ANTI-HAZING-ACT-OF-2018-pptx.pptx

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11053- ANTI-HAZING
ACT OF 2018
(AMENDING RA 8049 ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 1995)
1

DEFINITION OF HAZING
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 or a requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority,
or organization.
Hazing includes paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics,
exposure to the weather, forced consumption of any food, liquor, beverage, drug
or other substance, or any other brutal treatment of forced physical activity
which is likely to adversely affect the physical and psychological health of such
recruit, neophyte, applicant, or member.
Hazing shall also include 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 do menial, silly, or foolish tasks (Section 2 of RA No. 8049 as
amended by RA No. 11053, June 29, 2018).
2

ELEMENTS OF HAZING
1. That there is initiation rite or practice made as a prerequisite for
admission or a requirement for continuing membership in a
fraternity, sorority, or organization;
2. That during the initiation rite or practice, physical or psychological
suffering, harm, or injury is inflected on a recruit, neophyte,
applicant, or member of the fraternity, sorority or organization; and
3. As a consequence of the hazing, death, rape and sodomy, or
mutilation results.
3

INITIATION RITE OR PRACTICE
SECTION 2 (B), RA 11053
Initiation or initiation rites refer to ceremonies,
practices, rituals, or other acts, whether formal or
informal, that a person must perform or take part in
order to be accepted into a fraternity, sorority, or
organization as a full-fledged member. It includes
ceremonies, practices, rituals, and other acts in all
stages of membership in a fraternity, sorority, or
organization. 4

ORGANIZATION
SECTION 2 (C), RA 11053
Organization refers to an organized body of people which includes,
but is not limited to, any club, association, group, fraternity, and sorority.
This term shall include:
1. Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP)
2. Philippine National Police (PNP)
3. Philippine Military Academy (PMA)
4. Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA)
5. Others, similar to those abovementioned uniformed service learning
institutions.
6. Philippine Merchant Academy
7. Company or private corporation 5

DEATH, RAPE, SODOMY OR MUTILATION
RA No. 8049 as amended by RA No. 11053,
declares all forms of hazing shall be prohibited in
fraternities, sororities, and organizations. Section 14
thereof prescribes for penalties for all forms of
hazing. However, the penalty is higher where death,
rape, sodomy, or mutilation results from hazing.
6

MALUM PROHIBITUM
Congress created a special law on hazing founded upon
the principle of mala prohibita where good faith is not a
defense.
The deliberation of the Senate shows that what is
important is not the intention to kill the neophyte during
the hazing but the result of the act hazing. Also, the
framers of the law intended that the consent of the victim
to be injured shall not be a defense in hazing. The very act
of inflicting physical or psychological pain is a punishable
act. Death is just an aggravating circumstance.
7

PERSONS LIABLE FOR HAZING
1. Presence – Sec. 14, RA No. 11053 punishes all persons who are present in
the conduct of the hazing. However, the penalty is higher if the persons,
who are present during the hazing, are: (1) officers of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization; (2) former officers, nonresident members, or alumni
thereof; (3) members thereof who are intoxicated or under the influence of
alcohol or illegal drugs.
2. Actual participation – The penalty for hazing is also higher if the person
actually participated in the conduct of hazing. The actual participants are
liable for hazing even if they are not members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization. 8

3. Planning – The law punishes all persons, who actually planned the
conduct of the hazing. Even though these planners were not present
when the acts constituting hazing were committed, they shall still be
liable as principals.
4. Adviser – The law also punishes the adviser of a fraternity, sorority, or
organization who is present when the acts constituting the hazing
were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from
occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities if such adviser or advisers can do so without
peril to their person or their family.
9

5. Inducement- Officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization, who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the
hazing by inducing the victim to the present thereat, are liable for
hazing.
6. Incumbent officers- the incumbent officers of the fraternity,
sorority, or organization concerned shall be jointly liable with
those members who actually participated in the hazing.
10

