Republika ng Pilipinas

KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila

PRESS RELEASE
0 2 October 2012

DOJ ISSUES ADVISORYO N PLAGIARISM

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued Advisory Opinion No.

0 2 , Series of 2012 explaining the meaning of plagiarism in the context of
Philippine law and cases.
Consistent with the proactive stand of the D O J , the Advisory
Opinion addresses a recurring issue in the criminal justice system and
lays out the scope of protection of authors under the country's
intellectual property laws and sets out the liabilities for infringers.
"Plagiarism is a concept more understood in academic circles as an
offense against academic integrity anathema to the strict standards of
originality of scholarly works which members of the academic
community subscribe to. However, recent events brought to fore the
importance of knowing exactly what plagiarism is and to clarify the
misconception that there is no crime of plagiarism under our laws," said
Secretary of Justice Leila M . de Lima.
As the Advisory Opinion points out, plagiarism, which the Supreme
Court has described as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of
another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own", if
committed under certain circumstances, can amount to criminal
violation of the Intellectual Property Code, the E-Commerce Act or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The Advisory provides guidance on how to avoid, prevent and
resolve plagiarism as it is recognized as an undesirable act that breaches
the standards of propriety by depriving another person of the fruits of
creativity.
The highlights are as follows:
1.

Plagiarism should be avoided, regardless of the presence of

2.
3.
4.
5.

sanctions against it.

Cultivate the habit of attribution. When in doubt, cite.
Everyone can be a victim of plagiarism.
Always be vigilant in detecting cases of plagiarism.
Encourage institutions to adopt anti-plagiarism measures.

With this Advisory Opinion, the D O J hopes to continue to build

community awareness and increase social trust for a peaceful and just
Republic.

Enclosed: Advisory Opinion No. 0 2 (Series of 2012)

Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila

A D V I S O R Y O P I N I O N N O . 0 2 (Series of 2012)
18 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 1 2

ADVISORY ON PLAGIARISM

1. I N T R O D U C T I O N
This A d v i s o r y seeks to clarify the concept of plagiarism i n the
P h i l i p p i n e legal context and guide concerned parties on the legal
i m p l i c a t i o n s of such a n act.
U p u n t i l recently, the concept of p l a g i a r i s m has only gained
currency p r i m a r i l y i n the academic field, where standards for original
scholarly w o r k leading to an undergraduate or graduate degree are
strictly enforced. However, various events have sparked spirited debates
o n the nature a n d extent of plagiarism outside the academe, arising f r o m
cases of alleged plagiaristic acts c o m m i t t e d by h i g h - r a n k i n g public
officials.
In the case of In re: Charges of Plagiarism,
etc. against
Associate
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A . M . N o . 10-7-17-SC, 12 October 2010,
the Supreme Court cited the lexical definition of p l a g i a r i s m as o r d i n a r i l y
understood:
A t its m o s t basic, p l a g i a r i s m means the theft o f another person's
language, t h o u g h t s , or ideas. T o plagiarize, as it is c o m m o n l y
u n d e r s t o o d a c c o r d i n g to Webster, is "to take (ideas, w r i t i n g s , etc.) f r o m
(another) a n d pass t h e m off as one's o w n . " The p a s s i n g off of the w o r k
of another as one's o w n is thus a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e element of p l a g i a r i s m .

Plagiarism thus refers to the act of appropriating the ideas of

another a n d presenting t h e m as one's own. It is an act of intellectual
dishonesty, w h i c h assumes more gravity w h e n c o m m i t t e d i n the context
of an activity that puts p r e m i u m precisely o n the p r o d u c t i o n of original
creative w o r k (e.g., an academic paper, a literary or scientific
publication, an artistic work, etc.).
LA

