The Anti-Hazing Law, officially R.A. No. 8049 as amended by R.A. No. 11053, aims to eliminate the harmful practice of hazing in fraternities, sororities, and other organizations.
Definition of Hazing
This law defines hazing broadly as any act that results in physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an initiation rite or practice.
“Hazing refers to any act that results in physical or psychological suffering, harm, or injury inflicted on a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member as part of an initiation rite or practice… This shall also include any activity… that tends to humiliate or embarrass, degrade, abuse, or endanger.”
— Republic Act No. 11053 (2018)
Acts Considered as Hazing
This includes acts made as a prerequisite for admission or a requirement for continuing membership in such organizations.
The definition is not limited to overt physical violence but encompasses a wide range of brutal treatments and forced physical activities that are likely to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of the individual.
Specific examples mentioned include paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, and forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug, or other substance.
Furthermore, hazing also includes any activity, intentionally made or otherwise, by one person alone or acting with others, that tends to humiliate or embarrass, degrade, abuse, or endanger, by requiring a recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member to perform menial, silly, or foolish tasks.
The law also defines “Initiation or Initiation Rites” as the ceremonies, practices, rituals, or other acts, whether formal or informal, that a person must perform or take part in to be accepted into a fraternity, sorority, or organization as a full-fledged member.
This includes such acts in all stages of membership within these groups.
Covered Organizations
An “Organization” is defined as any organized body of people, including but not limited to any club, association, group, fraternity, and sorority. Notably, this definition explicitly includes the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Philippine Military Academy (PMA), the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA), and other similar uniformed service learning institutions.
Prohibited Acts
The Anti-Hazing Law establishes a clear prohibition on all forms of hazing within fraternities, sororities, and organizations in schools, including citizens’ military training and citizens’ army training. This prohibition extends to all other fraternities, sororities, and organizations that are not school-based, such as community-based and other similar entities. The law explicitly states that in no case shall hazing be made a requirement for employment in any business or corporation.
Persons Liable for Hazing
The law outlines various categories of individuals who can be held liable for hazing and prescribes corresponding penalties.
Planners and Direct Participants
Those who actually planned or participated in the hazing that results in death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation face the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of P3-million.
If death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation does not occur, all persons who actually planned or participated in the conduct of the hazing are liable for reclusion perpetua and a P2-million fine.
The Officers
All officers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are actually present during the hazing also face the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a P2-million fine.
The Advisers
Advisers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are present when the acts constituting hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to law enforcement authorities, if they could do so without peril to themselves or their family, are also liable for reclusion perpetua and a P2-million fine.
Those Present During the Hazing
A significant provision of the law states that all persons who are present during the conduct of the hazing are subject to the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a P1-million fine. Notably, the law introduces a disputable presumption of actual participation, where the mere presence of any person during the hazing is considered prima facie evidence of their participation as a principal. This presumption can be rebutted if the person can prove that they took steps to prevent the commission of the hazing or promptly reported the same to the law enforcement authorities, if they could do so without peril to themselves or their family.
Former members
Former officers, nonresident members, or alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after the commission of any of the prohibited acts, perform any act to hide, conceal, or otherwise hamper or obstruct any investigation are liable for reclusion temporal and a P1-million fine.
Promoters
Any person who intimidates, threatens, forces, or employs, or administers any form of vexation against another person for the purpose of recruitment in joining or promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or organization faces a penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period.
The School
The school itself may also be fined P1-million if the fraternity, sorority, or organization filed a written application to conduct an initiation which was subsequently approved by the school, and hazing occurred during the initiation. Incumbent officers of the concerned fraternity, sorority, or organization are jointly liable with those members who actually participated in the hazing.
Owner of the Place of Hazing
The owner or lessee of the place where hazing is conducted can be held liable as a principal if they had actual knowledge of the hazing but failed to take any action to prevent it or promptly report it to law enforcement, provided they could do so without peril.
Similarly, if hazing occurs in the home of an officer or member, the parents with actual knowledge who fail to prevent or promptly report the incident are also liable as principals. School authorities and faculty members, as well as barangay, municipal, or city officials, can be held liable as accomplices and administratively accountable if it can be shown that they allowed or consented to the hazing but failed to take action to prevent it or promptly report it to law enforcement, again, without peril. The penalty for school authorities as accomplices is one degree lower than the prescribed penalty for hazing.