7. Owner or lessee – The law punishes the owner or lessee of the place where
hazing is conducted as principal for hazing, when he has actual knowledge
of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the
same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the law
enforcement authorities if they can do so without peril to their person or
their family.
8. Parents- Under the law, if the hazing is held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization, the parents
shall be held liable as principals for hazing when they have actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to
prevent the same from occurring or failed to promptly report the same to
the law enforcement authorities if such parents can do so without peril to
their person or their family.
11

9. School Authorities - School authorities including faculty members as well as
barangay, municipal, or city officials shall be liable as an accomplice for
hazing conducted by fraternities, sororities, and other organizations , if it
can be shown that: (1) the school or barangay, municipal, or city officials
allowed or consented to the conduct pf hazing; or (2) where there is actual
knowledge of hazing, but such officials failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring or failed to promptly report to the law
enforcement authorities if the same can be done without peril to their
person or their family.
12

Even though school authorities and faculty members have had no
direct participation in hazing, they may nonetheless be charged as
accomplices if it is shown that: (1) hazing occurred; (2) the accused
are school authorities or faculty members; and (3) they consented
to or failed to take preventive action against hazing in spite actual
knowledge thereof (People v. Bayabos) or to report the matter to
the authorities.
13

The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and
accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the
offense (hazing) can be duly established in evidence, the determination of
the liability of the accomplice can proceed independently of that of the
principal ( People v. Bayabos, supra).
Under Section 7 of RA No. 8049 as amended by RA No. 11053, the faculty
adviser or advisers, who accepted his role after being selected by an
accredited fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall be responsible for
monitoring the activities of the fraternity, sorority, or organization. In case
of violation of any of the provisions of this Act, it is presumed that the
faculty adviser has knowledge and consented to the commission of any of
the unlawful acts stated therein. 14

Under Section 4, 5, 10, and 11 of RA No. 8049 as amended by RA No.
11503, initiation rites are allowed if the fraternity, sorority, or organization
obtained approval from school authority, or punong barangay, or city or
municipal mayor, authorities upon writing application undertaking that no
harm of any kind shall be committed. During approved initiation rites, at
least two school or barangay, or city or municipal representatives must be
present. If hazing is still committed despite their presence, no liability shall
attach to them unless it is proven that they failed to perform an overt act
to prevent or stop the commission thereof.
Failure to provide school representatives during the approved initiations
rites is also punishable. 15

10. Obstruction of Justice- The law also punishes former officers,
nonresident members, or alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization who, after the commission of hazing will perform
any act to hide, conceal, or otherwise hamper or obstruct any
investigation that will be conducted thereafter.
16

11. Forcible Recruitment- The law also punishes any person who
shall intimidate, threaten, force, or employ, or administer any
form of vexation against another person for the purpose of
recruitment in joining or promoting a particular fraternity, sorority,
or organization.
The persistent and repeated proposal or invitation made to a
person who had twice refused to participate or join to the
proposed fraternity, sorority, or organization, shall be prima facie
evidence of vexation for purpose of this crime.
18

12. Corporate or Company Officers- Under RA No. 8049, in no case
shall hazing be made a recruitment for employment in any
business or corporation. The president, manager, director, or other
responsible officer of business or corporations engaged in hazing
as a recruitment for employment also criminally liable.
19

COMMON DEFENSE
In hazing, taking action to prevent the occurrence of hazing or reporting the
matter to the police is a defense by the following offenders:
1. Adviser;
2. Owner or lessee of the place of hazing;
3. Parents of the member or officer of fraternity, sorority, or organization;
4. School authorities and faculty members, barangay, municipal, or city officials if
they being charged on the basis of their knowledge of the conduct of hazing.
*Taking preventive measure or reporting the matter to the authorities will also
negate the presumption of actual participation. 20

REGULATED HAZING
Not all forms of initiation rites are prohibited by the law. Section 2 of RA No.
8049 provides that initiation rites of fraternities, sororities, or organizations
shall be allowed provided that the following requisites are met:
1. That the fraternity, sorority, or organizations has a prior written notice to the
school authorities or head of organization;
2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven days before the
conduct of such initiation;
21