However, i n the case cited above, the Supreme C o u r t prescribed a

standard of plagiarism w h i c h requires an element of deliberate intent,
based on the definition of p l a g i a r i s m p r o v i d e d i n an oft-cited legal
reference material:
Indeed, the 8 e d i t i o n o f Black's L a w D i c t i o n a r y defines p l a g i a r i s m as
the "deliberate a n d k n o w i n g p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a n o t h e r person's o r i g i n a l
ideas or creative expressions as one's o w n . " T h u s , p l a g i a r i s m
presupposes intent a n d a deliberate, conscious effort to steal another's
w o r k a n d pass it off as one's o w n .
t h

Therefore, plagiarism, at its core, is a breach of standards of

honesty, integrity and justice. It u n d e r m i n e s the c o m m o n expectation
that credit s h o u l d be given where it is due, a n d that one s h o u l d not
appropriate the fruits of another's labor without securing due consent or
giving due acknowledgement. However, as the Supreme C o u r t has ruled
i n the Del Castillo case, a n act of p l a g i a r i s m presupposes deliberate
intent. If negligence, or good faith/honest mistake can be established,
there can be no finding of p l a g i a r i s m .
In any case, even as the Supreme Court has prescribed a higher
evidentiary threshold for p r o v i n g the existence of p l a g i a r i s m , it still
remains a fact that plagiarism is an actionable w r o n g d o i n g a n d can even,
i n some instances, amount to a c r i m e punishable by i m p r i s o n m e n t and
fine. W h i l e plagiarism per se is not a crime, it w o u l d be inaccurate and
misleading to say that "plagiarism is not a c r i m e " i n the P h i l i p p i n e s , and
is a mere transgression of ethical a n d m o r a l standards, because the law
actually provides penalties for it.
2. S U M M A R Y O F T H E L A W
A . P l a g i a r i s m under the Intellectual Property Code
The act of plagiarizing the w o r k s of another bears the closest
affinity to the act of copyright infringement, although, as will be
explained below, the two are not synonymous.
U n d e r Section 172.2 of R e p u b l i c A c t N o . 8 2 9 3 , otherwise k n o w n as
the Intellectual Property Code ("IPC"), literary a n d artistic w o r k s "are
protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or
f o r m of expression, as well as of their content, quality a n d purpose".
Such works refer to intellectual creations i n the literary a n d artistic
d o m a i n s w h i c h include all forms of creative expression - writings,

musical and dramatic compositions, drawings a n d illustrations, plans

a n d sketches, pictures, computer programs and, i n general, all other
"literary, scholarly, scientific a n d artistic w o r k s " [Section 172.1, IPC]
i n c l u d i n g works derived f r o m t h e m [Section 173, I P C ] .
A s to "derivative works" u n d e r Section 173 of the IPC, the law
protects as "new w o r k s " any of the following:
(a) D r a m a t i z a t i o n s , t r a n s l a t i o n s , adaptations,
abridgments,
arrangements, a n d other alterations of literary o r artistic w o r k s ; a n d
(b) C o l l e c t i o n s of literary, scholarly o r artistic w o r k s , a n d
c o m p i l a t i o n s of data a n d other materials w h i c h are o r i g i n a l by reason
of the selection o r c o o r d i n a t i o n o r arrangement o f their contents.

