The Anti-Hazing

Law Revisited

By Renan E Ramos
The History of Hazing
In Villareal v. People, G.R. No. 151258,
February 1, 2012, the Supreme Court
expounded on the history of hazing:

The notion of hazing is not a recent

development in our society. It is said that,
throughout history, hazing in some form or
another has been associated with
organizations ranging from military groups
to indigenous tribes.
Some say that elements of hazing can be
traced back to the Middle Ages, during
which new students who enrolled in
European universities worked as servants for
upperclassmen. It is believed that the
concept of hazing is rooted in ancient
Greece, where young men recruited into the
military were tested with pain or challenged
to demonstrate the limits of their loyalty and
to prepare the recruits for battle.
Modern fraternities and sororities espouse
some connection to these values of ancient
Greek civilization. According to a scholar,
this concept lends historical legitimacy to a
"tradition" or "ritual" whereby prospective
members are asked to prove their worthiness
and loyalty to the organization in which they
seek to attain membership through hazing.
 Thus, it is said that in the Greek
fraternity system, custom requires a student
wishing to join an organization to receive an
invitation in order to be a neophyte for a
particular chapter. The neophyte period is
usually one to two semesters long. During
the "program," neophytes are required to
interview and to get to know the active
members of the chapter; to learn chapter
history;
to understand the principles of the
organization; to maintain a specified grade
point average; to participate in the
organization’s activities; and to show dignity
and respect for their fellow neophytes, the
organization, and its active and alumni
members. Some chapters require the
initiation activities for a recruit to involve
hazing acts during the entire neophyte stage.
 Hazing, as commonly understood, involves an
initiation rite or ritual that serves as prerequisite for
admission to an organization. In hazing, the "recruit,"
"pledge," "neophyte," "initiate," "applicant" – or any
other term by which the organization may refer to
such a person – is generally placed in embarrassing or
humiliating situations, like being forced to do menial,
silly, foolish, or other similar tasks or activities. It
encompasses different forms of conduct that
humiliate, degrade, abuse, or physically endanger
those who desire membership in the organization.
These acts usually involve physical or psychological
suffering or injury.
 The concept of initiation rites in the country
is nothing new. In fact, more than a century ago,
our national hero – Andres Bonifacio – organized a
secret society named Kataastaasan
Kagalanggalangang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng
Bayan (The Highest and Most Venerable
Association of the Sons and Daughters of the
Nation). The Katipunan, or KKK, started as a small
confraternity believed to be inspired by European
Freemasonry, as well as by confraternities or
sodalities approved by the Catholic Church.
The Katipunan’s ideology was brought home to each
member through the society’s initiation ritual. It is
said that initiates were brought to a dark room, lit
by a single point of illumination, and were asked
a series of questions to determine their fitness,
loyalty, courage, and resolve. They were made to
go through vigorous trials such as "pagsuot sa
isang lungga" or "[pagtalon] sa balon." It would
seem that they were also made to withstand the
blow of "pangherong bakal sa pisngi" and to
endure a "matalas na punyal." As a final step in
the ritual, the neophyte Katipunero was made to
sign membership papers with his own blood.
 It is believed that the Greek fraternity
system was transported by the Americans to
the Philippines in the late 19th century. As
can be seen in the following instances, the
manner of hazing in the United States was
jarringly similar to that inflicted by the
Aquila Fraternity on Lenny Villa.
 Early in 1865, upperclassmen at West
Point Academy forced the fourth classmen to
do exhausting physical exercises that
sometimes resulted in permanent physical
damage; to eat or drink unpalatable foods;
and in various ways to humiliate themselves.
In 1901, General Douglas MacArthur got
involved in a congressional investigation of
hazing at the academy during his second
year at West Point.
 In Easler v. Hejaz Temple of Greenville, 285
S.C. 348, 329, S.E.2d 753 (S.C. 1985) (U.S.),
decided in 1985, the candidate-victim was injured
during the shriner’s hazing event, which was part of
the initiation ceremonies for Hejaz membership.
The ritual involved what was known as the
"mattress-rotating barrel trick." It required each
candidate to slide down an eight to nine-foot-high
metal board onto connected mattresses leading to a
barrel, over which the candidate was required to
climb. Members of Hejaz would stand on each side
of the mattresses and barrel and fun-paddle
candidates en route to the barrel.
 In a video footage taken in 1991, U.S.
