Humblebola

By: Atty. Toby Pavon

“Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”

This is the legal maxim on which the UAAP board is (most probably) resting its justification for the new transfer rules intended to be implemented in the following seasons.

In its press briefing, the UAAP released the following statement:

“The University Athletic Association of the Philippines (UAAP) has officially approved a revised rule on eligibility for student-athletes transferring from one member school to another at the collegiate level.

This development was announced by UAAP Executive Director Atty. Rebo Saguisag and the league’s Board of Managing Directors during the Season 87 press conference held at the Novotel on Wednesday.

Under the new regulation, student-athletes who transfer between UAAP member schools will still be required to sit out one year, as before. However, the revised rule will now deduct two years from their eligibility.

The new rule will be effective starting the 2024-25 school year and will be applicable across all collegiate sports.

“The UAAP, as a collegial body, decided that any transfer made after the academic year 2023-2024 will not only incur the usual residency requirement but will now be charged with an additional eligibility year, making it a total of two years,” said Atty. Saguisag.

He further clarified, “In simpler terms, the residency period will remain the same but only the playing years of the transferee will be affected.”

This change means that a UAAP freshman who transfers to a different member school will have only two remaining playing years at their new university while a sophomore will only have a year remaining to play for his or her new school if he or she decides to transfer.”

Further statements made during the press conference provided that the UAAP Board is ready to defend the new rule if argued by the senate.

UAAP director Saguisag on the new eligibility rule:

– They are ready to "defend" their new rule if argued by the senate, says that's the beauty of "democracy."

– Reason for new rule was to have league "balance"

— Naveen Ganglani (@naveenganglani) September 4, 2024

There might be a need to argue this rule because of the existence of the Student-Athlete Protection Act or R.A. No. 10676.

Under this law, athletic associations have been prohibited from imposing excessively onerous residency rules on student-athlete transferees which hamper their ability to develop their talent. It is the effect of this law that has empowered and emboldened student-athletes in seeking opportunities in their “dream schools”.

However, recent developments have seen schools and fans alike crying foul of what may be perceived as an abuse of this law. UE’s star player Rey Remogat sent shockwaves across the league when he announced his transfer to UP. More recently, Mason Amos decided he’d rather be green than blue, switching from Ateneo to storied rival De La Salle.

Schools have been powerless to stop their student-athletes from transferring, a matter that is actually desirable considering the rights and well-being of the student-athlete should be the paramount consideration of these amateur athletic associations. But allegations of “poaching” continue to be hurdled from one school to another, giving rise to the issue of fairness and balance.

Top athletes from “smaller” schools have been allegedly lured away, enticed to transfer to “bigger” schools by alleged offers of undisclosed amounts and benefits. This alleged trend of schools recruiting the best players of other schools, gives an advantage to the schools with the deepest pockets that can offer the most benefits to the most top talents. The whole enterprise running counter to the spirit of amateurism that the UAAP is supposedly trying to keep.

Aside from this, the ease by which student-athletes can transfer has disrupted the athletics programs of some schools, leaving coaches to have to regain ground lost when a student-athlete they’ve helped develop opts to leave.

In an attempt to put a stop to this transferring trend, the UAAP’s new rule seeks to exploit a blind spot in the law by instead of imposing additional residency years, penalizing the student-athlete by shortening their overall eligibility.

With regard to residency rules and preventing student-athletes from transferring, the Student Athlete Protection Act has this to say:

“Section 4. Residency of Student-Athletes. – Without prejudice to the respective rules of athletic associations on student-athletes who are foreign imports, the following rules on residency shall be applied:

(a) Residency requirement shall not be imposed on a student-athlete who is a high school graduate enrolling in a college or university;

(b) Residency requirement shall likewise not be imposed on a high school student-athlete transferring from one high school to another high school: Provided, That, to address the issue of piracy, a maximum of one (1) year residency may be imposed by an athletic association on a high school student-athlete who transfers from one member school to another;

(c) In the case of a tertiary student-athlete transferring from one college or university to another, a maximum of one (1) year residency may be imposed by an athletic association before a student-athlete could participate and represent a school in any athletic competition; and

(d) The residency rules mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall likewise apply to a Filipino student-athlete from other countries enrolling in a school in the Philippines.

No school, or its representative, shall be authorized to perform the following acts on a student-athlete on the sole reason of his/her transfer to another school:

(1) File an administrative charge for possible violation of school rules and regulations;

(2) Require the payment of tuition and other miscellaneous fees covered by the scholarship granted, including monies given and the cash equivalent of non-monetary benefits received;

(3) Refuse to issue or delay the release of grades and school records, clearance, or transfer eligibility;

(4) Give incomplete grades in subjects in which the student-athlete is exempted by virtue of being a student-athlete; and

(5) Impose other forms of punishment.”

The UAAP cleared the bar on the first paragraph of Section 4 when it maintained that only 1 year of residency would be required. Clear as day, that requirement is lawful. It is in hurdling the second paragraph that the UAAP had to be more creative.

Let’s be clear, docking a playing year for the sole reason of wanting to transfer schools is a punishment on a student-athlete.

All the prohibitions regarding imposing of a punishment on a transferring student-athlete are imposed against “schools” or “its representatives”. “Its representatives” usually means their alumni associations, boosters, backers, sponsors and the like. Nothing in the provision states that an athletic association cannot impose the same punishments on a student-athlete.

In enacting this new rule, the league has in effect decided collectively to punish student-athletes who transfer, instead of the individual schools doing the punishing. This becomes an act of the league instead of the act of the school.

There is also an argument to be made that this is still the act of the schools since the athletic association is comprised of the said schools and it is the administrators of the schools that decided upon the new rule, hence they are still responsible for the punishment being imposed.

In any case, the UAAP is (most probably) relying on the fact that the Student-Athlete Protection Act does not explicitly prohibit them from imposing the back-ended punishment on transferring athletes, to legally defend this new rule.

While it’s true that a law like this should be interpreted in a way that brings life to the spirit of the law, which would prevent athletic associations from imposing punishments on transferring student-athletes on behalf of their member schools, the fact that it is penal in nature against the schools and athletics association means that a verba legis interpretation is required.

“The time-honored principle is that penal statutes are construed strictly against the State and liberally in favor of the accused.” People vs. Luzviminda Valdez, G.R. No. 216007-09, December 8, 2015

It is but normal for an athletics association to address the concerns of their member schools. In so addressing those concerns, as in this case, it is once again the student-athletes that are left to carry the burden of their schools’ interests. “Play for us, or else.”