Thus, the protection accorded b y intellectual property laws extends

to works w h i c h have been derived f r o m other works, without prejudice to
the latter's subsisting copyright. T h i s means that i f an author creates a
w o r k b y adapting, abridging, or translating a previous work, or by
selecting, coordinating or arranging previously-gathered data, the said
author is deemed by l a w as an original author, a n d his/her "derived" or
"transformed" work w i l l be protected by law as an original creation. T h e
fact that a n a u t h o r anchors his/her w o r k o n the w o r k of
a n o t h e r does not m e a n that the laws w i l l p r o v i d e h i m / h e r less
protection. Transforming pre-existing works i n a meaningful
m a n n e r requires the same level of originality, creativity a n d
c r i t i c a l t h o u g h t w h i c h t h e I P C o d e e q u a l l y r e c o g n i z e s as
worthy of copyright protection.
Thus, under the intellectual property regime i n the country, the
general rule is that any literary, scholarly, scientific or artistic work,
expressed i n whatever form, enjoys the protection of the law f r o m the
m o m e n t of its creation. The author of an original w o r k enjoys "copyright
or economic rights" w h i c h , under Section 177 of the IPC, include, among
others, the right to c a n y out, prevent, or authorize the reproduction,
transformation, p u b l i c distribution, rental, public display, public
performance or other public c o m m u n i c a t i o n of the work. S i m p l y put, an
original work is the property of its author, a n d it can no longer be
publicly "recycled" without that author's permission.
In fact, the protection accorded by the law to the author of an
original work is so extensive that, even if the said author authorizes its
redistribution t h r o u g h assignment or licensing contracts, he/she still
retains "moral rights" over the work. " M o r a l rights", under Section 193 of

the IPC, include, among others, the right to be acknowledged as the

author of a work whenever it is p u b l i c l y used, a n d the right to object to
any distortion, modification or derogatory action i n relation to the
author's work, w h i c h w o u l d prejudice his/her h o n o r or reputation.
In s u m , the law respects a n d values the fact of authorship of
original works. Plagiarism u n d e r m i n e s the protection accorded by
intellectual property laws to authors because its effect is the
u n a u t h o r i z e d appropriation of an original idea a n d its subsequent
presentation as the plagiarist's o w n . However, p l a g i a r i s m per se is not
punishable as a crime under the I P C unless it also amounts to
c o p y r i g h t i n f r i n g e m e n t . The two acts are distinct because, among
others:
1. Copyright has a l i m i t e d t e r m of protection, i.e., d u r i n g the life of
the author a n d for fifty (50) years after his/her death. After this
t e r m , the original w o r k is deemed to have entered the "public
d o m a i n " a n d can already be freely used b y anyone. There is no
such t e r m l i m i t a t i o n for p l a g i a r i s m .
A helpful example can be derived from the illustration d r a w n by
Professor M i c h a e l R a w s o n for the members of the A m e r i c a n
Historical Association :
1

If a p e r s o n , for e x a m p l e , r e p u b l i s h e s a v o l u m e o f G e o r g e
B a n c r o f t ' s n i n e t e e n t h - c e n t u r y classie History
of the
United States of America
a n d c l a i m s to he t h e a u t h o r ,
he o r s h e c o m m i t s p l a g i a r i s m h u t n o t c o p y r i g h t
infringement, since the copyright e x p i r e d m a n y years
ago. The i n d i v i d u a l w o u l d suffer the c o n d e m n a t i o n of the
historical profession, a n d m a y have c o m m i t t e d f r a u d , but w o u l d
not have b r o k e n any c o p y r i g h t laws. If a p e r s o n , however,
incorporates a n entire chapter o f a m o r e recent
h i s t o r i c a l w o r k i n t o a n e w b o o k w i t h o u t the p e r m i s s i o n
o f the c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r , t h e p e r s o n is n o t guilty o f
p l a g i a r i s m i f h e o r s h e cites t h e s o u r c e . B u t the p e r s o n
d o e s i n f r i n g e o n t h e o r i g i n a l a u t h o r ' s c o p y r i g h t , whether
or not the w r o n g e d a u t h o r is p r o p e r l y credited. [ E m p h a s i s
supplied]

