This is in response to the article titled “Gov’t lawyers scored for using Wikipedia in the past face new charges.” (Inquirer, 6/5/11)
First of all, the administrative complaint filed by Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz before the Office of the President against Assistant Solicitor General (ASG) Rex Bernardo Pascual and me has no legal ground to stand on. Sec. 9, paragraph 3 of Administrative Memorandum (AM) No. 02-11-10-SC (The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) already mandates that “it shall be the duty of the public prosecutor to appear for the State at the pre-trial,” not the OSG. Thus, the pre-trial and the trial can proceed even without the OSG’s notice of appearance and deputation. There is therefore no positive duty for which I can be held accountable.
In the meantime, while I was on sick leave, Solicitor General Cadiz directed another lawyer from ASG Pascual’s division to prepare the pre-trial brief in that case as well as to travel to Davao City at the expense of the government to personally file the pre-trial brief and to attend the pre-trial conference.
At any rate, the delay in the filing of the notice of appearance and letter of deputation by me did not cause any damage or prejudice to the parties in this case, as the same is still awaiting trial on the merits before the lower court. It must be noted that I recently received an order from the trial court resetting the hearing of the case to Sept. 6, 2011.
Secondly, the OSG did not lose that annulment case I also handled solely for citing Wikipedia. Although the Court of Appeals did comment on the use of the online resource, records will show that the OSG opposed the petition for the annulment of marriage by citing several legal arguments based on five earlier Supreme Court decisions.
More importantly, there is nothing improper in citing Wikipedia as a reference in support of a legal argument. The Supreme Court itself has cited articles from Wikipedia as authority in several cases, notably: Tandoc v. People (GR No. 150648, Nov. 23, 2007); Sagales v. Rustan’s (GR No. 166554, Nov. 27, 2008); Royal Cargo v. DFS (GR No. 158621, Dec. 10, 2008); and COA v. Link Worth (GR No. 182559, March 13, 2009).
I hope this clarifies the matter.
—BERNADETTE O. ESGUERRA,
state solicitor,
Office of the Solicitor General