REGULATED HAZING
3. That the written notice shall indicate:
(a) The period of the initiation activities, which shall not exceed three days;
(b) The names of those to be subjected to such activities; and
(c) An undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody during such
initiation rites (Dungo v. People, supra; 2002 Bar Exam).
RA No. 8049 qualifies that the physical, mental and psychological testing and
training procedure and practices members to determine and enhance the physical,
mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular of the AFP and the PNP
, as
approved by the secretary National Defense and the National police Commission,
duly recommended by the Chief of Staff of the AFP and the director General of
the PNP
, shall not be considered as hazing. 22

NEW PROVISIONS TO RA 11053 AS AN
AMENDMENT TO RA 8049
23

SECTION 6
Registration of Fraternities, Sororities and Other Organizations. - All
existing fraternities sororities, and other organizations otherwise
not created or organized by the school but has existing members
who are students or plans to recruit students to be its member shall
be required to register with the proper school authorities before it
conducts activities whether on or off-campus, including recruitment
of members.
"Failure to comply with any of the requirements in this section shall
result in the cacellation of the registration of the fraternity, sorority,
or organization."
24

SECTION 7
Faculty Adviser. - Schools shall require all fraternities,
sororities, or organizations, as a condition to the grant of
accreditation or registration, to submit the name or names
of their respective faculty adviser or advisers who must not
be members of the respective fraternity, sorority, or
organization. The submission shall also include a written
acceptance or consent on the part of the selected faculty
adviser or advisers. 25

SECTION 9
Registration of Community-Based and Other Similar
Fraternities, Sororities, or Organizations. - All new
and existing community-based fraternities, sororities,
or organizations, including their respective local
chapters, shall register with the barangay,
municipality, or city wherein they are primarily
based. 26

SECTION 11
Monitoring of Initiation Rites of Community-Based and All Similar Fraternities,
Sororities or Organizations. - The punong barangay of the barangay or the
municipal or city mayor of the municipality or city where community-based
fraternity, sorority or organization is based must assign at least two (2) barangay
or municipal or city officials to be present during the initiation and document
the entire proceedings. Thereafter, said representatives who are present during
the initiation shall make a report of the initiation rites to the punong barangay,
or the municipal or the city mayor regarding the conduct of the
initiation: Provided, That if hazing is still committed despite their presence, no
liability shall attached to them unless it is proven that they failed to perform an
overt act prevent or stop the commission thereof." 27

SECTION 15
Implementing Rules and Regulations. (IRR). - The
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), together with the
Department of Education (DepED), Department of Justice
(DOJ), Department of the Interior and Local Government
(DILG), Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD), AFP, PNP, and National Youth Commission (NYC),
shall promulgate the IRR within ninety (90) days from the
effectivity of this Act."
28

SECTION 14, RA 11053 - PENALTIES
29

SECTION 14. PENALTIES. – THE FOLLOWING PENALTIES SHALL BE
IMPOSED:
"(a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Three million pesos (P3,000,000.00) shall
be imposed upon those who actually planned or participated in the hazing if, as a consequence
of the hazing, death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation results therefrom;
"(b) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and a fine of Two million pesos (P2,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon:
"(1) All persons who actually planned or participated in the conduct of the hazing;
"(2) All officers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are actually present during
the hazing;
"(3) The adviser of a fraternity, sorority, or organization who is present when the acts
constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same from
occurring or failed to promptly report the same to the law enforcement authorities if such
adviser or adviser or advisers can do so without peril to their person or their family;
30

