Courts of last resort?

What does it mean when student-athletes take to the court in an attempt to overturn a rule or decision established by their league? Are they usurping authority or merely exercising protection of their basic freedoms? That is precisely the question the UAAP faces.

Earlier this week, former University of Santo Tomas high school swimmer Mikee Bartolome sought and was granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) by a Quezon City court against the UAAP to allow her to compete for the University of the Philippines in this season’s senior swimming competition. 

“All persons acting for and in behalf of the defendant are hereby ordered to cease and desist from imposing the two-year residency rule and allow the plaintiff Anna Dominique A. Bartolome to be eligible in the UP swimming line-up so that she can participate in the UAAP swimming competition senior division this coming Sept. 19, 2013,” presiding judge Manuel Sta. Cruz, Jr. said in a resolution issued with the TRO September 3.

After receiving a lot of flak over imposing a mandatory two-year residency rule preventing graduating UAAP high school athletes from immediately jumping to rival UAAP college programs, the league took a step back and gave the schools the discretion to decide a student-athlete’s release on a case-to-case basis. Each school was given the right to decide when to impose the residency rule, and on which athletes, as they saw fit.

This is the second time this season that the UAAP has been the object of a temporary restraining order. Three weeks ago, the General family filed for a 30-day TRO to allow their graduating son Jozhua to play out his last few games for the Junior Fighting Maroons. General was suddenly banned from playing after a historic quadruple-overtime win against Adamson in the first round of this year’s juniors basketball competition. Just this week, UPIS registered what will be considered its first “official” win as it beat Far Eastern University, 55-51, in a second-round assignment. The question now is how each of those victories will be reflected in the league’s records, and the history books, for that matter.

Fortunately for General, he will have played his final game for UPIS by the time his TRO expires. Bartolome will not be so fortunate. As of now, the UAAP has said it will respect the decision of the court. But once the TRO expires, the handcuffs will be off, and the league will be able to re-impose its residency rule. Bartolome’s legal representation is hoping for an extension of the TRO since the swimming season is just about to start.

When this issue first broke out, Junel Baculi, athletics director of then-host National University, admitted on this writer’s live television program Hardball that they were doing this “to protect ourselves from each other”. The issue prompted former varsity athlete Sen. Pia Cayetano to conduct a public hearing to look into the matter. But any legislation that may result, if any, will take time, and cannot be enforced retroactively. By then, the issue will have died down, at least until another high-profile case comes to the media’s attention.

It is sad that athletes now have to resort to the protection of the legal system to fight for their rights in what they perceive is an unjust system ruling them. Is it a question of the style of leadership in sports leagues in the Philippines?

If we were to compare school sports leagues in psychological and sociological research, there may be a perception that they are managed in what is broadly called the â€œold school” style. The technical – and admittedly stereotypical – term used by researchers in studying organizations is “traditionalist”, wherein the authority figure (usually the leader and normally born between the 1920’s to mid-1940’s) has the final say on everything, and decisions are all made in a vertical (top-down) management style. Once the leader speaks, his word is law. Many families also operated this way, with the father the ultimate decision-maker. This was the most conservative, efficient, effective way they knew how to do things then. It was also the best way to preserve the status quo for a longer period of time.

The next generation was considered the “baby boomers,” coined from the millions of servicemen who returned home from the war flush with money and wanting to start families. Those of this generation were born from the mid-1940’s to the mid-1960’s. They are more flexible, and consider the consensus of the organization in making their decisions. However, the downside to this stereotype is that they value the power of their organization above all, and tend to micro-manage subordinates. If the leadership of an organization has a combination of these two generations (as in the majority of the UAAP board), then their management style would reflect the values of both organizations, where the rule of the organization is paramount. Even the schools that voted against or abstained from voting on the residency rule have to abide by it.

Let us also remember that school sports leagues predominantly follow the leadership structure of the schools themselves, where it is generally very difficult to contradict what the establishment says and does. Schools are likewise very top-down in management style, with a few exceptions. Since schools are entrusted with our children, they would have a tendency to be more protective, strict and authoritarian. Who wants to answer to dissatisfied or angry parents? You never know how lenient is too lenient. However, as earlier stated, there are times when the organizational might and structure becomes the overriding imperative.

This is why parents also rose up in arms against the residency rule. They are looking for the best opportunities for their children to have a brighter future in spite of economic struggles. Instead of tuition, their children sacrifice and give off their talent as athletes, taking on the extra burden of practicing and playing while studying. The children also do it to pay back their parents and as a sign of support. It is a fair trade. That’s why the schools give them scholarships.

When all is said and done, the student-athletes have done their part. The contract to play for the school has been fulfilled. So why can’t they be free to go to another school where they can further fulfill their potential and use their skills as fair barter for an education they would otherwise not get? As Mikee Bartolome says, UP is her “dream school.” Why should her old school curtail that dream for its own reasons? Isn’t the priority of the school the welfare of its students? Isn’t that why parents entrust their children with a particular school? There seems to be a disparity in the schools’ unwritten promise to do what is best for our children, and the interests of the sports organization the school is part of.

A child never benefits from being shackled. As parents, we know better than to try to kill our offsprings’ spirit.