PDA

View Full Version : Whatever Happened to the UAAP's Reply to La Salle's Request for Clarification?



nel
06-09-2006, 06:22 PM
It's been over a month since La Salle submitted a letter to the UAAP requesting for clarifications. The only feedback on record has been Anton Montinola's comments in the papers that the board is willing to "dialogue" with La Salle regrading the issues.

As far as I'm aware, common courtesy dictates that a formal reply is the correct response in this situation. Can anyone provide any updates?

jembengzon
06-10-2006, 08:13 AM
i'll build on this point, but in a broader sense as well:* what actions have been done by the league about the falsification of public documents, which has a criminal liability ?* is this the usual case of short memory span ?* we haven't heard of any action being taken against any party, other than the suspension of DLSU.* shouldn't* those named (e.g., salgado and lacson) be charged and dealt with ?* is it the UAAP's or DLSU's responsibility to deal with the erring parties ?* have other schools also cleaned out their own backyards,* or is it business as usual ?* ???

nakakapanghinayan lang, because after all that everyone has gone through, sana natuto lahat tayo that in making the league better.* *if not, then everyone's time was just wasted.

EngWalker
06-10-2006, 02:13 PM
I don't expect them to furnish out any reply soon. It's like waiting for nothing. I think it is better for us to prepare for season 70 rather than wasting our time and effort in waiting for the reply. The UAAP is like an old boy's club. They decide based on what is beneficial to them and not what is lawful or logical.

Let's move on and prove that we can rise above the adversity.

It is always better to win on the hardcourt and not in the boardroom.

Mighty_Alumnus
06-16-2006, 04:34 PM
Shouldn't cheating or falsifying public documents be decided/discussed in the boardroom?

nel
06-16-2006, 05:07 PM
I heard that the board will take up the matter during their scheduled meeting in July. Talk about delaying tactics! So much for common courtesy.

atenean_blooded
06-17-2006, 02:45 AM
I do not think it is the board that should deal with Salgado and Lacson. That's up to La Salle, in my opinion.

green_minded
06-17-2006, 05:38 AM
Wag ng umasa pa sa UAAP Board's reply. The fact that they haven't defended their stance for so long means na wala na silang pake. Move on na tayo. 8)

brian
06-18-2006, 01:48 PM
Shouldn't cheating or falsifying public documents be decided/discussed in the boardroom?*


we were charged with negligence. we didn't cheat..and so it was arrived by the uaap board. now, where is their clarification regarding the penalty dealt to us? it's all we ask....suspending us for 1 year seem tantamount to calling us cheats since the* gravity of our offence isn't even close to their precedent, namely, paulit-ulit na eto pero sabihin ko pa rin, the adamson case..

they should also explain the lack of due process in arriving at the decision..

bchoter
06-19-2006, 07:59 PM
I heard that the board will take up the matter during their scheduled meeting in July. Talk about delaying tactics! So much for common courtesy.
That's what the other schools said while waiting for the board's findings and decision. I guess they just want to equal treatment for all interested parties :D

brian
06-19-2006, 08:23 PM
I heard that the board will take up the matter during their scheduled meeting in July. Talk about delaying tactics! So much for common courtesy.
That's what the other schools said while waiting for the board's findings and decision. I guess they just want to equal treatment for all interested parties :D


nga, para masaya lahat puwera kami :o

Fried Green Tomato
06-20-2006, 01:10 AM
No dialogue for La Salle, UAAP board
By Joey Villar
The Philippine Star 06/20/2006

The meeting between the UAAP and De La Salle that would have set the record straight with regard to the league’s decision to suspend the Taft-based school this season didn’t push through as planned yesterday.

"They know there is a meeting and a dialogue, maybe they felt its not the right time," said Far Eastern U’s Anton Montinola, who was appointed spokesperson on La Salle’s case.

Danny Jose and Lito Tanjuatco, La Salle’s board representatives, however, claimed there was no invitation from the UAAP to a meeting or a dialogue.

"No, I was not invited, I don’t know of any dialogue," said Jose. "Usually if there’s a board meeting they’ll send a notice to my office and there was none."

"I did not receive an invitation for a board meeting much less anything about a dialogue," Tanjuatco said.

Jose said if there’s any invitation for a meeting, it should come from either the president (Luz Sta. Ana) or the secretary (Bren Perez).

"Of course we would attend but the invitation has to come from the president or secretary of the UAAP, not from just anybody," he said.

The dialogue would have given the board, now chaired by Luz Sta. Ana of University of the East, the chance to explain the suspension it imposed on La Salle from participating in all events in UAAP’s Season 69, which unfolds July 8 with the basketball competition at the Araneta Coliseum.