Marine paratroopers in Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina, were seen performing a
ceremony in which they pinned paratrooper
jump wings directly onto the neophyte
paratroopers’ chests. The victims were
shown writhing and crying out in pain as
others pounded the spiked medals through
the shirts and into the chests of the victims.
 In State v. Allen, 905 S.W.2d 874, 875 (Mo.
1995) (U.S.), decided in 1995, the Southeast Missouri
State University chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi invited
male students to enter into a pledgeship program. The
fraternity members subjected the pledges to repeated
physical abuse including repeated, open-hand strikes at
the nape, the chest, and the back; caning of the bare
soles of the feet and buttocks; blows to the back with
the use of a heavy book and a cookie sheet while the
pledges were on their hands and knees; various kicks
and punches to the body; and "body slamming," an
activity in which active members of the fraternity lifted
pledges up in the air and dropped them to the ground.
The fraternity members then put the pledges through a
seven-station circle of physical abuse.
 In Ex Parte Barran, 730 So.2d 203 (Ala.
1998) (U.S.), decided in 1998, the pledge-victim
went through hazing by fraternity members of the
Kappa Alpha Order at the Auburn University in
Alabama. The hazing included the following: (1)
having to dig a ditch and jump into it after it had
been filled with water, urine, feces, dinner leftovers,
and vomit; (2) receiving paddlings on the buttocks;
(3) being pushed and kicked, often onto walls or
into pits and trash cans;
(4) eating foods like peppers, hot sauce, butter, and
"yerks" (a mixture of hot sauce, mayonnaise, butter,
beans, and other items); (5) doing chores for the
fraternity and its members, such as cleaning the
fraternity house and yard, being designated as
driver, and running errands; (6) appearing regularly
at 2 a.m. "meetings," during which the pledges
would be hazed for a couple of hours; and (7)
"running the gauntlet," during which the pledges
were pushed, kicked, and hit as they ran down a
hallway and descended down a flight of stairs.
 In Lloyd v. Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, No.
96-CV-348,97-CV-565, 1999 WL 47153 (Dist. Ct.
N.D. N.Y.., 1999) (U.S.), decided in 1999, the
victim – Sylvester Lloyd – was accepted to pledge
at the Cornell University chapter of the Alpha Phi
Alpha Fraternity. He participated in initiation
activities, which included various forms of physical
beatings and torture, psychological coercion and
embarrassment.
 In Kenner v. Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity,
808 A.2d 178 (Pa. Supper. Ct. 2002), decided in
2002, the initiate-victim suffered injuries from
hazing activities during the fraternity’s initiation
rites. Kenner and the other initiates went through
psychological and physical hazing, including being
paddled on the buttocks for more than 200 times.
 In Morton v. State, 988 So.2d 698 (Flo. Ct. App.
2008) (U.S.), Marcus Jones – a university student in
Florida – sought initiation into the campus chapter of
the Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity during the 2005-06
academic year. The pledge’s efforts to join the fraternity
culminated in a series of initiation rituals conducted in
four nights. Jones, together with other candidates, was
blindfolded, verbally harassed, and caned on his face
and buttocks. In these rituals described as
"preliminaries," which lasted for two evenings, he
received approximately 60 canings on his buttocks.
During the last two days of the hazing, the rituals
intensified. The pledges sustained roughly 210 cane
strikes during the four-night initiation. Jones and
several other candidates passed out.
 The purported raison d’être behind hazing
practices is the proverbial "birth by fire," through
which the pledge who has successfully withstood
the hazing proves his or her worth. Some
organizations even believe that hazing is the path to
enlightenment. It is said that this process enables
the organization to establish unity among the
pledges and, hence, reinforces and ensures the
future of the organization. Alleged benefits of
joining include leadership opportunities; improved
academic performance; higher self-esteem;
professional networking opportunities; and the
esprit d’corp associated with close, almost filial,
friendship and common cause.
Meaning of Hazing:
SECTION 1. Hazing as used in this Act is an
initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating
situations such as forcing him/her to do menial, silly,
foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise
subjecting him/her to physical or psychological
suffering or injury. Section 1, RA 8049.
Groups covered:

• Any fraternity, sorority, or organization. Section

1, RA 8049.
• Organization includes any club or the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National
Police, Philippine Military Academy, or cadet
corps of the Citizen’s Military Training, or
Citizen’s Army Training. Section 2, ibid.
Queries:
1. Is hazing prohibited under RA 8049?

