
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)
click any social media icon below to share