Curtailing a human right

Let’s forget about where we went to school for a moment. Let’s forget about partisan sports. Let’s forget about what school team we’re cheering for and which school team we loathe. If we can be calmly objective, let’s talk about this new UAAP rule imposing a two-year residency on a high school graduate athlete transferring from one UAAP institution to another (high school to university) without securing a release or clearance, effective immediately.

It’s no secret that this rule was proposed to penalize FEU high school star Jerie (Koko) Pingoy who apparently signed a document confirming he would play for the Tamaraws senior varsity after graduation. Pingoy was the beneficiary of an FEU scholarship and other perks. When it came to finally deciding where to play after high school graduation, Pingoy chose Ateneo. FEU officials were furious. They felt betrayed by an ungrateful protégé.

Traditionally, when the UAAP Board ratifies a rule change, it is made effective after the incoming season for schools to adjust to the ramifications, particularly with regard to recruiting efforts. Schools will have recruited players or formulated gameplans based on the previous season’s rules. But in Pingoy’s case, the UAAP Board acted with incredible dispatch.

To avoid the accusation of singling out Pingoy, the UAAP Board justified the new rule by covering all high school graduate athletes regardless of sport, making the injustice widespread. Now, a UST high school swimmer on scholarship will be required a two-year residency if he transfers to UP after graduation for college if he is unable to obtain a release. But what if that particular athlete chooses to move to UP for reasons other than sports-related? What if that athlete wants to take up a course that is a specialty at UP but would like to continue swimming at the same time? Will his high school deprive him of that option by dangling a two-year residency sword over his head?

* * * *

A high school provides a scholarship for an athlete in exchange for that athlete to play for the varsity. The obligation of that athlete to the high school ends once he graduates. The commitment does not carry over to college. In the case of a high school athlete signing a contract, there is no legal basis to hold him to it, perhaps only a moral basis. A high school athlete would probably be underage to enter into a contract in the first place. Besides, an amateur athlete is not supposed to enter into a contract to play – he isn’t a professional athlete.

A school that prohibits a high school graduate athlete, whether on scholarship or not, to choose the university or college to enroll in without restriction is curtailing a basic human right. If the school is unable to persuade a high school graduate athlete to enroll in its college program, it only has itself to blame. The school is in the best position to convince the athlete to stay on but if he decides otherwise, that is his prerogative. No school should be a stumbling block to a high school graduate choosing to enroll in a university or college, regardless of NCAA or UAAP affiliation. It is heartless and inhuman for a school to impose a two-year residency for a high school graduate athlete to move from a UAAP high school to a university with another UAAP affiliation unless he is released.

This rule will only create situations for athletes to wiggle their way out of a two-year sit. For instance, Pingoy could move to an NCAA school from high school, with or without clearance from FEU, then take a one-year residency to transfer to a UAAP college. This way, he sits out only one year, not two, while staying active one year with an NCAA school. The UAAP Board requires only a one-year residency for an athlete transferring from an NCAA school to a UAAP school while already enrolled in college. This kind of maneuvering will make a mockery of the UAAP rule which is unjust in the first place.

A high school graduate, whether an athlete or not, must be free to choose which college to enroll in for whatever purpose or reason he has. That is a human right. The high school phase of his athletic career is distinct from the college phase and should not be interconnected. The out-clause of a release could only lead to back-door dealing, loophole-finding and horse-trading which destroy the essence of sportsmanship.

* * * *

By the same token, the UAAP Board is making immediately effective a rule imposing a two-year residency on foreign students in the school they will play for. The previous rule was a foreign player had to establish a two-year residency in the country, not necessarily in his school. Under ordinary circumstances, this modification should take effect after the incoming season but because prized recruit Benoit Mbala has enrolled at La Salle after staying a year in Cebu, the UAAP Board ganged up on the player to impose a two-year residency.

Mbala was recruited by La Salle on the presumption of the prevailing eligibility rule on foreign players. Since he had stayed a year in the country, Mbala would’ve had to sit out just one year at La Salle before gaining eligibility to play in the UAAP. With the new rule, he now has to sit out two years. Obviously, the rule adjustment was made to stall Mbala’s entry. How unfair is that? The UAAP Board must be guided by principles of integrity, fairness, justice and sportsmanship without meaning to single out players for persecution or disenfranchisement. But in Mbala’s case, it is crystal clear he was the target of a rule that was fast-tracked to delay his eligibility.

Through the years, the UAAP Board has gained a notorious reputation as a hatchet man, out to protect selfish interests at the expense of values and principles which the UAAP schools are known for. Pingoy and Mbala are victims of a cruel UAAP Board with no regard for basic human rights. How many more players will be prejudiced by the UAAP Board? Shouldn’t the UAAP school presidents step in and stop the UAAP Board from overstepping its authority and trampling on the rights of innocent student athletes?

Sen. Pia Cayetano has threatened to file a case against the UAAP Board precisely for curtailing the human right of a high school graduate freely choosing a college or university to enroll in. Will she push through with her threat and how far will she go in protecting the rights of student athletes? The UAAP season is set to start June 29. Unless the UAAP Board is suddenly enlightened by a conscience call or charged in court, there will unfortunately be student victims prejudiced by unfair rules this year.