2. If A has already been admitted to the Pratring

Lazhing Fraternity, and he is subsequently beaten
by B, an officer of the organization, did B commit
hazing?

3. If X formed a fraternity which he named Beta

Beta Ku, and Y applied as an initiate, would there
be hazing if X orders Y to court the comely lass, Z,
for X?
Requirements for the conduct of
initiation rites:
1. prior written notice to the school
authorities or head of organization seven
days before initiation;

2. the written notice shall indicate period of

initiation which shall not exceed three days,
and contain the names of the individuals to
be subjected to such activities;
3. the written notice shall further contain an
undertaking that no physical violence be employed
by anybody during such initiation rites. Section 2,
ibid.

4. the head of the school or organization or their

representatives must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or organization who
must be present during initiation, and who must see
to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be
inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant.
Query:

Is hazing or initiation prohibited?

Persons criminally liable:
• The following persons are criminally liable for
grave and less grave felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices
3. Accessories.

• The following are criminally liable for light

felonies:
1. Principals
2. Accomplices. Article 16, Revised Penal
Code.
Definition of principals:
• The following are considered as principals:

1. Those who take a direct part in the

execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce others
to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the commission
of the offense by another act without which it
would not have been accomplished. Article 17,
RPC.
Definition of accomplices:
Those persons who, without being included
in Article 17 above, cooperate in the
execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts. Article 18, RPC
Definition of accessories:
• Accessories are those who, having
knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated
therein, either as principals or
accomplice, take part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following
manner:
1. By profiting themselves or by
assisting the offenders to profit from the
effects of the crime.
 2. By concealing or destroying the body of
the crime, or the effects or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in
the escape of the principal of the crime, provided
that the accessory acts with abuse of his
public functions or whenever the author of the
crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an
attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive,
or is known to be habitually guilty of some other
crime. Article 19, RPC.
Those who are liable as principals
under RA 8049:
• the officers and members of the fraternity,
sorority or organization who actually participated
in the infliction of physical harm. Section 4, ibid.

• the parents, if the hazing is held in the home of

one of the officers of members of the fraternity,
sorority, group, or organization, and these parents
have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted
at their home but failed to take any action to
prevent the same from occurring. Id.
Those who are liable as principals
under RA 8049:
• 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. Id.
• the officers or members of an organization, group,
fraternity or sorority’s adviser who are present when the
acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed
to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
Id.
• any person present is prima facie liable as a principal
unless he prevented the commission of the acts
punished in RA No. 8049.
Penalties for principals

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua (life

imprisonment) if death, rape, sodomy or mutilation
results therefrom.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to
20 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim
shall become insane, imbecile, impotent or blind.
Penalties for principals
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
(14 years, 8 months and one day to 17 years and 4
months) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall
have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to
smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a
leg shall have lost the use of any such member shall have
become incapacitated for the activity or work in which he
was habitually engaged.
Penalties for principals
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period (12 years and one day to 14 years
and 8 months) if in consequence of the hazing the
victim shall become deformed or shall have lost any
other part of his body, or shall have lost the use
thereof or shall have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the activity or work in which he has
habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety
(90) days.
Penalties for principals

5. The penalty of prison [sic] mayor in its

maximum period (10 years and one day to 12 years)
if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall
have been ill or incapacitated for the performance
of the activity or work in which he was habitually
engaged for more than thirty (30) days.
Penalties for principals
6. The penalty of prison [sic] mayor in its medium
period (8 years and one day to 10 years) if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall have
been ill or capacitated for the performance of the
activity or work in which he was habitually
engaged for ten (10) days or more, or that the injury
sustained shall require medical attendance for the
same period.
Penalties for principals
7. The penalty of the prison [sic] mayor in its
minimum period (6 years and one day to 8 years) if
in consequence of the hazing the victim shall have
been ill or incapacitated for the performance of the
activity or work in which he was habitually
engaged from one (1) to nine (9) days, or that the
injury sustained shall require medical attendance for
the same period.
Penalties for principals