IMPOSED:
"(4) All former officers, nonresident members, or alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who
are also present during the hazing: Provided, That should the former officer, nonresident member, or
alumnus be a member of the Philippine Bar, such member shall immediately be subjected to disciplinary
proceedings by the Supreme Court pursuant to its power to discipline members of the Philippine
Bar: Provided, further, That should the former officer, nonresident member, or alumnus belong to any other
profession subject to regulation by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC), such professional shall
immediately be subjected to disciplinary proceedings by the concerned Professional Regulatory Board, the
imposable penalty for which shall include, but is not limited to, suspension for a period of not less than
three (3) or revocation of the professional license. A suspended or revoked professional license pursuant to
this section may be reinstated upon submission of affidavits from at least three (3) disinterested persons,
good moral certifications from different unaffiliated and credible government, religious, and socio-civic
organizations and such other relevant evidence to show that the concerned professional has become
morally fit for readmission into the profession: Provided, That said readmission into the profession shall be
subject to the approval of the respective Professional Regulatory Board;
31

IMPOSED:
"(5) Officers or members of a fraternity, sorority, or organization who knowingly cooperated in carrying
out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat; and
"(6) members of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who are present during the hazing when they
are intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs;
"(c) The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a fine of One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon all persons who are present in the conduct of the hazing;
"(d) The penalty of reclusion temporal and fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon
former officers, nonresident member, alumni of the fraternity, sorority, or organization who, after the
commission of any of the prohibited acts proscribed herein, will perform any act to hide, conceal, or
otherwise hamper or obstruct any investigation that will be conducted thereafter;
"(e) The penalty of prision correcional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
intimidate, threaten, force, or employ, or administer any form of vexation against another person for the
purpose of recruitment in joining or promoting a particular fraternity, sorority, or organization. 32

IMPOSED:
"(f) A fine of One million pesos (P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed on the school 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 rites or when no representatives from the school were
present during the initiation.
"The owner or lessee of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as principal and penalized under
paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, when such owner or lessee has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring or failed to promptly
report the same to the law enforcement authorities if they can do so without peril to their person or their
family. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, sorority, or
organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals and penalized under paragraphs (a) or (b) hereof
33

IMPOSED:
"The school authorities including faculty members as well as barangay, municipal, or city officials shall be
liable as an accomplice and likewise be held administratively accountable for hazing conducted by the
fraternities, sororities, other organizations, if it can be shown that the school or barangay, municipal, or city
officials allowed or consented to the conduct of hazing, but such officials failed to take any action to
prevent the same from occurring or failed to promptly report to the law enforcement authorities if the same
can be done without peril to their person or their family.
"The presence of any person, even if such person is not a member of the fraternity, sorority, or organization,
during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless such person or
persons prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein or promptly reported the same to the law
enforcement authorities if they can do so without peril, to their person or their family.
"The incumbent officers of the fraternity, sorority, or organization concerned shall be jointly liable with
those members who actually participated in the hazing.
34

6 NEGROS ROTC OFFICERS SACKED OVER ‘HAZING’
The termination came after a 19-year-old criminology student of the Bago City College complained that he and four others were
maltreated by their upper classmen.

BACOLOD CITY, Philippines — Six criminology students in Negros Occidental
have been terminated as cadet officers of the Reserve Officers Training Corps
(ROTC) due to their alleged involvement in a hazing incident.
The termination came after a 19-year-old criminology student of the Bago City
College complained that he and four others were maltreated by their upper
classmen.
The maltreatment reportedly occurred in the restroom of the school last week,
according to Army Capt. Rodillo Famulag, chief of the 605th Community
Defense Center (CDC) of the Army Reserve Command.
The complainant said he was kicked by one of the ROTC officers, causing his
head to hit the wall. He said he felt unwell the following day, prompting his
parents to have his condition checked.
The complainant reportedly suffered hematoma in the abdomen.

Famulag said investigation showed the incident occurred during a regular school day and
not during ROTC training.
He clarified that the incident had nothing to do with the ROTC training, saying it was part
of a ceremony of getting accepted into a fraternity group.
Famulag said they do not tolerate any wrongdoing committed by ROTC officers, even as
it is not related to the training.
“To prevent them from doing it possibly during ROTC training, we have to remove them
this early,” Famulag said.
The 605th CDC supervises the training and activities of Army reservists in Negros
Occidental.
Lt. Leomel Adolacion, deputy police chief of Bago City, yesterday clarified that there was
no hazing.
“Maybe the suspects did it for fun, although it happened on campus,” Adolacion said.
He said they have referred the complaint to the school administration for appropriate
action.

