and
other works of applied art;
(i) Illustrations, maps, plans, sketches, charts and three-dimensional works relative to geography, topography, architecture or
science;
(j) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
(k) Photographic works including works produced by a process analogous to photography; lantern slides;
(l) Audiovisual works and cinematographic works and works produced by a process analogous to cinematography or any process
for making audio-visual recordings;
(m) Pictorial illustrations and advertisements;
(n) Computer programs; and
(o) Other literary, scholarly, scientific and artistic works.
(2) Sec. 172.2, Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines, as amended
172.2. Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their
content, quality and purpose. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 49a)
Civil code:
[Link]
IP : [Link]
