In the UAAP, however, it doesn't work that way. They had an old residency rule, you see (1-year residency), which was already nonsensical by the way, for kids graduating from one UAAP high school and moving to another UAAP school for college. They REPLACED that rule with the 2-year residency rule, which has just recently been on the receiving end of a Temporary Restraining Order. Instead of the residency rule being snuffed out (albeit temporarily), though, its "older" version gets dug up in its place instead.
What is logical in all of this, please?
Also, the court ordered for the UAAP to let Ms. Mikee Bartolome play. They didn't tell the UAAP to reinstate the old rule. They didn't tell the UAAP that the old rule was better (because, again, it makes no sense).
Essentially, this is the RTC-UAAP convo:
RTC: Hey, your residency rule infringes on the kids' rights. Here's a TRO for it.
UAAP: Oh, you're TROing the 2-year rule? So we can just go back to the old 1-year version, right?
RTC: First of all, TRO is not a verb. Second, the TRO is for the residency rule no matter how many years it entails. The bottom-line is these kids should be allowed to play. A more permanent injunction will likely follow.
UAAP: TRO isn't a verb? Wait… what is a verb?
RTC: SMH. FML. I am leaving now.
RTC leaves.
UAAP: So, yeah, I guess the 1-year rule applies, right? Hmmm… maybe I should check the rulebook. Oh, yeah I don't have one!!!
0 Comment