The evolution of law started from human practice and activities. Many State laws are once part of society’s living tradition ripened into a rule of conduct in the form of statute. The study argued that hazing is a tradition within student organizations. The implementation of the Anti-Hazing Law (RA8049) in the Philippines cannot fully stop this activity. Using the lens of 160 Sophomore student leaders, the study measured students’ awareness on the existence of Republic Act 8049 also known as the Anti-Hazing Law. The study found that Majority of the Sophomore Engineering students: a) Possessed above average level of awareness on the nature of hazing as defined under RA 8049; b) “awareness” on the procedural requirements of RA 8049; and c) above average “awareness” on the liabilities imposed by law. The study concluded that despite knowledge of the law on anti hazing, the problem remains. The respondents’ regard to initiation ritual as part of organizational tradition makes the practice of hazing difficult to combat. A Comprehensive Anti-Hazing campaign guided by the principle of restorative justice to promote organizational learning is recommended.
Hazing is commonly understood as the infliction of physical, social, psychological harm upon the person of an applicant to student organization or group as a prerequisite for admission. It is done as part of a ritual that people (such as college students) must go through before they are allowed to become members of a group [
There are various perceptions on hazing. Some scholars consider hazing as [
Many scholars asserted that hazing is now part of the culture of higher education and has become a serious concern of administrators and authorities. Administrative responses to hazing have been recorded since 1870 [
The doctrine of parens patriae and the international commitment to uphold the rights of students against all forms of harm imposes upon the state the duty to act as guardian of the rights of the disadvantaged and underprivileged. The students are considered by law as belonging to the disadvantaged and weak sector. The State as “parent of the people” is duty bound to ensure that enjoyment of rights of students is observed in school campuses [
The 1987 Philippine Constitution for instance, declares its resolve of respecting the dignity of human person, promote and protect respect for human rights [
The implementation of RA 8049 also known as Anti-Hazing Law did not discourage commission of hazing activities in the Philippines [
The study is intended to provide local literature on the “phenomenon” [
Specifically, the study measured the participants awareness on:
1) The general concept of hazing as defined by RA 8049;
2) the requisites for the application of RA 8049;
3) liabilities attached to violation;
4) and the implication of the findings to the efficacy of the anti hazing law.
In a nutshell, the study is described by paradigm below, to wit; the paper follows the process presented above. It used the Anti-Hazing Law itself as the framework for evaluating the awareness of 160 sophomore student leaders on the pertinent provisions of RA 8049. Their understanding is measured through a set of survey questionnaires based on the important sections of the law itself. The responses are reinforced by reading related literature and focus group discussion. They are collectively considered by the study as the Inputs. As
The participants to the study are Second Year Engineering (herein after called the sophomore, during the school year 2012-2013. It consisted of 160 regular student leaders enrolled in the subject Political Science I. They are student leaders in the College of Engineering and are the common recruits/“victims” of recognized or even unrecognized student organizations. They are recruited
because they are no longer covered by the prohibition set by the University Student Handbook against recruitment of Freshmen to student organizations. Secondly, the College of Engineering is one of a few male dominated colleges in the university having less than a thousand enrollees; Thirdly, the College of Engineering together with the College of Criminology are the most common target of student organizations (Greek letter societies) operating without proper university recognition.
The instrument used to gather data is survey-questionnaire. The instruments are based on the Anti-Hazing Law (RA 8049). The validity of the questionnaires is determined by a legal practitioner holding cases related to violation of RA 8049. The survey questionnaire has three parts. The part on basic knowledge of the law; the procedural requirements for initiation ritual, and the liabilities imposed for violation. The responses were treated using percentile ranking and basic statistical tools. The instrument retrieval rate is ninety percent. Answers to the survey questionnaires are reinforced by focus group discussion. The general understanding of the participants of RA 8049 is measured using Likert Scaling technique. The weighted mean scales and verbal description are as follows:
Weighted Mean Verbal Description
1) 0 - 1.79 Unaware
2) 80 - 2.59 Moderately unaware
3) 60 - 3.39 Aware
4) 40 - 4.19 Moderately aware
5) 20 - 5.0 Fully aware
By legal implication, if physical, psychological or social humiliation is committed against them as a requirement for membership to student organization, the offenders shall be penalized under RA 8049 in relation to RA 7610. A stiffer penalty is therefore provided by law
However, as shown in
Age Range | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
17 and below | 59 | 36.8% |
18and above | 101 | 63.2% |
Total | 160 | 100% |
Gender | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Female | 62 | 38.75% |
Male | 98 | 61.25% |
Total | 160 | 100% |
There are two types of student organizations in the university, one is the Non Political Student Organizations or NPSO for brevity and the other one is Political Student Organization or PSO for short.