8. The penalty of prison [sic] correccional in its

maximum period (4 years, 2 months and one day to
6 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim
shall sustain physical injuries, which do not prevent
him/her from engaging in his habitual activity, or
work nor require medical attendance.
Those who are liable as
accomplices:
• the owner of the place where the hazing is
conducted when he has actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted therein but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring. Id.
• the school authorities including faculty members
who consent to the hazing or who have actual
knowledge thereof, but failed to take any
Penalties for accomplices
under RA No. 8049:

The penalty next lower in degree than that

prescribed by law for the consummated
felony. Vide: Article 52, RPC.
Absence of malicious intent in hazing:
Going back to the 2012 ruling in Villareal v. People, the
Supreme Court emphasized in that case that mere infliction
of physical injuries does not make the accused liable for
intentional felony:

• In order to be found guilty of any of the felonious acts

under Articles 262 to 266 of the Revised Penal Code, the
employment of physical injuries must be coupled with
dolus malus. As an act that is mala in se, the existence of
malicious intent is fundamental, since injury arises from
the mental state of the wrongdoer – iniuria ex affectu
facientis consistat. If there is no criminal intent, the
accused cannot be found guilty of an intentional felony.
Thus, in case of physical injuries under the Revised
Penal Code, there must be a specific animus
iniuriandi or malicious intention to do wrong against
the physical integrity or well-being of a person, so as
to incapacitate and deprive the victim of certain
bodily functions. Without proof beyond reasonable
doubt of the required animus iniuriandi, the overt act
of inflicting physical injuries per se merely satisfies
the elements of freedom and intelligence in an
intentional felony. The commission of the act does
not, in itself, make a man guilty unless his intentions
are.
Thus, we have ruled in a number of instances that
the mere infliction of physical injuries, absent
malicious intent, does not make a person
automatically liable for an intentional felony.
 In Bagajo v. People, 86 SCRA 389 (1978), the
accused teacher, using a bamboo stick, whipped one of
her students behind her legs and thighs as a form of
discipline. The student suffered lesions and bruises from
the corporal punishment. In reversing the trial court’s
finding of criminal liability for slight physical injuries,
this Court stated thus: "Independently of any civil or
administrative responsibility … [w]e are persuaded that
she did not do what she had done with criminal intent …
the means she actually used was moderate and that she
was not motivated by ill-will, hatred or any malevolent
intent." Considering the applicable laws, we then ruled
that "as a matter of law, petitioner did not incur any
criminal liability for her act of whipping her pupil."
 In People v. Carmen, 407 Phil. 564 (2001), the
accused members of the religious group known as the
Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima – under the guise of a
"ritual or treatment" – plunged the head of the victim into a
barrel of water, banged his head against a bench, pounded
his chest with fists, and stabbed him on the side with a
kitchen knife, in order to cure him of "nervous breakdown"
by expelling through those means the bad spirits possessing
him. The collective acts of the group caused the death of the
victim. Since malicious intent was not proven, we reversed
the trial court’s finding of liability for murder under Article
4 of the Revised Penal Code and instead ruled that the
accused should be held criminally liable for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide under Article 365 thereof.
Administrative Due Process for Students
(1) the students must be informed in writing of the nature
and cause of any accusation against them; (2) they shall
have the right to answer the charges against them with the
assistance of counsel, if desired: (3) they shall be informed
of the evidence against them (4) they shall have the right
to adduce evidence in their own behalf; and (5) the
evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities
to hear and decide the case. Ateneo de Manila University,
et al. v. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong, etc., et al., G.R. No.
99327, May 27, 1993, citing Guzman v. National
University, Alcuaz v. PSBA, Q.C. Branch, and Non v.
Dames II .
REPUBLIC ACT No. 8049: THE ANTI-HAZING
LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

