lucky color fire engine red (& the plagiarism case against Justice del Castillo)

It’s a highly rating show, right? Lots of

people watch it. So you don’t need the

blog to tell you what the soothsayer

said – okay, she said fire engine red;

here’s what i’m wearing while typing

this, because i don’t want to give a

legal opinion, i’m just posting what i’m

wearing… skirt and scarf from

“Khrysta’s Kloset”, she auctioned off

designer clothes that her mom

brought home from her many travels

… “Khrysta’s Kollezion” has lots of red

skirts and shirts that you can easily

match with other items; the trick is

not to wear an all-red head-to-foot

outfit unless you’re you’re in your

Christmas party, maybe.

 

tips: 1.Don’t wear an all-red head-

to-foot get- up; just one item like a

tank, or a jacket, or bag or a slim skirt;

2.if you’re going to be in an all-white

ensemble, don’t wear white shoes; 3.if

you’re wearing a flashy skirt on an

ordinary day, wear an ordinary T-shirt

over it; or vice versa, on an ordinary

day, if you have nothing to wear but a

glitzy shirt, wear ordinary jeans – so

you’re never overdressed; 4.now is the

time to wear your boots, they’re

comfortable on rainy days in Manila,

so your feet won’t get wet; appropriate

on cloudy days, cold days, drizzle –

you’ll never get the chance to wear

them the rest of the year here in

the Philippines. If with skirt, you can

wear them with tights …. que mas

what else…i don’t wear paisley… my

blog hasbeen reduced to eye candy

(just visuals) , i should change the title

again, from”playground” to “eye

candy”. mga ayaw magbigay ng

opinion, people who don’t hand out

opinions like one-cent candies, just

turn their blogs into–eye candy.

But i should — give an opinion: the

Supreme Court majority decision

yesterday absolved Justice del Castillo

of plagiarism on the defense that he

had inadvertently omitted the

footnotes for attribution of the

sources (!). (from the Inquirer;

exclamation point supplied.) In her

dissent, Justice Meilou Sereno said:

“The text of the decision itself reveals

the evidence of plagiarism. The tearful

apology of the legal researcher to the

family of the ponente (the Justice)…is

an admission…” (quoted from the

Inquirer). The majority decision

throws into chaos all plagiarism cases

and proceedings in the University,

past and present; the respondent

can just quote the Supreme Court and

say “I forgot — i just forgot to put the

footnotes for the sources — the

Supreme Court held that to be a valid

defense…” And what about all those

cases that U.P. won in the Supreme

Court (where the respondents in

plagiarism cases had filed special civil

actions on jurisdiction) — we won

those cases, on jurisdiction, U.P.

maintained its expulsion sanctions.

According to the Inquirer’s

confidential sources, the Supreme

Court majority is considering issuing a

show-cause order to the U.P. Law

faculty for administrative sanctions

for its statement on plagiarism.

 

If that happens (the SC issuing a

show-cause order to the U.P. Law

faculty),and in the context of

defending its academic freedom and

protecting the integrity of plagiarism

cases in the University, U.P. at the

very least, should have a restatement

of its position on plagiarism, lest punishment for faculty members giving expert opinion be tolerated as a policy; lest the University be

deluged by hundreds of appeals from

cases that have been decided upon, or

be crippled by defenses of present-day

respondents.Defense pala yung : “Eh,

nakalimutan ko ilagay ang sources! “

(i didn’t know that i-forgot-to-

footnote- the- sources” was a defense

in plagiarism)