Meanwhile, the respondents believe that hazing is present only in fraternity and sorority. As proven by catena of researches, acts of hazing are committed even by non-income generating student organizations like varsity team, and advanced military training [
It is shown that a weighted mean of 3.58 represents the awareness on the concept of hazing as understood by the respondents as a phenomenon exclusive to
Membership in Organizations | Frequency | Percentage |
---|---|---|
Political e.g. Student Council | 160 | 100% |
Non Political e.g. Fraternity | 36 | 22% |
fraternity and sorority. In this regard, the policy of preventing recognition of fraternities and sororities in campus to prevent hazing is supported by the respondents. Many of the respondents believe that it is an effective solution to the problem on hazing. A weighted mean of 3.35 is equivalent to “aware” description which in effect, accepting the idea that hazing prevention requires dissolution of Greek letter societies.
The policy on student organization is one of the means to prevent it. In this regard, a weighted mean score of 2.35 shows that the respondents are “moderately unaware” of the policy of the university on hazing. This finding is consistent with the observation that the university has no separate policy on hazing. What the university has is a general policy on violence and penalties for violation of Student Handbook provisions on attack against fellow students or another person. It is generally designated by the handbook as “oppression” (NEUST Handbook 2001). The rule however equates hazing and corporal punishment as prohibited act when used to select officers and members of the organization. This perhaps leads the students to believe that “hazing” is synonymous to corporal punishment excepting psychological and social humiliating experiences as part of the coverage of RA8049.
Alarming is the state of consciousness of the respondents of accepting the practice of hazing by reason of tradition. A weighted mean of 2.93 or “aware” shows the tendency of the participants of accepting hazing as a practice in the organization because it is a tradition. While the respondents are unaware that the purpose of the law is to regulate hazing and not intended to declare initiation ritual as illegal (RA8049). The practice of placing the recruits/neophytes/and applicants in a humiliating situation is seemingly acceptable to respondents especially when it is a part of group tradition. Placing the applicants in a humiliating situation is one aspect why hazing is prohibited. It demeans and degrades human person by virtue of his willingness to become member of an organization. It is one of the elements that makes the practice illegal hence, places itself under the coverage of RA 8049. The knowledge that is not clear to the respondents.
The common knowledge among students is that hazing connotes physical violence only. Social humiliation of the recruits is likewise an evil sought to be prevented by RA 8049. The answer, “aware” reveals the respondents limited knowledge on the nature of hazing. Being aware that social humiliation is a must for a new entrant to the organization without interposing objection, is a sign that such a practice is acceptable to many. This is a wrong notion. The finding is consistent with the response on item question number one (1) where many believe that hazing involves only physical mishandling of recruits and not related to infliction of social or psychological suffering.
The misconception that hazing is exclusive to fraternity and sorority is revealed on
PART II GENERAL UNDERSTANDING | 5 Fully aware | 4 Moderately aware | 3 Aware | 2 Moderately Unaware | 1 Unaware | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Questions/Items | f | TF | f | TF | f | TF | f | TF | f | TF | TWF | WM | VD | |
1) Hazing is an act of inflicting physical harm upon the person of applicant to student organization (Section 1) | 76 | 380 | 44 | 176 | 30 | 90 | 2 | 4 | 14 | 14 | 664 | 4.15 | Fully Aware | |
2) Hazing takes place only in fraternity and sorority. | 23 | 115 | 68 | 272 | 53 | 159 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 16 | 574 | 3.58 | Mod Aware | |
3) Hazing is legal because it is part of tradition. | 19 | 95 | 33 | 132 | 49 | 147 | 30 | 60 | 35 | 35 | 469 | 2.93 | Aware | |
4) The university has a policy on hazing | 13 | 65 | 15 | 60 | 45 | 135 | 30 | 60 | 57 | 57 | 482 | 2.35 | Mod Unaware | |
