The Supreme Court Decision alleged to contain plagiarized passages has not become final and executory because a Motion for Reconsideration on the substance of that Decsion has not been ruled upon. Of course in A.M. 10-7-17-SC (the administrative matter In Re Del Castillo) the Court has basically ruled that there was no INTENTIONAL PLAGIARISM in the preparation of that Decision, indeed no plagiarism at all but merely "editing errors" by an unnamed assistant of the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.
I am prepared to concede this ruling simply because the Decision has not been promulgated as final and executory. There is only the potential of plagiarism being committed if it is promulgated AS IS, without the so-called "editing errors" being corrected or properly acknowledged.
In a way, the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner. By insisting there is NO PLAGIARISM in their April 28 Decision, they would have no reason to change anything relating to those passages not properly attributed without admitting that the Decision is invalid as it stands for the particular kind of FORM VIOLATION recognized internationally as plagiarism.
By a parity of reasoning however, if the Supreme Court allows the Decision to stand as is, and promulgates Vinuya v. Romulo as final and executory, a part of the Law of the Land, an official ACT of the Supreme Court of the Republic of the Philippines (SCoRP), then they could deservedly be accused of committing INTENTIONAL PLAGIARISM.
There is another interesting aspect of this. By filing a Motion for Reconsideration and supplementing that with the criticism that plagiarism objectively exists in the assailed Decision, Petitioners have actually given the Supreme Court an opportunity to correct the very grievous form violations of internationally accepted norms in using the intellectual works of others.
For imagine if there had been no Motion for Reconsideration and the Decision had passed into Law with finality and executory power, then the plagiarism was discovered!
I would say the Supreme Court owes the UP Law Faculty a debt of gratitude.