It was La Salle which sought for a clarification, saying that there was no due process when the league rendered its decision.

Montinola said the meeting lasted for hours and discussed mainly on technical matters.

Elmer Yanga and Edmundo "Ato" Badolato were present in the meeting and discussed issues concerning officiating in basketball.

Yanga, a former team manager in the PBA and the PBL, was named this year’s commissioner replacing Joe Lipa, who is now coach of University of the Philippines.

Paul of Bataan
06-20-2006, 08:17 AM
teka, mawalang-galang na po, pero di ba't na-default ang DLSU women's basketball team ng isang laro nitong nakaraang taon dahil di raw nakarating sa inyo yung bagong schedule? tapos heto hindi nyo natanggap yung notice of meeting with the UAAP board. tsk, tsk, baka naman may problema sa inyong receiving procedure.

EngWalker
06-20-2006, 11:52 AM
^^^ Or you can think of it the other way around. Mawalang galang na rin po, maybe there's a problem with the UAAP's transmittal procedure. ;)

nel
06-20-2006, 01:40 PM
That should be easy to verify. Formal notices should have a file copy of the receipt which should indicate the name of the person who received the notice, together with the date and time of recept. Notices should be sent to both DLSU representatives individually. If Montinola claims that there was notification, he should be able to produce the receiving copies - then it would be the fault of our reps. If there's no receiving copy, then no notice was sent.

GHRanger
06-20-2006, 09:36 PM
"They know there is a meeting and a dialogue, maybe they felt its not the right time," said Far Eastern U’s Anton Montinola, who was appointed spokesperson on La Salle’s case.

Even if we felt that it was not the correct venue, La Salle is duty bound to attend the meeting or would have at least sent a response.* It is highly unusual that two members of the board plus the school have not received any invites or notices.* I also feel this statement is uncalled for.* Coming from... well... uh... um....

In addition to nel...* If my memory is correct, the standard protocol for notices of BOD meetings is that an invite will be sent to the institution/organization they represent, plus individual invitations sent to each board member to their respective offices in cases where the institution/organization is not their primary office.* SO technically 3 notices should have been sent.* Even if the previous minutes of the meeting states that a next meeting is set to a specific date, notices must be sent out to each member of the board a few days prior to the meeting.*

However, the bottom line is that we sent a formal letter of clarification.* Just for clarification. We expect a formal clarification from the board of representatives of the UAAP. not a DAYA-LOG.

gfy
06-21-2006, 06:19 AM
^^ If you stop dictating what the UAAP Board should do or shouldn't do, maybe they'll start listening to you. And no threats please. UE is now in charge so it's up to them what to do.

bigfreeze_bibby
06-21-2006, 08:08 AM
Makasingit lang din po, I think we have the right to do follow ups regarding the clarification letter that we have just sent out to the UAAP board weeks ago. Kung tutuusin, dapat mabilis lang ang sagutan dyan kasi the board made the decision and at least they should know how to answer questions pertaining to the decision that they just made. Kahit ba na sabihin natin na busy ang UE in preparation for season 69, di naman siguro sobrang pag-aabala ang gagawin dito para masagot yung mga katanungan galing sa La Salle.

Regarding sa letter of invite for the dialogue, let's just assume that both parties have some lapses and errors sa transmittal nung sulat so mas magandang let's leave it at that. Mag-usap ulit and mag-schedule ng panibagong time para dito. Ang nakikita kong problema dito ay ang availability ng mga parties involved and kung gusto pa ngang makipag-usap ng UAAP board sa La Salle. Ang lugar naman siguro ay di masyadong problema sa meeting na ito.

Lucas Palaka
06-21-2006, 08:55 AM
tingin ko nang-iinis lang si don anton :D

pero tama ka bigfreeze, dapat pag-laanan ng panahon at halaga ang bagay na ito sa pagitan ng la salle at UAAP board. sana'y wala nang iba pang naka-agenda at nang matapos na ang samaan ng loob na bunga ng pagkakasuspindi.

glock23
06-21-2006, 02:51 PM
Shouldn't cheating or falsifying public documents be decided/discussed in the boardroom?*



the uaap board never found dlsu guilty of cheating! socks first before shoes, ok? ;D

brian
06-22-2006, 04:11 PM
^^ If you stop dictating what the UAAP Board should do or shouldn't do, maybe they'll start listening to you.* And no threats please. UE is now in charge so it's up to them what to do.


sorry, such reasoning is unacceptable...