Thus, even i f plagiarism is c o m m i t t e d , there is no copyright

infringement if the copyright of the w o r k has already expired
a n d there is no longer any legal g r o u n d to enforce the copyright
M i c h a e l R a w s o n , P L A G I A R I S M : C U R R I C U L A R M A T E R I A L S F O R H I S T O R Y I N S T R U C T O R S , available
URL:
<http://v\ ww.historians.org/governance/pd/curriciilum/plagiarism
defining.htm>
(last
accessed
18
September 2012).
1

of the original author. Conversely, even i f there is no plagiarism

because there was no undue c l a i m of authorship, copyright
infringement will still be c o m m i t t e d if the w o r k was reproduced
without the authority of the copyright holder.
Plagiarism per se refers merely to the passing off of another
person's w o r k as one's own. W h e n e v e r this misrepresentation is
committed, plagiarism has already been c o m m i t t e d as well. The
IPC, on the other h a n d , provides for various exempting
circumstances that w o u l d absolve any person f r o m a charge of
copyright infringement. A m o n g others, the limitations to
copyright protection under the I P C are:
a. A n "idea, procedure, system, m e t h o d or operation,
concept, principle, discovery or mere data as such" is not
protected by copyright. F o r example, i n the case of
Joaquin v. Drilon, G.R. N o . 108946, 28 J a n u a r y 1999, the
Supreme Court has r u l e d that the mere format
and
concept of a dating game show is not copyrightable. Thus,
if another person decides to produce another dating game
show, he/she cannot be held liable for copyright
infringement. However, i f the show itself was reproduced
and broadcast without the broadcaster's permission,
copyright infringement w i l l have been c o m m i t t e d .
b. News of the day and other miscellaneous facts having the
character of mere items of press i n f o r m a t i o n , as well as
any official legislative, administrative or legal text, are not
copyrightable.
c. A n y w o r k of the G o v e r n m e n t of the P h i l i p p i n e s (e.g., laws,
rules, speeches, lectures, addresses, etc.) is not protected
by copyright, but the consent of the concerned
government agency shall be secured if a person wishes to
use such work for profit.
d. Use of materials i n a m a n n e r consistent w i t h Section 184
and the "fair use" doctrine i n Section 185 of the I P C
absolves a person from a copyright infringement claim.
Basically, the exemptions p r o v i d e d i n these provisions
refer to use of materials i n a m a n n e r that does not
u n d e r m i n e the interests of the author, e.g., use for notfor-profit or educational purposes or for mere private

c o n s u m p t i o n . The over-arching rule is that, whenever

applicable, the author a n d the w o r k are given proper
attribution a n d acknowledgement.
In s u m , plagiarism does not i n itself result i n a c r i m i n a l violation,
unless it also constitutes copyright infringement u n d e r the I P C . There is
infringement when any of the copyright or economic rights under
Section 177 of the I P C is violated b y another person, or when any of the
acts i n Section 217.3
c o m m i t t e d , a n d the said v i o l a t i o n or act cannot
be subsumed under any of the l i m i t a t i o n s or exemptions p r o v i d e d under
the same law.
a

If plagiarism amounts to copyright infringement, the imposable

penalty is one to three years of i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d a fine of 5 0 , 0 0 0 to
150,000 pesos for the first offense, three years a n d one day to six years of
i m p r i s o n m e n t and a fine of 1 5 0 , 0 0 0 to 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 pesos for the second
offense, a n d six years a n d one day to nine years of i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d a
fine of 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 to 1,500,000 pesos for the t h i r d a n d subsequent
offenses.
B. P l a g i a r i s m under the E - C o m m e r c e Act
If plagiarism is c o m m i t t e d i n the f o r m of "online piracy" by using
the internet or other t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s networks, a n d the same act
constitutes copyright infringement as discussed i n the preceding section,
the person c o m m i t t i n g it m a y also be h e l d c r i m i n a l l y liable under
R e p u b l i c A c t N o . 8792 (otherwise k n o w n as the E l e c t r o n i c C o m m e r c e
Act or " E - C o m m e r c e A c t " ) . U n d e r Section 33 (b) of the law:
Piracy
or
the
unauthorized
copying,
reproduction,
d i s s e m i n a t i o n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , i m p o r t a t i o n , use, r e m o v a l , a l t e r a t i o n ,
substitution,
modification,
storage,
uploading,
downloading,
c o m m u n i c a t i o n , m a k i n g available t o the p u b l i c , or b r o a d c a s t i n g of
protected m a t e r i a l , electronic s i g n a t u r e o r c o p y r i g h t e d w o r k s i n c l u d i n g
legally protected s o u n d r e c o r d i n g s o r p h o n o g r a m s or i n f o r m a t i o n
m a t e r i a l o n protected w o r k s , t h r o u g h the use of t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n
networks, such as, b u t not l i m i t e d to, the internet, i n a m a n n e r that
infringes intellectual p r o p e r t y rights s h a l l be p u n i s h e d by a m i n i m u m
fine of O n e h u n d r e d t h o u s a n d pesos ( P i o o , o o o . o o ) a n d a m a x i m u m
c o m m e n s u r a t e to the damage i n c u r r e d a n d a m a n d a t o r y i m p r i s o n m e n t
of six (6) m o n t h s t o three (3) years

