REPUBLIC ACT 8049 ANTI-HAZING LAW Summary of Important Definitions and Salient Provisions Sec.1
Hazing:
H
I
R
Y
U
K
I
M
I
K
O
O
K
U
B
O
sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury
Organization:
Includes any club of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, the Philippine Military Academy, or Cadet Corps of the Citizen’s Military Training or Citizen’s Army Training
Sec.2
*Prior written notice to the school authorities/head of the organization 7 days before the conduct of such initiation which shall not exceed 3 days
*Notice shall include the names of those to be subjected to such activities, and an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by anybody during such rites
Sec.3
*At least 2 representatives of the school or organization must be present to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted
Sec.4
*If the person subject to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals
*The responsible officials of the school or of the police, military or citizen’s army training organization may impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the person/s charged under these provisions even before their conviction
*The maximum penalty herein provided shall be imposed in any of the following instances:
a) When the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join;
b) When the recruit, neophyte, or applicant initially consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is prevented from quitting;
c) When the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the unlawful act to his parents/guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force, violence, threat or intimidation;
d) When the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution; or e) When the victim is below 12 at the time of the hazing
*The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring
*If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers/members of the fraternity, group or organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring
*The school authorities including the faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators
*The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as principals
H
I
R
Y
U
K
I
M
I
K
O
O
K
U
B
O
*The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein
*Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong
Author’s Note:
February 19, 2012, Sunday, saw this particular piece of legislation come alive in a way this block could never have anticipated. One of our own, Marvin P. Reglos, was set to join the Lambda Rho Beta Fraternity and would be initiated that day. He died as a result of the injuries inflicted on him during the initiation. His death shocked all levels of the academe – and was aired over a period of weeks on national news channels. We all watched the story piece itself together. He was taken to a poolside resort in Antipolo, Rizallate on February 18 (Saturday). The next day, at around 3pm or thereabout, a red Honda Civic stopped by the emergency room of Unciano Medical Centre, and Marvin was left to the care of the attending doctors. He was pronounced dead after doctors tried in vain to revive him for 20 minutes. Later that afternoon, 2 unidentified men showed up at the medical centre, claiming to be ‘friends’ of Marvin, and wanting to know how he was doing. They claimed that they had received messages, informing them that Marvin was at the centre (a blatant lie which the doctors promptly refuted. Nobody in that centre alerted them to Marvin’s condition – he died alone). The police who were then investigating the death took them into custody. Murder charges were filed against those 2 men – later identified as former Bedan law students and a few others, including the ‘Grand Rhoan’ of the Fraternity. As I write this (May 27, 2012), trial is still on-going. There are no words at all to describe the horror of what we went through as we travelled to Antipolo and saw him for ourselves, the agony of watching a father weep over his son in a morgue (that father’s screams echo forever in the darkest corners of my dreams), and of a mother arriving home from South Korea to be at her son’s wake and the funeral that would follow. We made the 15-hour trip to Marvin’s hometown of Burgos, Isabela – where we were met with the anger of an entire community – people who hated what was done to him, the brutality he was subjected to… People who did not know that it was our loss too. I’m writing this because Marvin was my friend. And because his story deserves to be told. Unequivocally, I would like to state that I denounce the use of violence as a requisite for membership in any organization. No amount of justification can supply the lacking principle – not loyalty, or brotherhood, or strength or courage; not even consent. Marvin made the mistake of thinking that being in a fraternity was a way to help boost survival within the law school, and an avenue for acceptance. Those same people he looked to for support took his life even as he trusted them with it. The extreme cruelty with which they had treated my friend was evident from the injuries he bore – everywhere skin showed, there were bruises. He died of kidney failure, the autopsy report said; kidney failure from the sheer loss of blood.So ended the dreams of our kind, funny Marvin – eldest among 3 siblings born to a farmer and an OFW. So much for the vaunted ideals of brotherhood – which those particular fraternity membersclearly negated when they arrogated to themselves the right to take a life. They deserve none of this society’s sympathy.
~ Kimiko
Q: What is hazing? Q: how is it committed?
*NB: see sec.1
Q: What are the organizations covered and those that are not? *NB: see sec.1
H
I
R
Y
U
K
I
M
I
K
O
O
K
U
B
O
Q: Who are liable? 1. PRINCIPALS:
a. The members or officers of the organization who participated in the infliction of harm, if the person subjected to hazing suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof
b. Parents of a member of the organization, when the hazing has been carried out in that member’s home and the parents had actual knowledge of the hazing, and failed to prevent it
c. Officers, former officers, alumni of the organization who planned the hazing, although they were not actually present during the event
d. Persons actually present during the initiation who fail to prove that they acted to prevent the same
2. ACCOMPLICES:
a. The owner of the place where hazing took place, if he had actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to prevent it
b. School authorities and faculty members who had actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to prevent it
Q: What are the legal requirements regarding the conduct of initiation rites?
-Prior written notice to the school authorities/organization head containing the names of the members who will be participating, and submitted 7 days before the event.
-The notice must also contain an undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by any person during the rites
-2 school/organization authorities must be present during the initiation rites to insure that no physical harm shall be inflicted
Q: What is the legal effect on the mitigation of liability, as far as being charged with a violation of this special law is concerned?
The accused is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong
Q: What is the presumption of the law, with regards to persons actually present during the hazing? Persons who are present during the hazing are presumed to have participated therein as principals unless they can prove that they prevented the commission of the hazing
NOTES:
*Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence *Impotency and sterility are not synonymous
*Blindness requires loss of vision in both eyes or one, it does not include mere weakness of vision *Re: physical injuries, a tooth is considered a member of the body
*’Deformity’ involves physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. It includes scars or bodily impairments that are (a) not curable by natural means or by nature; as well as (b) conspicuous and visible (i.e.: if it’s covered by clothing, even if it does happen to be a horrible scar, it isn’t deformity, as far as the law is concerned)
*Loss of hearing must be in both ears; else the injury is merely considered a loss of the use of one part of the body, not deafness as in loss of the power to hear
H
I
R
Y
U
K
I
M
I
K
O
O
K
U
B
O
*When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of the illness/incapacity for labour, there must be evidence of the length of that period, else the offense will be considered merely as slight physical injuries
*There is no ‘incapacity for labour’ if the injured party could still engage in his work albeit less effectively than before
*Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same persons enumerated under parricide; or when it is attended by any of the circumstances defining the crime of murder HOWEVER, serious physical injuries resulting from excessive chastisement by parents is not qualified (this is another thing I disapprove of – excessive chastisement by parents should be qualified – no parent should be able to escape a higher penalty for seriously hurting a child just because he/she happens to be that child’s parent –kimi)