PRISAA's Angeles responds

I received a letter from Dr. Emmanuel Angeles, Private Schools Athletic Association (PRISAA) National chairman dated January 22, 2011. My copy of the letter was sent to me by Dr. Aparicio Mequi of Foundation University in Dumaguete after I told him that I hadn’t received my copy of Dr. Angeles’s letter which, I assumed the latter sent to The Philippine Star. This should therefore explain the delay in printing Dr. Angeles’s response to my column of Dec. 29, 2010.

In the interest of fair play, I am reproducing in full the letter of Dr. Angeles to me: “Dear Mr. Juico, This has reference to your article published in The Philippine Star on Dec. 29, 2010 regarding the PRISAA.

“I wish to inform you that the circulating manifesto is just being made by Dr. Aparacio Perry Mequi for his personal reasons. The PRISAA has been very stable (and) is being managed by a board of 17 members, who are presidents of private colleges and universities in their respective region(s), representing 17 regions of the country. The board elected me as (its) chairman for reviving this prestigious organization in 1990 upon the encouragement and support of then PSC chairman Cecil Hechanova.

“The election of officers is being done by PRISAA member-schools of each region and the duly-elected regional president automatically becomes (a) member of the national board. Each region is accountable (for) the funds which they collect from their member-schools and are subject to audit. The conduct of their activities (is) very transparent which is being audited by an independent certified public accountant.

“PRISAA has very clear mission, vision and goals to develop athletes at no expense ( to neither) the government nor the Philippine Sports Commission, Philippine Olympic Committee or any of the national sports association(s). PRISAA also boasts of having trained and developed sprinters Lydia de Vega and Elma Muros; famous cagers Jerry Codiñera, Marlou Aquino and Joseph Feihl, among many others.

“I hope this will merit publication in your column to correct the misimpression that you have created.

“Thank you.

“Very truly yours, Emmanuel Angeles (SGD), PRISAA national chairman”.

We would like to thank Dr. Angeles for responding to our column. I must however point out that I have not created any misimpression about how Dr. Angeles is running the affairs of the PRISAA. I was merely reporting the fact that the PRISAA handbook states “the positions of chairman and vice chairman of the board/national president are not subject to election. The incumbent chairman of the board (Dr. Angeles) shall serve as long as he wants to.”

I can understand why the vice chairman of the board/national president is not subject to election. The same handbook offers the answer: “the regional president of the host region for the PRISAA national games shall automatically assume the position of vice chairman of the board/national president”. This means that the vice chairmanship/national presidency is a revolving chairmanship/presidency, depending on who is the regional president of the host region for the PRISAA national games.

What I cannot understand however is why “the incumbent chair shall serve as long as he wants to”. I’m sure we can all empathize with the millions of courageous Egyptians who have been trying for more than a week to drag president Hosni Mubarak out of the presidency. Mubarak has been president of Egypt (a staunch American ally) for 30 years and has plans of having a son succeed him to the presidency. Egyptians opposed to Mubarak denounce the latter for his corrupt regime which has impoverished the nation and further worsened the lot of the poor.

Such a provision in the PRISAA handbook is not consistent with the principles of good governance and accountability since the incumbent PRISAA chairman cannot be removed even if he commits grievous crimes. Stakeholders must not be deprived of the right to remove any leader of any association when the latter is found to be wanting in many respects. Having such a provision in any charter or handbook shows disrespect for the dignity of the human being since such a provision deprives human beings of the right to seek redress and to make intelligent choices. Such a provision reminds us of the days of Ferdinand Marcos who had practically declared himself president for life. And for Marcos, he simply played out what Lord Acton had warned humanity of: “absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

It may serve Dr. Angeles cause (and those who steadfastly support him) if he does clarify this provision in the PRISAA handbook and take the necessary actions that will result in more transparency.

A simple fact probably ought to be highlighted at this time: Consent of the governed is the essence of democracy.