The E - C o m m e r c e A c t aims to preserve the integrity of channels of

i n f o r m a t i o n and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s i n the country i n order to facilitate
lawful commerce and other e c o n o m i c activities. Thus, it penalizes acts

that use information and c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technology ("ICT") networks

to c o m m i t c r i m i n a l and other illicit activities. The p r o v i s i o n quoted
above, Section 33 (b) of the law, focuses o n copyright infringement
c o m m i t t e d online. T h u s , i n the context of plagiarism, if a person uses the
internet to appropriate the intellectual creation of another without
attribution (i.e., i n the form of "online piracy"), a n d such a p p r o p r i a t i o n
amounts to copyright infringement under the I P C , he/she w i l l likewise
be liable under the E - C o m m e r c e Act.
C. Plagiarism under the Cybercrime Prevention A c t
Signed into l a w o n 12 September 2012 by President Benigno S.
A q u i n o III, Republic A c t N o . 10175 (otherwise k n o w n as the "Cybercrime
Prevention Act" of 2012) seeks to keep I C T networks a n d facilities free of
c r i m i n a l activities. W h i l e the p r i m a r y focus of the Cybercrime Prevention
Act is the definition a n d p u n i s h m e n t of specific "cybercrimes" such as
cyber-attacks, online fraud, cybersex and c h i l d pornography, it also
provides for a general c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y for all other violations of the
Revised Penal Code and other special penal laws when c o m m i t t e d
through information a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technologies. Section 6 of the
law provides:
A l l crimes defined a n d p e n a l i z e d by the R e v i s e d P e n a l Code, as
a m e n d e d , a n d special laws, i f c o m m i t t e d by, t h r o u g h a n d w i t h the use
of i n f o r m a t i o n a n d c o m m u n i c a t i o n s technologies s h a l l be covered by
the relevant p r o v i s i o n s of this A c t : P r o v i d e d , T h a t the penalty to be
i m p o s e d shall be one (1) degree h i g h e r than that p r o v i d e d for by the
Revised Penal C o d e , as a m e n d e d , a n d special laws, as the case m a y be.

Therefore, pursuant to the aforequoted p r o v i s i o n , if an act of

plagiarism amounts to a copyright infringement under the IPC, a special
law, then the violator may likewise be held liable under the Cybercrime
Prevention Act i f he/she uses ICT for its c o m m i s s i o n .
S u m m a r i z i n g the law, p l a g i a r i s m i s p u n i s h a b l e a s a c r i m e i f
it was committed w i t h d e l i b e r a t e i n t e n t a n d a m o u n t s t o c o p y r i g h t
i n f r i n g e m e n t under the IPC. If copyright infringement was c o m m i t t e d ,
the violator can be h e l d liable under the IPC; i n a d d i t i o n , he/she can also
be h e l d liable under (1) the C y b e r c r i m e P r e v e n t i o n A c t , if the
plagiarism was c o m m i t t e d through an ICT network or facility like the
internet, and/or (2) the E - C o m m e r c e A c t , i f the plagiarism takes the
f o r m of "online piracy" as described i n Section 33 (b) of the law.