5) To ban fraternity and sorority also prevents hazing. | 30 | 150 | 41 | 164 | 54 | 162 | 17 | 34 | 23 | 23 | 536 | 3.35 | Aware | |
6) The intention of RA 8049 is to regulate initiation rites (Section 1). | 15 | 75 | 40 | 160 | 53 | 159 | 29 | 58 | 29 | 29 | 481 | 3.0 | Aware | |
7) To embarrass/ridicule/recruit to an organization is an acceptable practice. (Section 1) | 17 | 85 | 34 | 136 | 55 | 165 | 32 | 64 | 25 | 25 | 476 | 2.97 | Aware | |
8) Requiring the recruit to undergo polish/ridiculous/degrading act is acceptable and legal. | 22 | 110 | 42 | 168 | 42 | 126 | 44 | 88 | 22 | 22 | 514 | 3.2 | Aware | |
9) Subjecting the recruit to physical suffering is allowed by under RA 8049. | 21 | 105 | 36 | 144 | 54 | 162 | 29 | 58 | 20 | 20 | 489 | 3.05 | Aware | |
10) Psychological suffering is not hazing. | 17 | 85 | 26 | 104 | 51 | 153 | 39 | 78 | 29 | 29 | 449 | 2.80 | Aware | |
11) Psychological suffering is merely a test of determination to enter student-organization. | 25 | 125 | 37 | 148 | 49 | 147 | 28 | 56 | 27 | 27 | 503 | 3.14 | Aware | |
12) Psychological and Physical testing in the Police and military is covered by RA 8049. | 18 | 90 | 38 | 152 | 50 | 150 | 40 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 473 | 2.95 | Aware | |
13) Hazing is illegal per se. | 42 | 210 | 42 | 168 | 49 | 147 | 17 | 34 | 24 | 24 | 538 | 3.64 | Moderately aware | |
14) Intoxication aggravates the master’s/initiator’s liability. | 16 | 80 | 30 | 120 | 61 | 183 | 29 | 58 | 22 | 22 | 463 | 0.2.89 | Aware | |
psychological testing are exempted from the coverage of RA 8049. A total of 67 percent (67%) of the respondents are aware that the two government institutions are covered by RA 8049 when in truth straight provision of law provides otherwise (Section 1, subsection 3, RA 8049). This shows limited awareness of sophomore students on the coverage of the law. Finally, 132 of the respondents or close to 82 percent or (82.5%) believe that hazing is illegal per se (Part II, item number 14, RA 8049). The finding again is a revelation of the limited awareness of the respondents on the true nature of RA 8049. It is intended only to regulate initiation ritual and prevent hazing and similar activities and not to prohibit it. It is a reflection of their wrong notion of the concept/nature of hazing. A general weighted average of 3.38 is arrived at verbally described as “moderately aware” status.
The requirements of RA 8049 are enumerated in
5 Fully Aware | 4 Moderately Aware | 3 Aware | 2 Moderately Unaware | 1 Unaware | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
f | TF | f | TF | F | TF | f | TF | f | TF | TWF | WM | VD | |
Part III. Requirements of RA 8049 | |||||||||||||
1) Any form of initiation rites are prohibited by RA 8049 | 20 | 100 | 30 | 120 | 50 | 150 | 33 | 66 | 33 | 33 | 469 | 2.93 | Aware |
2) Initiation rites can be a legal practice of organization members provided that it observes the requirements set by RA 8049 (Section 2) | 19 | 95 | 36 | 144 | 57 | 171 | 28 | 56 | 26 | 26 | 466 | 2.91 | Aware |
3) RA 8049 requires that initiation rites must be supported by a written approval of the university authorities (Section 3) | 26 | 130 | 36 | 144 | 55 | 165 | 23 | 46 | 26 | 26 | 511 | 3.18 | Aware |
4) Any initiation rites can be extended for 3 or more days provided the university allows its holding and no physical violence is inflicted upon the neophyte/recruit/applicant (Section 3) | 23 | 115 | 32 | 128 | 58 | 174 | 33 | 66 | 30 | 30 | 513 | 3.21 | Aware |
5) Every time student organization holds initiation rites names of recruits must be known to the university authorities. | 20 | 100 | 36 | 144 | 59 | 177 | 22 | 44 | 29 | 29 | 494 | 3.08 | Aware |
6) Calculated physical violence can be employed during initiation rites provided the recruits can physically handle it. | 17 | 85 | 46 | 184 | 54 | 162 | 24 | 48 | 25 | 25 | 504 | 3.15 | Aware |
holding of initiation rites and other similar activities. A weighted mean of 2.93 equivalent to a verbal description of “aware” tends to show their belief that RA8049 covers all forms of initiation rites. Indeed, all initiation rites must observe the regulatory measures set by RA 8049, but it does not make illegal the holding of initiation rituals.
However, only those practices that are intended to inflict physical harm, social humiliation, and psychological suffering on the recruit/neophyte or applicant are prohibited. Hence if there is no requirement as to the aforementioned practices, it is not covered by law e.g. community outreach program.
