The Philippine Daily Inquirer (PDI) reports that the Office of the Solicitor General lost a a declaration of nullity case because it cited Wikipedia as a source.
Reporter Nikko Dizon failed to properly contextualize the news. The news has important repercussions of the decision of the Court in rules of evidence, legal research and legal citations.
It's difficult to opine if the Courts disapproval of using Wikipedia forms a general rule or applies only on (1) government agencies such as the Office of the Solicitor General "with all its access and manpower" and/or (2) declaration of nullity case based on psychological incapacity.
If the petition was based on the ground of psychological incapacity (Art. 36), Molina doctrine applies (Republic v. Molina, 268 SCRA 198)
Molina Doctrine, penned by former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, requires that the psychological incapacity must be proven by expert witness, except when there is a overwhelming evidence of the incapacity (Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755). It is interesting to note that the former Chief Justice Panganiban used Wikipedia in discussing the enrolled bill doctrine, as in used in Great Britain, in his separate opinion in the E-VAT Case.
It requires an expert witness or sources. In the case reported in the PDI, the Court qualified the information from Wikipedia as "unreliable," and "mere allegation totally unsupported by authority." The Court said that Wikipedia is not an "expert source." According to the newspaper, Wikipedia as "an online source that 'makes no guarantee of validity' of information."
The practice of citing Wikipedia as a source was initiated by Associate Justice Carpio-Morales "who first used Wikipedia in the Supreme Court in her dissenting opinion to the Resolution of the infamous La Bugal-B'laan case in 2004 when she defined 'open pit mining'." The Supreme Court Justice used the online source again on her dissenting opinion in JBC vs. De Castro (March 2010) to define "primus interpares."
The Supreme Court also used Wikipedia in defining medical conditions. The current Chief Justice Reynato Corona used Wikipedia to define 'Congenital Adrenal Hypeplasia' and 'intersexuality' in the landmark case Republic vs. Cagandahan (September 2008).
According to Internet Advocate Philippines, Wikipedia was "cited by the Supreme Court in the Rationale for the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases (A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC). It was also cited in the following cases: MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, G.R. No. 155282, 17 January 2005; Tandoc vs. People, G.R. No. 150648, 23 November 2007; Republic of the Philippines vs. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, 12 September 2008; Sagales vs. Rustan's Commercial Corporation, G.R. No. 166554, 27 November 2008; Royal Cargo Corporation vs. DFS Sports Unlimited, Inc., G.R. No. 158621, 10 December 2008; COA vs. Link Worth International, Inc., G.R. No. 182559, 13 March 2009."
In American jurisprudence, Wikipedia has been used in over 400 cases.
References:
Dizon, Nikko. Gov't loses case for citing Wikipedia. Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 29, 2009.
Internet Advocate Philippines, November 2009. Citing Internet Sources And Legal Blogs In Court Decisions. Visited: August 29, 2010. http://iaphil.org/citing-internet-sources-and-legal-blogs-in-court-decisions/
Magazine of Normative & Developmental Law, September 27, 2009. Wikipedia: A new tool for lawyers? Visited: August 29, 2010. http://www.mndlaw.net/?p=12
--
Lawrence P. Villamar
Bachelor in Public Administration and Governance
Mobile number: 0999.598.1254
Email: lawrence.villamar@gmail.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment