Lawyer. vegetarian. ashtangi. Subscribe (it's free!) or click "Skip to Content" below
Just to update the post below (yesterday’s), the Inquirer reports today that a show- cause order was issued yesterday by the Supreme Court (in a vote of 10-3) against the U.P. Law faculty, asking them to explain why they should not be cited in contempt. (see the newspapers for details)
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)
Norman Posecion, “Untitled II”, Oil on Canvas, 122 x 91 cms., 2003. Downloaded with express permission from the site of the Kulay-Diwa Gallery at www.kulay-diwa.com , maraming salamat po!
The Dissent. From then Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato Puno Jr., Dissenting opinion, In Re Emil Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037 April 6, 1995:
XXXX
Quote “XXXX Indeed, nothing in the record show that any person lost faith in our system of justice because of his (Emil Jurado’s) said report. Even the losing party in G.R. No. 94374. Eastern Telephone Philippines, Inc., (ETPI) does not appear to have given any credence to the said false report. I submit that it is not every falsehood that should incur the Court’s ire, lest it runs out of righteous indignation. Indeed, gross falsehood, vicious lies, and prevarications of paid hacks cannot deceive the public any more that can they cause this Court to crumble. If we adopt the dangerous rule that we should curtail speech to stop every falsehood we might as well abolish freedom of speech for there is yet to come a man whose tongue tells only the truth. In any event, we should take comfort in the thought that falsehoods cannot destroy only truth does but only to set us free.
Quote “XXXXX Respondent is a columnist and he does not only write straight news reports but interprets events from his own distinct prism of perception. As a columnist and like any other columnist, he has his own predilections and prejudices and he bends his views in accord with his own slant of faith. I see no reason to penalize respondent for the slants in his views, however, unpleasant and irreverent they may be to the court. When we start punishing a columnist for slants in his views, we shall soon be seeking slits to look for witches among them.
XXXX
Quote “XXXX There is an appropriate remedy against abusive press newsmen. I submit, however, that the remedy is not to be too quick in wielding the power of contempt for that will certainly chain the hands of many newsmen. Abusive newsmen are bad but laundered news is worse.
Quote “Eight. Again, with due respect, I submit that the majority misappreciates the role of the press as a critic of government in a democratic society. The Constitution did not conceive the press to act as the cheerleader of government, including the judiciary. Rather, the press is the agent (footnote 29) of the people when it gathers news derogatory to those who hold the reins of government. The agency is necessary because the people must have all available information before they exercise their sovereign judgment. As well observed: “The newspapers, magazines, and other journals of the country, it is safe to say, have shed and continue to shed, more light on the public and business affairs of the nation than any other instrument of publicity; and since informed public opinion is the most potent of all restraints upon misgovernment the suppression of abridgment of the publicity afforded by a free press cannot be regarded otherwise than with grave concern.” (footnote 30). As agent of the people, the most important function of the press in a free society is to inform and it cannot inform if it is uninformed. We should be wary when the independent sources of information of the press dry up, for then the press will end up printing “praise” releases and that is no way for the people to know the truth.
Quote “In sum, I submit, that the equation chosen by the majority has the pernicious effects of hobbling the writing hand of newsmen and of chilling the sources of information of the press. The majority can snicker against the “bleeding heart” liberalism but this is a vain attempt to use a fig leaf to conceal its niggardly regard for freedom of speech and of the press. In a large measure, I fear that the majority opinion will weaken the press as an informed and informative source of information of the sovereign people. In so doing, it will unwittingly erode the people’s right to discover the truth. The protection we give to the sanctity of the sources of information of the press is for the benefit of the people. It is designed to benefit all of us, keep us above the cloud of ignorance. Democracy cannot bloom where sovereignty is rooted on the top soil of an ignorant mass.
Quote “I vote not to hold the respondent in contempt of court.” Closed-quote. – then Justice (now Chief Justice) Reynato Puno Jr., In Re Emil Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037 April 6, 1995.