Nature of Hazing
The Anti-Hazing Law is considered malum prohibitum, meaning the act is wrong because it is prohibited by law, regardless of whether it is inherently immoral. Consequently, the existence of criminal intent (dolo) is immaterial in the prosecution of hazing. The defense of good faith cannot be raised.
Furthermore, the law explicitly states that any person charged with hazing shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong (praeter intentionem).
What if the victim consented?
A crucial aspect of the Anti-Hazing Law is that the consent of the recruit, neophyte, or applicant to being subjected to hazing is explicitly not a defense available to persons prosecuted under the Act.
Any form of approval, consent, or agreement, whether written or otherwise, or an express waiver of the right to object to the initiation rite or proceeding which consists of hazing, made by the individual prior to the initiation, is considered void and without any binding effect.
This provision underscores the state’s policy against hazing and protects vulnerable individuals from being coerced into harmful activities, even under the guise of voluntary participation.
Hazing vs. Homicide
The law distinguishes hazing from intentional felonies like homicide. In homicide, the lack of criminal intent (dolo) can be a defense, potentially leading to a conviction for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. However, in hazing, which is malum prohibitum, the lack of intent to inflict harm does not negate liability. Additionally, while praeter intentionem can be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance in homicide, it is expressly disallowed in hazing. The basis of criminal liability also differs; in homicide, it relies on actual and conspiratorial participation in the killing, whereas in hazing, liability extends to a broader range of actions and omissions, including mere presence under certain conditions.
It’s important to note that while previous versions of the law might have contemplated regulated hazing under specific conditions, the current amended law declares all forms of hazing as prohibited.
The Constitutionality of Anti-Hazing Law
The Anti-Hazing Law has faced constitutional challenges, particularly concerning whether it constitutes a bill of attainder, which is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Anti-Hazing Law is not a bill of attainder because the mere filing of an information is not a finding of guilt, and the accused are still subject to trial court proceedings to determine their guilt based on evidence. The increased penalties under the law have also been questioned as potentially cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishment, but the courts have generally upheld them as a valid legislative response to prevent the reprehensible phenomenon of hazing.
Anti-Hazing Law coupled with Safe Spaces Act for Safety and Well-Being
It is also relevant to note the role of Local Government Units (LGUs) under the Safe Spaces Act (R.A. No. 11313), which, while distinct from the Anti-Hazing Law, also addresses issues of safety and well-being. LGUs bear primary responsibility in enforcing the provisions under Article I of the Safe Spaces Act. They are mandated to pass an ordinance localizing the applicability of the Act within sixty (60) days of its effectivity. LGUs are also tasked with disseminating or posting copies of the Act and the corresponding ordinance in conspicuous public places.
Furthermore, they should provide measures to prevent gender-based sexual harassment in educational institutions, such as information campaigns and anti-sexual harassment seminars. LGUs are also encouraged to discourage and impose fines on acts of gender-based sexual harassment as defined in the Safe Spaces Act and to create anti-sexual harassment hotlines. Importantly, nothing in the Safe Spaces Act prevents LGUs from enacting ordinances that impose heavier penalties for the acts specified therein.
The PNP Women and Children’s Desks existing in all police stations are responsible for acting on and attending to all complaints covered under the Safe Spaces Act and coordinating with relevant officers and personnel for its enforcement. In cases of gender-based sexual harassment in streets and public spaces committed by minors, the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) shall take necessary disciplinary measures as provided under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (R.A. No. 9344). It is also stipulated under the Safe Spaces Act that acts that are legitimate expressions of indigenous culture and tradition, as well as breastfeeding in public, shall not be penalized.
In summary, the Anti-Hazing Law provides a comprehensive framework for prohibiting and penalizing hazing, reflecting a strong legislative intent to eradicate this dangerous practice from Philippine society. Its classification as malum prohibitum, the rejection of consent as a defense, and the imposition of liability on a broad range of individuals present during hazing underscore the seriousness with which the law views this issue.
English