ARRESTED PERSON FOR VIOLATION OF ANTI-HAZING ACT OF 2018
38
SECTION 14 (B) (I) OF RA 11053

PNP NEWS RELEASE NO.: BCPS 2021-01-12
AUTHORITY: PMAJ JOHN JOEL S BATUSBATUSAN
Acting Chief of Police
BAGO CITY POLICE STATION
DATE: January 19, 2021
Warrant and Subpoena Section of Bago City Police Station, and Mata Sang
Banwa BIN Volunter, under the direct supervision of PMAJ JOHN JOEL S
BATUSBATUSAN, ACOP conducted operation at about 1145H of January 18,
2021, Brgy. Napoles, Bago City which resulted to the arrest of 21 yrs old female,
single, student, a resident of Prk. Bebe, Brgy. Napoles, Bago City by virtue of
Warrant of Arrest, in criminal case no.4892 for the crime of Violation of Anti
Hazing Act of 2018 Sec. 14 (B)(I) R. A. No. 11053 Issued by Hon. Frances V.
Guanzon presiding judge of RTC Br. 62, Bago City dated January 13, 2021, No
bail recommended. Subject wanted person is presently detained at custodial
facility of this station.
39

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER,
VS.
LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS, LTJG. MANNY G. FERRER, LTJG. RONALD G.
MAGSINO, LTJG. GERRY P
. DOCTOR, ENS. DOMINADOR B. OPERIO, JR., AND
THE HON. SANDIGANBAYAN, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 171222
FEBRUARY 18, 2015
41

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LTSG. DOMINADOR BAYABOS,
ET. AL. (G.R. NO. 171222 FEBRUARY 18, 2015)
 THE CASE BACKGROUND
Fernando C. Balidoy, Jr. (Balidoy) was admitted as a probationary midshipman at the
PMMA. In order to reach active status, all new entrants were required to successfully
complete the mandatory "Indoctrination and Orientation Period,“ which was set from 2
May to 1 June 2001. Balidoy died on 3 May 2001.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) probed the death of Balidoy. After months of
investigation, it forwarded its findings to the provincial prosecutor of Zambales for the
preliminary investigation and possible criminal prosecution of those involved in the
orientation and indoctrination of the PMMA Class of 2005. Subsequently, the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor issued a Resolution finding probable cause to charge the principals
to the crime of hazing. A criminal case against Alvarez et al. was then filed with the
Regional Trial Court of Iba, Zambales (RTC–Zambales).
42

43
The Assistant Provincial Prosecutor also endorsed to the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military the finding of probable cause to
charge the following school authorities as accomplices to hazing:
Dominador D. Bayabos (Bayabos), et al as respondents. The
Ombudsman Investigator agreed with the findings of the Assistant
Provincial Prosecutor. The matter was thus ordered re-docketed for
the purpose of conducting the proper administrative proceedings
against respondents for grave misconduct and abuse of authority.
The Office of the Special Prosecutor eventually filed with the
Sandiganbayan a criminal case charging respondents as
accomplices to the crime of hazing.

44
As a final point, Bayabos et al. argued that the case against the
principal accused had already been dismissed with finality by the
RTC. There being no more principals with whom they could have
cooperated in the execution of the offense, they asserted that the
case against them must be dismissed.
The Special Prosecutor opposed the motion of Bayabos et al. He
stressed that there was nothing in the law requiring that the
principals must be prosecuted first before a case could be filed
against the accomplices.