The weighted mean of 3.15 or “aware” for question number 6, part III suggests that the respondents accept physical violence as part of organizational ritual. The response to the question interposes no objection to such practice. It seems that physical violence upon the person of a neophyte is right if it is calculated or when the physical stamina of the applicant could withstand physical pressure. This means that the more robust the applicant, the greater the degree of physical harm he may have to receive from the initiators. And for as long as physical pressure is dependent upon the physical built of neophytes, the same is, for the respondents, “reasonable”. What is prohibited by law cannot be made legal under all circumstances. Physical violence upon the person of a neophyte is the very evil which RA 8049 sought to be prevented. Whether it is calculated or not, or the applicant could withstand the physical test or not, it remains illegal. This goes to show that respondents are not well informed of the reason for the passage of RA 8049.
Question number 1 of part III, provides for the students understanding that RA 8049 prohibits all forms of initiation rite. This reveals the students inadequate knowledge on the nature and purpose of RA 8049. As long as the activity observes the requirements set by law, it cannot be branded as illegal. What the law intends to achieve is to impose stricter monitoring and requirements before initiation ritual may take place. The law does not cover initiation rite designed not to inflict physical, social and psychological harm to applicant. It does not cover all initiation rites. Majority of the respondents are “aware” of the requirements of the law in making initiation rite legal and acceptable. That is when it complies with the procedural requisites of the university authorities or the law itself. The “aware” scale is dominant from question 1 up to question number 6. A weighted average of 3.07 on procedural awareness is arrived at verbally described as aware status.
Generally, the respondents sophomore respond fairly high in the questions presented. They are relatively possessing higher level of awareness in terms of liabilities. It is not however, clear whether such knowledge on liabilities were derived from readings or by the sheer dictates of logic and general understanding that when there is a law violated somebody has to take the responsibility.
Inviting one’s attention to question 8, it is clear by a weighted mean of 3.16 or “aware” that respondents are placing the burden to social institutions to end hazing incidence. Such as the Department of Justice for prosecution; schools for awareness campaign and the Law Enforcement Agencies for proper implementation of RA 8049. They are directly responsible for the observance of its provisions. This finding is logical considering that it is the government who signed in the international covenant of promoting human rights and not the students. Hence, it is the government instrumentality that is duty bound to prevent hazing and protect students who are commonly treated as one of the vulnerable sectors. Section 2 of RA 8049 provides for the liability of members and officers in case death occurs during hazing. 42 of the respondents or 26.25% are “fully aware” that liability for the principal attaches, while 40 of the respondents or 25 percent are “moderately aware” of the liability. And 22.5 percent or 36 of the respondents are “aware”. Thus, 118 out of 160 sophomore students are informed of the liability attaches to participants to hazing. Question number 3 provides for
IV. Offenders in Case of Violation | f | TF | f | TF | f | TF | f | TF | f | TF | WTF | WM | VD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1) School representatives must be present during initiation rites(section 3) | 22 | 110 | 37 | 148 | 54 | 162 | 21 | 42 | 32 | 32 | 492 | 3.07 | Aware |
2) Officers and members of the organization who are present during hazing are considered as principals. (section 4) | 44 | 220 | 40 | 160 | 37 | 111 | 22 | 44 | 23 | 23 | 558 | 3.48 | Moderately Aware |
3) In case death occurs, the owner of the place is charged together with the members of the group(section 4) | 41 | 205 | 46 | 184 | 33 | 99 | 22 | 44 | 24 | 24 | 556 | 3.47 | Moderately aware |
4) RA 8049 penalizes faculty members who consented to hazing. | 42 | 210 | 34 | 136 | 36 | 108 | 31 | 62 | 23 | 23 | 539 | 3.36 | Aware |
5) Alumni members of the organization who helped plan the activity i shall be held liable. | 32 | 160 | 32 | 128 | 54 | 162 | 30 | 60 | 18 | 18 | 528 | 3.3 | Aware |
6) The former officers or alumni of the organization, who but not present in the activity is charged as principals. | 24 | 120 | 29 | 116 | 64 | 192 | 26 | 52 | 23 | 23 | 503 | 3.14 | Aware |
7) Any person present in the place where hazing takes place is a prima facie evidence of his participation (section 4) | 36 | 180 | 42 | 168 | 39 | 117 | 20 | 40 | 29 | 29 | 534 | 3.3 | Aware |
8) The institutions involved in preventing hazing should also take an active role in educating the youth and in dispelling the tradition of violence. | 34 | 170 | 43 | 172 | 36 | 108 | 18 | 36 | 20 | 20 | 506 | 3.16 | Aware |
9) In case hazing is committed by a minor, his parents shall be liable instead. | 25 | 125 | 39 | 156 | 40 | 120 | 28 | 56 | 30 | 30 | 489 | 3.05 | Aware |
10) There is a need to launch Anti Hazing Awareness Campaign on matters related to RA8049. | 72 | 360 | 27 | 108 | 39 | 117 | 14 | 28 | 24 | 24 | 637 | 3.98 | Moderately Aware |
liability of the owner of the place where hazing is held. 48 or 30 percent of the respondents are “moderately aware” of the possible liability of the owner of the place. On the other hand, 40% or 25% percent of the respondents are fully aware of the liability of the owner of the place. Finally, 31 or 19.3 percent of the respondents are “aware” of the liability of the owner of the place as principal.
