Sunday, September 25, 2011

A look into the Anti-Hazing Law of the Philippines

Original post at: http://www.up.edu.ph/upforum.php?i=171&archive=yes&yr=2007&mn=11

A look into the Anti-Hazing Law of the Philippines
Jo. Florendo B. Lontoc

What constitutes hazing?
 
The anti-hazing law (Republic Act 8049) is not limited to acts committed by fraternities and sororities. Any organization or club may “commit hazing” on a recruit, neophyte or applicant by simply placing him or her “in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him or her to do menial, silly, foolish, and other similar tasks” in order to gain entry into the organization. The law is explicit that any act that causes both psychological and physical suffering and injury to the person joining an organization may be considered hazing.
 
Hazing covers any “initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership.” It includes activities which an organization might undertake to test the aptitude of a person for the demands of the organization.

The only exception the law makes is for “the physical, mental, and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental, and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police…”

An online forum (www.peyups.com) contains testimonies on UP organizations with severe admission requirements. A forum participant code-named Gadrial says: “At [UP Los Baños] I had a more difficult time getting admitted into my org than my frat. I had to suffer mental and emotional torture, not to mention the finals that were extremely difficult. For three months we had to endure being applicants. But it’s OK, because I was able to join a cool org.”

Panira (code name) adds: “There are many special interest orgs that exist in the University, especially theater and performing orgs, that perform psychological hazing such as public humiliation and hell-week.”

The anti-hazing law, however, does not penalize or provide punishment for hazing that falls under the categories of humiliation, embarrassment, and mental or emotional torture. Punishments are spelled out for cases of death, rape, sodomy, mutilation, insanity, imbecility, impotence, or blindness in the extreme. There are penalties for loss of speech, hearing, smell; or an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg, or the use of such member. Penalties are also defined for some deformities; loss of any other part of the body, or their use; illness or incapacity to work; and physical injuries that may or may not require medical attendance.

The maximum penalty is imposed in cases where these have been accompanied by “force, violence, threat, intimidation, or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join”; the recruit, neophyte, or applicant is prevented from quitting when he discovers that he will undergo hazing; and the hazing victim is prevented from reporting the act to his parents or guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force, violence, threat, or intimidation. Maximum penalty is also imposed when the hazing is committed outside the school or institution and when the victim is below 12 years old.

While included in the definition of hazing, there is no mention of embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forced menial, silly, foolish, and other similar tasks in the sections on penalty. They may have to be redressed through some other laws. The rest of the provisions of RA 8049, such as for determining liabilities, thus appear in the context of the physically injurious hazing.

Who can be charged?
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of his principal participation unless he prevents the hazing. If the hazing is committed at the home of an officer or a member of the organization, his parents shall be held liable as principals when they are aware of the hazing being conducted but fail to take any action to prevent it. The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization who planned the hazing shall be liable as principals even if they are not present during the act. The persons charged are not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of not intending to commit so grave a wrong.

If it is proven that the owner of the place was aware of the hazing being conducted and failed to take any action to prevent it, he/she is liable as an accomplice. School authorities including faculty members who consent to or who are aware of the hazing but fail to take any action to prevent it are also considered accomplices.

Republic Act 8094 lays out the protocol for school monitoring of initiation rites. According to the law, no hazing or initiation rite in any form is allowed without prior written notice to the school authorities seven days before its conduct. The written notice indicates the period of the initiation. It shall not exceed three days. The notice includes the names of those to be subjected to initiation. It contains an undertaking that no physical violence will be employed during initiation.

The head of the school or their representatives must assign at least two representatives of the school to be present during initiation and see to it that no physical harm shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte, or applicant.

The law explicitly allows the school to impose appropriate administrative sanctions on the person or persons charged with the punishable offenses even before their conviction.

The law is also clear that any form of hazing is illegal; that is, not sanctioned by the state, with or without defined penalties.

No comments:

Post a Comment