so you wouldn't do what you're supposed to do even if it were the right thing to do anyway, dahil ayaw mo lang pangunhan ka? then, you're taking it personally (which i think they are) or then again, just taking yourself too seriously (which i think they are too).....sakit ng pinoy talaga yan, mga ayaw pinangungunahan at panninindigan nila ang ang sarili nila maski mali...isa pang trait ang hindi aamin hanggang hindi nahuhuli..

there it goes, the uaap board is just a prime example of why our country is in such kind of state.. ha ha!

even in the pba...an inadvertent call is unheard of. talagang paninindigan ng refs ang tawag nila dito sa pinas..

i remember a referee calling a technical foul on the bench of coach chot reyes, and when chot demanded the ref to point out who the person he called the tech was, hindi maturo ng ref kung sino since mapapahiya siya kasi, spectator and natwagan niya, mistaking him as being part of reyes' bench....however, di na binawi ang tawag..ayaw mapahiya eh.

now, all la salle's asking for is clarification. would giving one take anything away from them, when we've had everything stripped off us already...

nel
06-22-2006, 05:52 PM
^^ If you stop dictating what the UAAP Board should do or shouldn't do, maybe they'll start listening to you.* And no threats please. UE is now in charge so it's up to them what to do.


So you feel that the UAAP board will only do whatever it feels like doing without regard for what they should be doing? They will only listen to what they want to hear?

I beg your pardon, but asking for a clarification through a formal letter cannot by any stretch of the imagination be construed as dictating to the board. A formal request does require a formal reply. If the board truly wanted to meet with La Salle it would send a formal notification, so we wouldn't have this "he said, she said" about the invitation to the recently held board meeting. I find it very unusual, to say the least, that the La Salle board reps did not receive their notices of the meeting.

Being on the board means that the members should do what's right for the league instead of just protecting their school's interest. From where we sit, the board is failing miserably in doing the right thing. It should have at least replied that it would table the discussions and issue a formal reply only after the season has started, instead of the way they're doing it with Montinola just feeding the press with his interpretations/views. Strange how Montinola has emerged as their "spokesman" on the La Salle issues, given his track record of "anti-La Salle activities".

As I stated previously, common courtesy dictates that the board reply formally in a timely manner to the formal request of La Salle. I expect the "educated" board members to be cognizant of this protocol. Their silence speaks volumes.

gfy
06-23-2006, 06:19 AM
^^ I was referring to your earlier press releases where your officials threathened to take this matter all the way to the SC or bolt the league. The Board, I know, got pissed. Your point of clarification was more respectful and, of course, was your right and deserves a reply. The reply could be something like this: "We voted a UNANIMOUS 7-0 to suspend you from all sports (I think your Senior Basketball team should have been the only one suspended). We cited negligence (an all-encompassing word) as the reason and we don't have to further explain our vote." The Board is indeed an old boys (and girls) club.

brian
06-23-2006, 03:50 PM
why shouldn't we take this all the way to the SC, the way the board has been behaving. it is i think still an option we should consider,and btw, what's with matibag's comment that we "win at all costs" prior to wrapping up their investigation.

but for now, we opted to just move on and accept what was handed us for the good of everyone concerned ( ala nang cheche bureche)..at this point, all we are requesting is clarification on their part which we consider obligatory..

why don't they just write one so we could all move on....

nel
06-23-2006, 05:41 PM
Baka naman the board has "learned" from its past moves. It took at least 6 months before they released their "findings" and decision, and we didn't take them to court. So ... maybe the board is now thinking that if the delay did not trigger any violent or legal reaction from La Salle, just maybe they think La Salle will also not react if they delay the clarification until, say, after next season has started. That way, they extend the suspension for another year. I wouldn't be surprised if this highly convoluted logic is the way the board thinks. And they are supposed to represent institutions of "higher" education!!!

brian
06-24-2006, 01:03 AM
perhaps, inspite of their inappropriate behaviour, the lesson learned here ( which we've already known right from the beginning) is that they could get away with anything...however, they should still be wary for the road we travel is dliberate in contrast to theirs which is of sudden impulse and devoid of any ability to make proper judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty....

ika nga, may araw din ang mga yan!!!