Six days before Bayabos et al. were set to be arraigned, the Sandiganbayan
issued the assailed dismissing the criminal case against them. According to the
court, the fact that the charge against the principal accused Alvarez et al. was
dismissed with finality favorably carried with it the indictment against those
charged as accomplices, whose criminal responsibility was subordinate to that of
the former. It stressed that before there can be an accomplice, there must be a
principal by direct participation, the latter being the originator of the criminal
design. In this case, as there were no principal perpetrators to speak of,
necessarily, there was no one else with whom they could have cooperated in the
execution of the crime of hazing. In view of the dismissal of the case against the
principals, the court ruled that the Information charging Bayabos et al. as
accomplices could no longer stand on its own.
45

 THE ISSUE:
 Whether the prosecution of respondents for the crime of
accomplice to hazing can proceed in spite of the dismissal with
finality of the case against the principal accused
46

The court ruled that the Sandiganbayan erred when it dismissed outright the case
against respondents, on the sole ground that the case against the purported principals
had already been dismissed. It is a settled rule that the case against those charged as
accomplices is not ipso facto dismissed in the absence of trial of the purported
principals; the dismissal of the case against the latter. In People v. Rafael, the Supreme
Court En Banc reasoned thus: "The corresponding responsibilities of the principal,
accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of
the offense can be duly established in evidence, the determination of the liability of the
accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal."
Accordingly, so long as the commission of the crime can be duly proven, the trial of
those charged as accomplices to determine their criminal liability can proceed
independently of that of the alleged principal.
47

 PERTINENT PROVISION OF THE ANTI-HAZING LAW
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 to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or otherwise
subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
Sec. 4. x x x x.
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. (Emphasis supplied)
48

DANDY L. DUNGO AND GREGORIO A. SIBAL, JR., PETITIONERS,
VS.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
RESPONDENT.
G.R. NO. 209464
JULY 1, 2015
49
The fraternal contract should not be signed
in blood, celebrated with pain, marred by
injuries, and perpetrated through suffering.
That is the essence of republic act (R.A.) No.
8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995.

ANTI-HAZING LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES
 R.A. No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Law of 1995, has been enacted to regulate
hazing and other forms of initiation rites in fraternities, sororities, and other
organizations. It was in response to the rising incidents of death of hazing
victims, particularly the death of Leonardo "Lenny" Villa. Despite its passage,
reports of deaths resulting from hazing continue to emerge. Recent victims
were Guillo Servando of the College of St. Benilde, Marc Andre Marcos and
Marvin Reglos of the San Beda College - Manila, and Cris Anthony Mendez of
the University of the Philippines - Diliman.
 With the continuity of these senseless tragedies, one question implores for an
answer: is R.A. No. 8049 a sufficient deterrent against hazing?
50

ANTI-HAZING LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES
 To answer the question, the Court must dissect the provisions of the law and
scrutinize its effect, implication and application.
 Criminal law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts
mala in se; and acts which would not be wrong but for the fact that positive law
forbids them, called acts mala prohibita. The rule on the subject is that in acts
mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has
the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the intent of the offender is
immaterial. When the doing of an act is prohibited by law, it is considered
injurious to public welfare, and the doing of the prohibited act is the crime itself.
 The crime of hazing under R.A. No. 8049 is malum prohibitum.
51

 Regulation of School-Based Initiation Rites. Only initiation rites or practices that do not
constitute hazing shall be allowed: Provided, That:
"(a) A written application to conduct initiation rites shall be made to the proper authorities of the
school not later than seven (7) days prior to scheduled initiation date;
"(b) The written application shall indicate the place and date of the initiation rites;
"(c) The initiation rites shall not last more than three (3) days;
"(d) The application shall contain the names of the incumbent officers and any person or persons
who will take charge in the conduct of the initiation rites;
"(e) The application shall be under oath with a declaration that it has been posted and two (2)
other conspicuous places in the school or in the premises of the organization; and
"(f) The application shall be posted from the time of submission of the written notice to the
school authorities or head of organization and shall only be removed from its posting three (3)
days after the conduct of the initiation rites.
52
ANTI-HAZING LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES (SECTION 4 OF RA 11053,
AMENDING SECTION 2 OF RA 8049)

ANTI-HAZING-ACT-OF-2018-pptx.pptx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to ANTI-HAZING-ACT-OF-2018-pptx.pptx

Similar to ANTI-HAZING-ACT-OF-2018-pptx.pptx (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ANTI-HAZING-ACT-OF-2018-pptx.pptx