III. A D V I S O R Y
G i v e n the above, the following advisory points are issued:
1. P L A G I A R I S M S H O U L D B E A V O I D E D , R E G A R D L E S S O F
T H E P R E S E N C E O F S A N C T I O N S A G A I N S T IT.
Plagiarism is, at its core, theft of the intellectual property of
another. It is a specie of dishonesty, fraud a n d lack of integrity. W h i l e ,
u n d e r the law, p l a g i a r i s m per se does not automatically constitute a
crime, it is consistent w i t h m o r a l a n d ethical standards for every person
to refrain f r o m consciously c o m m i t t i n g it. The presence or absence of
sanctions against it s h o u l d not be the d e t e r m i n i n g factor for one's
conduct. W e must all strive to achieve the highest standards of public
discourse by ensuring that the ideas we express are products of our own
thought, a n d not merely copied f r o m u n w i t t i n g authors.
2. C U L T I V A T E T H E H A B I T O F A T T R I B U T I O N . W H E N
DOUBT, CITE.

IN

W h i l e there is only a specific class of acts w h i c h amount to

c r i m i n a l l y punishable violations of the I P C , the E - C o m m e r c e Act or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act, plagiarism s h o u l d still be strongly
discouraged i n all its forms and regardless of sanctions.
W i t h the proliferation of readily-available and
accessible
i n f o r m a t i o n via the internet a n d other ICT m e d i a , it has become veiy
easy to retrieve the same for whatever use or purpose. W i t h o u t
cultivating the habit o f attributing sources a n d o r i g i n a l works, persons
w h o routinely access data for their eveiyday use w i l l not develop the
discipline of differentiating between their o w n w o r k and those of
another, a n d at some p o i n t w i l l be called out for p l a g i a r i s m .
Being conscious of properly citing sources, once developed into a
habit, is the best protection against charges of p l a g i a r i s m . Whenever
there is doubt that a particular piece of i n f o r m a t i o n is already "public
knowledge" and requires no attribution, take a cautionary stance and
cite. Whenever there is doubt that the use of a material measures up to
the standards of "fair use" under the I P C , take the cautionary stance and
cite. W h e n i n doubt, cite. Unnecessary or superfluous citation is always
better than no citation at all.

3. E V E R Y O N E C A N B E A V I C T I M O F P L A G I A R I S M .
The generation of o r i g i n a l ideas and their expression i n whatever
f o r m is the h a l l m a r k of intellectual development. W h i l e p l a g i a r i s m is
mostly c o m m i t t e d i n an academic setting (especially i n the context of
violating prescribed citation a n d style rules), it does not mean that
intellectual works exhibited elsewhere enjoy less protection. Thus,
everyone can be a v i c t i m of p l a g i a r i s m , for as l o n g as o r i g i n a l ideas are
c o m m i t t e d to a f o r m readily available to the public.
The value attached to the originality of ideas is not d i m i n i s h e d by
the fact that such ideas are expressed i n blogs a n d other less f o r m a l
social m e d i a platforms. A person deliberately a p p r o p r i a t i n g them
without proper attribution w i l l still be c o m m i t t i n g p l a g i a r i s m , regardless
of the presence or absence of sanctions.
4. A L W A Y S B E V I G I L A N T
PLAGIARISM.

IN

DETECTING

CASES

OF

In an era of internet-based "cut-and-paste" research a n d w r i t i n g , it

is very easy to c o m m i t plagiarism w i t h i m p u n i t y . However, i f vigilance is
observed i n detecting cases of p l a g i a r i s m , violators w o u l d be h e l d to
account a n d rectify their errors. The vigilance of the p u b l i c w i l l also
create a powerful deterrent effect against potential acts of p l a g i a r i s m i n
the future and apply strong pressure on all writers a n d researchers i n the
public sphere to adhere to standards of intellectual honesty and
integrity.
Teachers and professors have l o n g acquired the skill of detecting
plagiarism among their students t h r o u g h several "tell-tale" signs like
inconsistent w o r d usage, shifting tones, a n d unusually sophisticated
language i n certain passages that stand out vis-a-vis the rest of the text.
These same techniques can be used to detect plagiarism i n other settings.
5. E N C O U R A G E
INSTITUTIONS
PLAGIARISM MEASURES.