brian
06-24-2006, 01:09 AM
sorry, double post!!! :o

flsfnoeraekadad
06-24-2006, 07:27 AM
Oo nga, sang-ayon ako kay Brian. Wag na lang nating hayaang talunin tayo nyan sa susunod, hindi naman manalo sa real basketball court and yang mga yan sa atin eh. ;D

little agma
06-24-2006, 09:24 PM
^^ I was referring to your earlier press releases where your officials threathened to take this matter all the way to the SC or bolt the league. The Board, I know, got pissed. Your point of clarification was more respectful and, of course, was your right and deserves a reply. The reply could be something like this: "We voted a UNANIMOUS 7-0 to suspend you from all sports (I think your Senior Basketball team should have been the only one suspended). We cited negligence (an all-encompassing word) as the reason and we don't have to further explain our vote."* The Board is indeed an old boys (and girls) club.



the way you've been posting may mean two things, either you

a) have only watched uaap recently, not knowing the "past" between the uaap board and la salle, does not understanding the way the uaap board has handled the issue; or
b) you're just too narrow-minded regarding la salle's actions

this is not pex my friend, this is damn gameface!


if la salle wants to take this to court (which i think they SHOULD have done), they deserve to do so because the uaap's decision to suspend us has no legal basis! the punishment for fielding ineligible players is forfeiture of games, which we VOLUNTARILY did (alam mo ba to, or masyado kang nagpapaniwala sa mga nababasa mo sa dyaryo?). second, the uaap rules state that before a guilty party gets punished, someone should FILE CHARGES FIRST, something that NO UAAP SCHOOL DID!

the uaap's lucky la salle's been waaaaaay to nice that they didn't take this to court, otherwise i personally think that's the end of the uaap and they will be completely exposed!!

ps - did you just say that if we didn't "threaten" the uaap, that they may listen to us? good night...

atenean_blooded
06-24-2006, 11:39 PM
I personally think the UAAP board should at least reply to La Salle's request for clarification in writing.

If the article about one party not sending the proper invitation and the other being a no-show is true, then I think both parties are behaving like spoiled brats.

I'd like to think that both the UAAP and La Salle want to put this issue behind them (so we can dwell on the demolition job/non-issue of Aguilar and Nkemakolam, and have for ourselves a whole new slough of online entertainment).

atenean_blooded
06-24-2006, 11:48 PM
^^ I was referring to your earlier press releases where your officials threathened to take this matter all the way to the SC or bolt the league. The Board, I know, got pissed. Your point of clarification was more respectful and, of course, was your right and deserves a reply. The reply could be something like this: "We voted a UNANIMOUS 7-0 to suspend you from all sports (I think your Senior Basketball team should have been the only one suspended). We cited negligence (an all-encompassing word) as the reason and we don't have to further explain our vote."* The Board is indeed an old boys (and girls) club.



the way you've been posting may mean two things, either you

a) have only watched uaap recently, not knowing the "past" between the uaap board and la salle, does not understanding the way the uaap board has handled the issue; or
b) you're just too narrow-minded regarding la salle's actions

this is not pex my friend, this is damn gameface!


if la salle wants to take this to court (which i think they SHOULD have done), they deserve to do so because the uaap's decision to suspend us has no legal basis! the punishment for fielding ineligible players is forfeiture of games, which we VOLUNTARILY did (alam mo ba to, or masyado kang nagpapaniwala sa mga nababasa mo sa dyaryo?). second, the uaap rules state that before a guilty party gets punished, someone should FILE CHARGES FIRST, something that NO UAAP SCHOOL DID!

the uaap's lucky la salle's been waaaaaay to nice that they didn't take this to court, otherwise i personally think that's the end of the uaap and they will be completely exposed!!

ps - did you just say that if we didn't "threaten" the uaap, that they may listen to us? good night...


Quick points.

1. Is checking on PEPTCR authenticity a requirement? Yes. This was mandated by both DepEd and CHEd. There is CMO 15, signed by former DLSU President Br. Rolly Dizon, mandating the verification of PEPTCRs. This CMO was issued in July 2003.

2. When did La Salle begin the authentication process? According to the facts gathered by the UAAP, and as per the La Salle statements, the authentication began in August 2005, more than two years after CMO 15 was issued.

3. When did La Salle find out about Benitez's PEPTCR? August 18, 2005.

4. So La Salle knew that Benitez's documents were spurious at this time? Yes.

5. So should have La Salle pulled Benitez out already? Even as a matter of delicadeza, yes.

6. What does this mean? This means that as far as the UAAP is concerned, La Salle already knew about Benitez as early as August 18, 2005, but did not communicate this to the board until October.

7. But didn't La Salle still confess? Yes, it did. But the confession was belated, and was more to save face. There's little moral value.

8. What's this brouhaha about filing charges first? There was no need for charges to be filed. La Salle implicated itself.

