FORMER Ateneo de Manila basketball coach Thomas Anthony “Tab” Baldwin is unauthorized to work in the country and has not applied for an exemption, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) said Monday.
Baldwin’s alleged illegal status cropped during Monday’s hearing by the DOLE to determine whether he possesses the legal authority to engage in gainful employment in the country.
Baldwin resigned as head coach after two of his players, Rene Clert Baterbonia and Divine Adili, died in a training exercise in the waters off a resort in Dipaculao, Aurora, on June 8, 2026.
Labor Secretary Francis Tolentino pointed out that the labor department’s investigation is separate from the other probes being conducted by other government agencies, stressing that his department’s focus is strictly limited to labor and employment issues, particularly Baldwin’s authority to work in the Philippines.
“We find it imperative to conduct this motu proprio investigation to inquire into his authority,” Tolentino told the panel.
During the hearing, DOLE disclosed that its records show Baldwin has not applied for an alien employment permit (AEP).
The AEP is a permit issued by the DOLE to a foreign national who has the capacity and qualifications to be engaged in gainful employment by an employer in the Philippines in a position which no Filipino national is competent, able and willing to perform at the time the application for AEP is filed.
The department also found no application for exemption or exclusion under existing labor regulations, including Department Orders (DOs) 221-22 and 248-25.
Baldwin attended the proceedings accompanied by legal counsel, who argued that the coach holds permanent resident status in the Philippines and therefore does not require an AEP.
His camp argued that no employment permit was necessary when his permanent resident visa status was granted.
DOLE also examined the nature of Baldwin’s contractual relationship with his former employer, Ateneo de Manila University.
Following the conference, the department announced it would issue a subpoena directing Ateneo representatives to appear before labor authorities on July 9.
Baldwin’s camp was likewise asked to submit copies of previous employment contracts to help determine the duration of his engagements, commencement dates, compensation arrangements, and specific duties.
The inquiry stems from an earlier subpoena requiring Baldwin to appear before the Labor secretary and present documents supporting his authority to work in the Philippines and serve as head coach of the Ateneo men’s basketball team.
DOLE said the proceedings will continue as the department reviews the submitted documents and gathers additional information from concerned parties.
Student managers, ball boys
Meanwhile, Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla said the student managers and ball boys of the Ateneo men’s basketball team who were among those recommended to be charged for violation of the Anti-Hazing Law may be taken off the list of accused and become witnesses if their innocence can be proven.
“Although this was our recommendation, some of the individuals who participated in the activity may still be removed from the list of those to be charged, especially if it can be shown that they were unaware of its unlawful intent,” Remulla said in Filipino.
Of the 11 accused, Paolo Manuel Maceda Adevoso and Andrew Lorenzo Bondoc Salud were student managers while Aris Ramos Pronce and Joel Palmiano Rapa were ball boys.
Remulla said they made the recommendation because the Anti-Hazing law is a special law whose expanded definition of hazing now includes physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as a prerequisite for admission or requirement or continuing membership in an organization.
This includes forced calisthenics, exposure to weather, or other brutal forced physical activity likely to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of such recruits.
Also under the significantly broadened liability of the 2018 version of the law, people who were present during hazing or initiation may face criminal liability even without participation in the activity if certain standards were met such as having knowingly attended, participated in, consented to, or failed to prevent the hazing despite having a legal duty to act.
