Muddling up case of athletic coaches

The Philippine Sports Commission decided through Board Resolutions that track and field coaches Joseph Sy and Roselyn Hamero “shall now be permanently removed/dropped from the PSC payroll” and “to ban Mr. Joseph Sy from entering PSC premises due to his money-lending activities which is contrary to PSC policy. Said action is being made by the Commission to protect the interest of the athletes.”

The curious decision has managed to raise eyebrows and more legal questions. One is whether what lawyers call substantive and procedural due process was observed.

At the heart of the matter is the autonomy of a national sports association (NSA), a right supposed to be guaranteed, promoted, protected and defended by the Olympic Movement through the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the National Olympic Committees (NOC).

This autonomy has, however,  to be viewed relative to the visitorial powers of government through the PSC for the simple reason that government funds are being expended for sports development at all levels. Issues like overstepping or overreaching by government come into the picture since, as we earlier stated, the two resolutions managed to  create confusion than clarification.

The PSC states that “the (fact finding or investigating?) committee was convened in order to review and provide recommendations regarding the suspension of the allowances of the Philippine Amateur Track and Field Association (PATAFA) coaches Roselyn Hamero and Joseph Sy “due to their neglect and constant absence during athlete’s training.”

The first task of the PSC Committee should have been to ask, in the exercise of its “visitorial” powers the coaches to show their “well-organized practice program” and also to ask the Commissioner who made a judgment that there was an absence of such a program to prove that there was indeed no program.

If the coaches had such a program, they could have been asked to explain the objectives, rationale and milestones of such a program. Without having gone through such a procedure, it is asked, what then was the basis, what standards were used to state there was “an absence of a well-organized team practice program?” Who is to say that a practice program is well-organized or not? Does the PSC have the technical expertise to make such pronouncements and judgments?

In the first place, who is supposed to formulate training programs? Doesn’t the PSC law itself grant the NSA the right to take care of the training needs (including choice of training venue) of NSAs? If the PSC or any other government entity were to impose its so-called “training program” on any NSA (assuming the PSC suddenly developed expertise to formulate a training program or managed to commission a reputable adviser without the consent of or even consultation with the NSA), would not such an imposition constitute government intervention  which  we repeat is supposed to be guaranteed under the Olympic Movement?

In the second place there was clearly no statements and agreements as to expectations, roles and responsibilities and even the process of transferring the main training camp to Baguio City and requiring the full-time presence of coaches.

 Even the PSC noted the absence of a contract between the PSC and the coaches when it concluded in its Report, “said coaches (especially those with athletes in the Priority Program should also enter into a separate contract with the PSC.”

In the absence of such contracts, how then can one fulfil one’s end of the bargain when there is no written document that precisely defines those expectations? How can then a committee conclude, in so many words, there was no compliance of the contract when there was no contract to begin with?

In the third place, the Committee pointed out that the coaches allowances were suspended “following his (the Commissioner’s) review of the three-year performance of PATAFA as a medal-rich sport in the Southeast Asian Games as a Priority Sport.”

Again, it is asked, what is the basis of the review? What standards or metrics were employed? Who set up these standards? Did those who set up the standards have the technical expertise to formulate credible standards? What about other so-called “medal-rich sports?”

 Were they too subject to the same technically-based review? If so, where are the results of such a review? What fate awaits those NSAs who are found to be “guilty” of having no “well-organized practice program?”

In the fourth place, one asks, if it is legal to ban an NSA coach from PSC premises, a public place? Is the banned person a threat to the security and safety of people in these venues? Isn’t there a danger of depriving a person’s basic right to pursue one’s livelihood in a public place totally unrelated to PSC programs and activities?

As I see it, the whole issue is ripe for litigation and, could ultimately lead to clarification from the highest court on rights and prerogatives of the various sports stakeholders and how one defines autonomy and visitorial power.