9. But doesn't that mean La Salle was denied due process? La Salle's representatives were present during the meeting of the UAAP board on the fact-finding committee's report. La Salle was accorded due process.

10. Why doesn't La Salle take this to court? I think La Salle is still more than free to take this issue to court. Of course, this issue is an entirely internal affair of the UAAP. Should La Salle act hostile to the rest of the members by trying to file a suit, it may be possible that La Salle is thrown out of the UAAP completely. A case is not likely to prosper.

In my opinion, La Salle ought to take to court the matter of Salgado and Lacson, whom they said were responsible for the spurious documents. I also think that La Salle desrves at least a clarification in writing.

gfy
06-25-2006, 12:06 AM
DLSU can take it to court if it wishes. Despite your threats, The Board still proceeded to suspend you with a unanimous 7-0 vote. I am sure they weighed the possible legal consequences of their decision. Now, if responding to your request for clarification will complicate the situation, they probably will not reply.

Re Benetiz and Gatchalian, DLSU admitted that they were ineligible after verifying with DepEd. In the case of Japeth and Jobe, no admission and verification have been done yet. If DepED says those two guys were ineligible for college despite getting their diplomas from Reedley, then Ateneo has a problem.

gfy
06-25-2006, 05:37 AM
To clarify - your officials threathened to bring this to the SC if you were charged with complicity which you were not. I don't for a moment believe the Brothers were in any way involved. But I am inclined to believe that Benetiz and Gatchalian couldn't have done it on their own. Then you threathened to bolt the league. Of course, that is your option.

Re Japeth and Jobe case, if there's any suspicion that they are ineligible, I am sure Ateneo will verify with DepEd. However, if they are in possession of authentic Reedley transcripts and diplomas which Reedley has certified to be correct and true, then the ball isn't really in Ateneo's court. If people aren't satisfied, then they can always file the complaint.

brian
06-26-2006, 01:18 AM
dlsu stating that it would bring the matter all the way straight to the SC wasn't at all (in one way or another) a threat to influence the outcome of the uaap investigation nor their decision. it was just as a "matter of fact".* yes you are correct, the uaap has weighed the possible legal consequences of their action which by the way led to us being sanctioned for negligence and not complicity which is still rather odd, since the penalty handed us was of the similar given adamson in which case was much (as in waaay) different from ours...

now, at this point, we ask for their letter of clarification even if only to fool ourselves that we were given a fair shake....wala pa rin! this only goes to prove that, well i really don't have any knowledge of what they're trying to prove, but they ought to write the damn letter fast...

re jobe and japeth, i haven't the least care what's been going on but goodluck to ateneo nonetheless..

bigfreeze_bibby
06-26-2006, 08:20 AM
Para sa kin eto lang tanong ko sa board, is negligence = suspension (since negligence ang naging kaso sa La Salle)? From what I know, complicity = suspension and negligence doesn't equate to suspension unless binago ng UAAP yung rules nila before or during the suspension decision (investigation ba kamo?) is being made. I know matagal nang tanong ito sa kanila and tingin ko hindi naman ito mahirap sagutin that's why they (the board) should be pushed or followed up consistently because di naman ganun kahirap sagutin itong tanong na ito besides, they should have a ready answer for this from the investigations (kung meron nga man) that they made for 6 months.

Unless e merong alingasngas na nangyari or naging moro-moro ang investigation kaya wala silang ready na answer. Dyan may problema ngayon.

GHRanger
06-26-2006, 11:15 AM
Unless e merong alingasngas na nangyari or naging moro-moro ang investigation kaya wala silang ready na answer. Dyan may problema ngayon.


If I remember correctly, the investigation by Dr. Matibag did not recommend anything. (This should have made public at least to put a lot of issues to rest - or unrest. :) ) They based their decision on this and whatever hearsay. I hope with all the controversy going up they don't intentionally forget to send us a clarification... Something our government is well known for.

LION
06-26-2006, 01:19 PM
game_fixer bro,

Request not to start a word war here.* It will just be a cycle.* In PEX, this issue is still being widely discussed since last year pero wala rin namang magandang kinalabasan para sa mga posters.* Tataas lang ang blood pressure natin nyan.* :)

Leave this site immediately and go back to your cave.

gfy
06-26-2006, 04:00 PM
I am not very familiar with the Adamson case and I don't know whether UAAP rules and regulations have listed specific punishment for specific offenses. The UAAP Board was understandably very cautious in charging DLSU with complicity. Firstly, it is not like the Ombudsman which determines probable cause and recommends prosecution. Secondly, it can be sued. Remember, the falsification of documents is a criminal act. Former UNLV coach Tarkanian successfully sued the US NCAA (and settled out of court) for accusing him of certain offenses. Thus, the Board is, I think, very wary and may answer your letter in general terms and may just repeat what they said before. I think though that the UAAP is a private club which can suspend/expel members for misbehavior thru majority vote.

