Danger of TROs in sports

Although the UAAP Board ruled NU center Matthew Aquino ineligible to play in the senior men’s basketball tournament this season, he still managed to log four games on the strength of a TRO that his father and former PBA star Marlou went to court for.

Aquino was declared ineligible because the UAAP Board ruled he could not have fulfilled the requirements of establishing a one-year residence at NU after transferring from Adamson. Aquino underwent extensive training in the US during his residency and was out of school for several months, prompting the UAAP Board to cancel his eligibility this season. In effect, Aquino violated the terms of his residency.

So NU started the season by beating UE, 72-66 and Ateneo, 70-60, without Aquino suiting up. But Aquino’s father sought legal redress and on the basis of a TRO issued by a Pasig City court, NU played his son in four games, two of which the Bulldogs won. In that stretch, NU lost to La Salle, 75-66, and Adamson, 64-51, then beat UST, 75-68 and UP, 80-69. The period was from Sept. 18 to Oct. 1.

Aquino, 19, is 6-9 like his father. In four games with NU, he averaged two points and 3.3 rebounds. He started in the win over UST and finished with five points and six boards in 20 minutes. Aquino was also a starter in the game against UP, going scoreless in 14 minutes.

After the TRO lapsed, the court dismissed Aquino’s appeal for a preliminary injunction and set the next hearing in February next year. Obviously, the next hearing is useless because the season will have been over by then. The dismissal affirmed the UAAP Board’s declaration of Aquino’s ineligibility.

* * * *

A source in the UAAP Board said it isn’t likely that NU will forfeit the two wins the Bulldogs scored with Aquino in uniform “out of respect for the court’s ruling on the TRO.” But since Aquino got to play four games, this season will be taken out of his remaining years of UAAP eligibility.

The practice of seeking redress from the courts undermines the authority, autonomy and integrity of any sports league. In 2007, the NCAA felt the brunt of a TRO when San Beda went to court to overturn a three-game suspension on Yousif Aljamal for failing to advise the league of his application for the PBA draft while still active as a college player. Aljamal was initially suspended for the rest of the season but the NCAA reduced it to three games. The TRO negated the suspension. In 2004, the NCAA also took it on the chin from a TRO that Letran got to do away with Frederick Rodriguez’s one-game suspension for an unsportsmanlike foul.

To address the looming threat of more TROs to come, the NCAA set down a rule to suspend any school seeking redress from the courts with the justification that the league is an association which members join and pledge to abide by its guidelines. So in the NCAA, there is no longer danger of a TRO threatening to disturb the conduct of league competitions.

It’s different in the UAAP. In 2013, UP swimmer Mikee Bartolome challenged the UAAP Board’s rule to sit out two years from high school graduation for transferring from one UAAP school to another. A TRO cleared the way for Bartolome to compete for UP without residency. The rule was later struck out on the basis of a law authored by Sen. Pia Cayetano granting a high school graduate the freedom to choose his or her college without a residency requirement. In this case, the UAAP Board was wrong from the start.

Aquino’s recent move, however, has opened the door for more TROs to put the UAAP Board to task. Someone said a court will issue a TRO only on cases involving policies such as eligibility and not on cases that are game-related like the suspension of a player because of unsportsmanlike conduct. But what will stop anyone from trying to squeeze out a TRO if a player or a coach is suspended?

* * * *

When La Salle coach Aldin Ayo was recently suspended for a game because of an ejection, he could’ve gone to court and appealed for a TRO. The game where he served his suspension was against Ateneo. Assuming Ayo got a TRO, the UAAP Board wouldn’t have been able to stop him from coaching the game against Ateneo. It would’ve been a no-loss situation for Ayo because there is no penalty for taking out a TRO against the league. Of course, that didn’t happen as Ayo served out his suspension.

If there is no penalty for anyone seeking redress to challenge a league ruling, the situation could get out of hand. Any school or player can try to get a TRO because you don’t lose anything by doing it. Aquino’s case is a clear example. If the UAAP Board does not forfeit the games he played in, it sets a frightening precedent. He sacrificed one year of his eligibility but the outcomes of the games where he played were not affected.

If a player is suspended one game and gets a TRO to stop the enforcement of the ban, it’s in direct defiance of authority. But with the TRO, he’s able to put one over the league. Once the TRO lapses, it’s back to normal and the player isn’t made to pay for what he did. Something is wrong with this process.

The UAAP Board must rethink its protocol on how to deal with TROs. If NU’s two wins with Aquino are not forfeited, it means the UAAP Board is acknowledging his eligibility to play which is contradictory to its policy. It also means the UAAP is allowing itself to be dictated by external forces in the conduct of its affairs – an extremely delicate situation. Perhaps, the UAAP should take a hard-line policy against TROs or court intervention like the NCAA. It’s an issue that must be tackled now before all hell breaks loose.