AN ACT REGULATING HAZING AND OTHER FORMS

OF INITIATION RITES IN FRATERNITIES,
SORORITIES, AND ORGANIZATIONS AND
PROVIDING PENALTIES THEREFORE.
Be enacted by Senate and House of Representatives
of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Hazing as used in this Act is an

initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority
or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating
situations such as forcing him/her to do menial, silly,
foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise
subjecting him/her to physical or psychological
suffering or injury.
 The term organization shall include any club or
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National
Police, Philippine Military Academy, or cadet corps of
the Citizen’s Military Training, or Citizen’s Army
Training. 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 as
approved by the secretary of National Defense and the
National Police Commission duly recommended by the
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Director General of the Philippine National Police shall
not be considered as hazing for the purpose of this act.
 SECTION 2. No hazing or initiation rites in
any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or
organization shall be allowed without prior written
notice to the school authorities or head of
organization seven (7) days before the conduct of
such initiations. The written notice shall indicate the
period of the initiation activities which shall not
exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of
those to be subjected to such activities, and shall
further contain an undertaking that no physical
violence be employed by anybody during such
initiation rites.
 SECTION 3. The head of the school or
organization or their representatives must assign at
least two (2) representatives of the school or
organization, as the case may be, to be present
during initiation. It is the duty of such
representative to see to it that no physical harm of
any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte
or applicant.
 SECTION 4. If the person subjected 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 person or persons who participated
in the hazing shall suffer:

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua (life

imprisonment) if death, rape, sodomy or mutilation
results therefrom.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period (17 years, 4 months and 1 day to
20 years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim
shall become insane, imbecile, impotent or blind.
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period (14 years, 8 months and one day to 17 years
and 4 months) if in consequence of the hazing the
victim shall have lost the use of speech or the power
to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand,
a foot, an arm or a leg shall have lost the use of any
such member shall have become incapacitated for
the activity or work in which he was habitually
engaged.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
minimum period (12 years and one day to 14 years
and 8 months) if in consequence of the hazing the
victim shall become deformed or shall have lost
any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use
thereof or shall have been ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the activity or work in which he
has habitually engaged for a period of more than
ninety (90) days.
5. The penalty of prison [sic] mayor in its maximum
period (10 years and one day to 12 years) if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been
ill or incapacitated for the performance of the activity
or work in which he was habitually engaged for more
than thirty (30) days.
6. The penalty of prison [sic] mayor in its medium
period (8 years and one day to 10 years) if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been
ill or capacitated for the performance of the activity or
work in which he was habitually engaged for ten (10)
days or more, or that the injury sustained shall require
medical attendance for the same period.
7. The penalty of the prison [sic] mayor in its
minimum period (6 years and one day to 8 years) if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall have been
ill or incapacitated for the performance of the activity
or work in which he was habitually engaged from one
(1) to nine (9) days, or that the injury sustained shall
require medical attendance for the same period.
8. The penalty of prison [sic] correccional in its
maximum period (4 years, 2 months and one day to 6
years) if in consequence of the hazing the victim shall
sustain physical injuries, which do not prevent him/her
from engaging in his habitual activity, or work nor
require medical attendance.
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 or persons
charged under this provision 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 or 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 twelve (12) years of
age at the time of hazing.
 The owner of the place where the hazing is
conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when
he/she 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 of members
of the fraternity, sorority, group, or organization, the
parent 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 faculty
members who consent to the hazing or who have
actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any
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. Officers or members of an organization,
group, fraternity or sorority’s adviser who are present
when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and
failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring shall be liable as principals.
 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 should
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstances that there
was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
This section shall apply to the president, manager,
director, or other responsible officer of a corporation
engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment in the
manner provided herein.
SECTION 5. If any provision or part of this Act is
declared invalid or unconstitutional, the other parts
or provision thereof shall remain valid and effective.
SECTION 6. All laws, orders, rules of regulations,
which are inconsistent with or contrary to the
provisions of this Act, are hereby amended or
repealed accordingly.
SECTION 7. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)
days after its publication in at least two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: June 07, 1995