gfy
06-26-2006, 04:08 PM
"not" should be inserted as in not charging DLSU with complicity. Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be by majority vote. It depends on its by-laws, etc.

brian
06-26-2006, 05:04 PM
the board might as well have charged us with complicity considering the harsh penaly they meted upon us...

they cited the adamson case as a precedent..when we all very well know that adamson's case was very much different from ours. the adamson people had falsified records for then player marlou aquino which had been found out when he applied for the pba draft..he only completed 11 units in his whole stay in college...

this case showed the complicity of the school since the records came directly from them hence the 1 year ban..

brian
06-26-2006, 06:33 PM
"not" should be inserted as in not charging DLSU with complicity. Also, it doesn't necessarily have to be by majority vote. It depends on its by-laws, etc.


it is also very clear in their rules that fielding an ineligible player means that the games he/they played in would be forfeited...

gfy
06-26-2006, 07:25 PM
The complicity then in the Adamson case may not be criminal in nature. "Doctoring" of internal school records or passing students even if they don't attend classes, of course, deserves administrative sanctions from DepEd or CHED which they rarely give.

The Board probably believed that Benetiz and Gatchalian received help from your basketball staff in the falsification of the public documents although they diid not want to say this officially for the reasons I mentioned. So it is not just a question of students submitting fake HS documents manufactured in Recto for example.

green_minded
06-27-2006, 08:11 AM
The Board probably believed that Benetiz and Gatchalian received help from your basketball staff.....

Decisions should not be based on PROBABLY but on FACTS.*If that's how they did it.....bwahahahaha na lang. 8)

bigfreeze_bibby
06-27-2006, 08:39 AM
The Board probably believed that Benitez and Gatchalian received help from your basketball staff.....


Eto naman yung tingin ng board ever since we admitted that we fielded ineligible players. Which hindi naman nila na-prove.



I don't know whether UAAP rules and regulations have listed specific punishment for specific offenses.


This is the problem of the UAAP rule book. Every year ata nagbabago ang rule book ng UAAP. I don't know about the NCAA but some are saying that mas matino pa ata rule book ng NCAA natin when it comes to specific penalties that will be meted out for every offense made.

gfy
06-27-2006, 10:01 AM
green-minded - The Board interviewed a lot of people including Benetiz and Pumaren. Since they are not in the business of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially if it involves a criminal act for reasons I mentioned earlier, they didn't accuse you of complicity but of negligence. Now if you can show me that the Board has no power to suspend you on this basis alone then you can always get a TRO, can't you?

brian
06-27-2006, 11:49 AM
The complicity then in the Adamson case may not be criminal in nature. "Doctoring" of internal school records or passing students even if they don't attend classes, of course, deserves administrative sanctions from DepEd or CHED which they rarely give.

The Board probably believed that Benetiz and Gatchalian received help from your basketball staff in the falsification of the public documents although they diid* not want to say this officially for the reasons I mentioned. So it is not just a question of students submitting fake HS documents manufactured in Recto for example.


what the hell are you rambling about?...you're losing me here! listen to yourself.."the board probably believes?" ( ano yan, mind power lang nila?)...then why has the uaap investigative body come up with nothing ...kaya nga negligence eh, meaning not deliberate on our par, because if it was, the investigative body would have had their recommendations ....

ha ha! the compicity of adamson's case is not criminal in nature is still besides the point... the point being is that nilooko nila ang uaap by submitting falsified records..

we on the other hand had admitted to our errors...we never had any intentions of duping anybody, as a matter of fact, we were the ones duped into believeing that the peptcr paper were authentic..

the argument ends when "probability" is mistaken for "accuracy"....walang kuwentang usapan ang haka haka..

gfy
06-27-2006, 12:33 PM
Brian - I would tend to beliieve that the Board wouldn't have suspended you if there was no issue of probable involvement of your basketball staff in the falsification. There is a whole world of diifference if some of your basketball staff were mentioned as to have aided and abetted the cheating byno less than Benetiz himself. When I say probable I mean that the Board (or the fact-finding committee) didn't have the time nor the competence nor the subpoena powers to further investigate the matter. But it doesn't prevent the Board from forming their own conclusion and jmaking a udgment on the matter. Capisce?