TO

ADOPT

ANTI-

The value of intellectual honesty and integrity should not be a

purely academic concern. Other institutions like private corporations,
government offices, societies a n d associations s h o u l d be encouraged to
adopt anti-plagiarism measures. E v e n i f not strictly a crime, p l a g i a r i s m
should still be viewed as a pernicious act that reflects adversely on the
character of a person, i f done deliberately.
9

Thus, institutions should consider specifically

designating
plagiarism as a just cause for d i s c i p l i n a r y sanctions. This should apply
specifically to institutions whose w o r k s and activities are i m b u e d w i t h
public interest or are h i g h l y fiduciary i n nature, and those whose raison
d'etre is precisely the generation of original ideas.
P l a g i a r i s m s h o u l d not be tolerated a n d encouraged i n a society
w h i c h values honesty, diligence and integrity. It should be treated as
reprehensible conduct a n d s h o u l d not be allowed to proliferate s i m p l y
because no l a w specifically punishes it as a c r i m e per se. A t t r i b u t i n g
sources a n d acknowledging the progeny of o r i g i n a l ideas are consistent
w i t h the standards of morals, ethics a n d justice that everyone s h o u l d
subscribe to.
T h i s A d v i s o r y is issued by the D O J i n line w i t h its thrust to take a
proactive stance and a d y n a m i c approach i n c r i m i n a l justice concerns.
A l l are enjoined to disseminate a n d faithfully observe this Advisory.

Secretary

10

Republika ng Pilipinas
KAGAWARAN NG KATARUNGAN
Department of Justice
Manila

PRESS RELEASE
0 2 October 2012

DOJ ISSUES ADVISORYO N PLAGIARISM

The Department of Justice ("DOJ") issued Advisory Opinion No.

0 2 , Series of 2012 explaining the meaning of plagiarism in the context of
Philippine law and cases.
Consistent with the proactive stand of the D O J , the Advisory
Opinion addresses a recurring issue in the criminal justice system and
lays out the scope of protection of authors under the country's
intellectual property laws and sets out the liabilities for infringers.
"Plagiarism is a concept more understood in academic circles as an
offense against academic integrity anathema to the strict standards of
originality of scholarly works which members of the academic
community subscribe to. However, recent events brought to fore the
importance of knowing exactly what plagiarism is and to clarify the
misconception that there is no crime of plagiarism under our laws," said
Secretary of Justice Leila M . de Lima.
As the Advisory Opinion points out, plagiarism, which the Supreme
Court has described as the "deliberate and knowing presentation of
another person's original ideas or creative expressions as one's own", if
committed under certain circumstances, can amount to criminal
violation of the Intellectual Property Code, the E-Commerce Act or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act.
The Advisory provides guidance on how to avoid, prevent and
resolve plagiarism as it is recognized as an undesirable act that breaches
the standards of propriety by depriving another person of the fruits of
creativity.
The highlights are as follows:
1.

Plagiarism should be avoided, regardless of the presence of

2.
3.
4.
5.

sanctions against it.

Cultivate the habit of attribution. When in doubt, cite.
Everyone can be a victim of plagiarism.
Always be vigilant in detecting cases of plagiarism.
Encourage institutions to adopt anti-plagiarism measures.

With this Advisory Opinion, the D O J hopes to continue to build

community awareness and increase social trust for a peaceful and just
Republic.

Enclosed: Advisory Opinion No. 0 2 (Series of 2012)