brian
06-27-2006, 01:12 PM
meaning, the board does as it pleases, don't they? i agree, some of the basketball staff had probably aided and abetted in the alleged cheating, however, they probably did not too..

it is all conjecture don't you think? and if you say that the board didn't have the time nor competence nor the subpoena powers to investigate the matter, then they shouldn't have formed their conclusion nor made a judgement on the basis of what they didn't have in the first place...

that is why we are requesting for a clarification....it behooves us to reflect on the matter.

nel
06-27-2006, 01:40 PM
The board did set a precedent with the decision to suspend La Salle because of negligence. The only real basis for this decision was that the documents of Benitez and Gatchalian were fake. So, if it is discovered that the records of any athlete in any school are irregular, the board should automatically suspend that school because it is negligent in not checking the records 100%. There's no margin for error, according to the UAAP board.

Let me list some of the precedents the board started (I probably missed a few, please feel free to add):

- Initiating the investigation even without a formal complaint from a member school, since the matter became public knowledge.
Comment: now that the Japeth-Jobe matter is in the papers, will the UAAP initiate another investigation? The Ateneans are right - nothing has been filed by anyone, except the press releases. However, this was the case with La Salle, with the matter splashed all over the papers, but the UAAP dove into the matter without waiting for a complainant. The Custodio and Arwind matters were also in the papers recently. Were these really looked into in the past with closure, or were they just swept under the rug by the old boys' club that is the board?

- Using negligence as a catch-all violation. Anything, any simple omission can be construed to be "negligence". Is turning a blind eye to the special treatment superstars get from their professors negligence? If so, then many schools are probably guilty of negligence. Will the board now look into all possible instances of negligence, or is it selective just because it's La Salle we're talking about? Where do you stop?

- Failure to state that the suspension includes the board representation. How come all the other school reps got their invitations?

- Common courtesy is no longer important, at least to the board. No formal reply yet to the request for clarification, except for a few media bites from self-appointed spokesman-on-La Salle-matters Montinola. So how do they expect their students to learn anything if they don't practice what they are supposed to be teaching?

gfy
06-27-2006, 03:18 PM
^^ That's the problem which the Board now has. Since it couldn't charfe you with complicity, they cited negligence. But then again, the Board in the future might say there are different kinds of negligence, some more grave than others hehe. Simple negligence means forfeiture of games.

The Japeth and Jobe case is different. No admission from Ateneo. So a complaint should be filed. In case of Benetiz and Gatchalian, DLSU admitted that they were ineligible upon verification. There was no more need for a complaint. The Board just looked into the circumstances of the case. Unfortunately, there was the additional issue of probable involvement by your basketball staff which made it a serious concern for the Board. The Board cannot act on every press release re possible wrongdoing by a member school.

atenean_blooded
06-27-2006, 09:52 PM
The Board decision was based on facts.

The facts are crystal clear: La Salle admitted two players who submitted fake PEPTCRs in May 2003. In July 2003, a CHED memo signed by no less than La Salle's former system president providing instructions regarding PEPTCR verification. La Salle only started the verification process on August 2, 2005. On August 18, La Salle was informed by DepEd that Benitez's PEPTCR was fake. Gatchalian's PEPTCR would also be confirmed as fake shortly after. In spite of this, La Salle continued to field Benitez, and only took decisive action the day after La Salle lost Game 1 of the championship series.

Thus far, the Board seems to draw only on the Adamson case as a precedent with regard to the fielding of ineligible players. However, La Salle's case is unique: negligence was the ground for suspension, negligence which was established by the facts unearthed during the investigation by the board's fact-finding committee (which should be made public).

As far as the board is concerned, La Salle knew about Benitez's fake PEPTCR already even when it continued to field Benitez. One might argue that "it was only the registrar who was informed." The argument fails, since the internal arrangement of who gets informed is utterly irrelevant to the UAAP board. It was La Salle's registrar who was informed first, yes. To the UAAP, it was La Salle who received the notice. To the Board, La Salle did not act in spite of its being informed.

Not doing anything about the fake PEPTCRs (and thus, the issue of eligibility) at that point in time shows negligence. Not complying with the CHED memo (which was already previously circulated by DECS before Dizon came to CHED) also shows negligence.

Following the requirement of the rules, all of La Salle's games were forfeited. But also based on the facts established during the investigation, the Board also found La Salle negligent, and on this basis, decided to suspend La Salle. Righteously so, in my opinion.

The board initiated the investigation upon La Salle's belated confession. In this case, it was clear that La Salle already admitted its guilt. The investigation was to look into the circumstances surrounding La Salle's fielding of ineligible players over several years, which then led to suspension. In La Salle's case, there was no need for a formal complaint regarding ineligibility (the rules saying, after all, that questions on eligibility are to be made within a particular time frame), since La Salle already admitted that it had fielded the ineligible players, and in their own press statements, did not take decisive action because of "apparent lack of urgency." Falsification of documents is a criminal offense. Getting into a school which supposedly has high standards even if one has not graduated from high school should be a matter of concern for that school. I do not see how these things deserve "apparent lack of urgency."

This is very different from the demolition job by some (sourgraping?) parties against the Ateneo. In the Ateneo's case, there is no admission (none needed), and there have been no formal charges. Given these circumstances, there is no need for the board to investigate an investigation, despite the bad journalism done by publicists and writers of little credibility. In the case of Custodio and Arwind, there seems to be little impetus to begin an investigation. In the case of Custodio, parties, as far as I know, are still free to file the necessary protests. The issue on Arwind Santos, if I recall correctly, has already been settled. Unfortunately for the (sourgraping) parties who continue to question Santos, the issue is over, and Santos, at least as of now, has no issues against him.

With regard to turning a blind eye to superstar treatment, I do not think that is within the scope of 'negligence' as contemplated in this decision. Besides, if one wants to talk about superstar treatment, then perhaps how certain varsity players can appear on national TV and be unable to even answer for themselves what programs of study they are taking up or what degrees they are working toward (not to mention also saying on national TV that the national flower of the Philippines is the daisy) should also be brought up. This, however, is perhaps a good thing for the board to take up for future rule-creation, hopefully addressing the example brought up in this paragraph, and perhaps the dismal graduation rate of some varsity programs.

I also think that the Board owes La Salle at least a written reply to its clarification. Or, should there be a dialogue, that both parties quit acting like kids trying to get one over the other and just agree on a date and time and then meet. I also think that La Salle, if it is to stand by its press statements, should file charges against the parties who falsified the public documents (Salgado and Lacson) instead of doing nothing.

gfy
06-27-2006, 10:40 PM
Blooded - I agree with you that DLSU did not give the matter of Benetiz and Gatchalian the urgency that it required and ,as I have said before, DLSU should not have fielded Benetiz and erred on the side of caution. However I feel that the matter of the staff being involved in the falsification is much more serious. Cheating should never be condoned in sports or elsewhere.

brian
06-28-2006, 12:49 AM
dlsu's negligence merely extends to not verifying the documents submitted by benitez and gatchailan* in a a similar manner in which another school would also have been guilty of until it found out (in time) that a certain player about to crack their line-up was ineligible too.

the uaap board had acted on its own without any basis gathered from their fact finding com which wrapped up their investigation without any recommedation whatsoever considering that it even took them 6 monts in doing so.

we have accepted the boards decision and have moved on, only requesting a letter of clarification initially asserting that due process was denied ..

what fazes me though is why certain people are insisting on turning this into the japeth/jobe "let's not clarify anything" thread for believe it or not, some of us here are not the least interested in what goes on in other school's curtilage, especially those whose people imagine things anyways..

japeth and jobe may have been enrolled in hogwarts for all i care...uhmm, they "probably" were too, since magaling magturo ng magic dun he he!

brian
06-28-2006, 12:51 AM
Blooded - I agree with you that DLSU did not give the matter of Benetiz and Gatchalian the urgency that it required and ,as I have said before, DLSU should not have fielded Benetiz and erred on the side of caution. However I feel that the matter of the staff being involved in the falsification is much more serious. Cheating should never be condoned in sports or elsewhere.


uhmmm, "probably"...but don't we all

gfy
06-28-2006, 06:49 AM
^^ The Japeth and Jobe thing was started by you guys. We are merely "clarifying". You can't compare the Bughao case with that of Benetiz/Gatchalian's.. The Bughao case was pure stupidity on Ateneo's part.

As I have said, the UAAP Board is not a court of law. It is a private organization.

brian
06-28-2006, 07:44 AM
but why do you keep on insisting on bringing it up here....there's a thread at your nest re this....you could mull over the matter there..

the uaap being a private organization isn't exempt from acting with circumspect and prudence..

so, whatever "probably" happened to the uaap's reply to la salle's request for clarification?

bigfreeze_bibby
06-28-2006, 08:03 AM
I'll close this thread since we are all hearing the same sentiments and keep on repeating them all over again. I guess all of the posters have expressed well enough their opinions and feelings regarding the subject. We'll re-open this once the board provides an answer (I am not high in illegal susbtance when I typed these, promise).