On question number 6, 62 or 38.75 percent of the respondents are “aware” of the liability of persons who planned the hazing activity. 47% or 29.37% percent are not aware of the potential liability of a person who planned but not present during hazing. 51 or 31 percent are “aware”. All in all, 69.75 percent are aware that there is liability attached to the person who planned the event.
Question number 8 elicits respondents’ awareness on the institutional responsibility of resolving the problem of hazing. Accordingly, sophomore students’ believe that social institutions should be responsible of preventing hazing by educating the youth and dispelling violence on campus. 34 of the respondents or 21.25 percent are “fully aware” that hazing prevention is an institutional duty. Thus, the university should take an active role in hazing prevention. 42 of the respondents or 26.25 percent are “moderately aware” of such institutional obligation while 39% or 34.3% are “aware” of the university’s duty to prevent hazing. Therefore, a total of 115 respondents or 71.87 percent out of 160 sophomore students are of the belief that the duty to take the bold step to stop hazing must come from social institutions. The family, school, government and community must take an active role in the campaign against campus violence. Among 160 sophomore students, 138 of them believe that an anti hazing campaign is necessary to solve the problem. A weighted average of 3.33 on Knowledge of Liabilities is arrived at and is verbally described as” moderately aware”.
The study showed that sophomore students possess average and above average level of awareness on the hazing. They are “moderately aware” on the general concept of hazing and liabilities attached for violation while “aware” on the procedural requirements of RA 8049. They consider hazing as a practice only of Greek letter organization. They relate the concept of hazing to fraternity activity and infliction of physical harm upon person of an applicant. A low level of understanding could relate to other aspect of hazing to wit; psychological and social humiliation. On the issue of hazing and acceptability by reason of tradition, the findings tend to show that respondents accept hazing as a practice. They also believe that to prohibit Greek letter societies is a way to prevent hazing.
The study also showed that the sophomore student leaders have above average level of awareness on the contents of RA8049. Nevertheless, some highlights of the findings require special attention. The respondents’ exclusive interpretation of the coverage of RA 8049 to physical harm may expose them from undue charges of violating RA 8049. They must remember that social and psychological sufferings are also covered by law. Associating hazing with Greek society is a misplaced logic. Other student organizations are also committing hazing e.g. sports team, social organization, citizens’ military training and like are also guilty of hazing provided the same is set as a prerequisite for membership. The perception that hazing is acceptable because it is a part of student organization tradition and infliction of harm to new comers is acceptable as a test of determination provided a “calculated harm” is inflicted upon applicant is a dangerous presumption. The law and the approval of the university to extend the duration of initiation ritual is not supported by legal basis. Acceptability of physical violence as part of organizational ritual is likewise no legal foundation to stand on. The findings also showed that participants to hazing and the owner of the place are also liable.
1) Massive reorientation must be done to impart the knowledge that hazing comes in many forms including social and psychological harm. The Student Council officers may sponsor the same.
2) That violence is not a measure of applicant’s willingness to serve the organization. The members of the student organizations must embrace the noble objectives of the group. This may be done by student affairs professionals.
3) A discussion on Hazing may be included in the collegiate level curriculum and student organizations may be required to undergo anti hazing seminar before they may be allowed to operate aboveground.
4) It is the duty of social institutions like the university to stop hazing by creating a multi-sectoral task force who will look into the case of hazing in the university. Participation may be solicited from family to law enforcement agencies.
5) In the case of institutions where cases of hazing are commonly committed during initiation ritual, a restorative justice based upon principles of organizational learning may make a difference. Avoiding the legal implication by dissolving Greek societies cannot solve the problem.
Every school year new list of victims comes out in the news. Hazing remains the number one agent of violence in higher education campuses in the Philippines. It is not because it is tolerated. It is in fact, avoided by many school authorities by imposing moratorium on recognition of Greek letter societies thereby compelling them to operate underground along with the perception of the respondents, that hazing remains a tradition in many student organizations. Under the circumstance, one may ask, what has the law got to do with it?
Bawan, O.M., Pascual, M.P. and Gabriel, A.G. (2017) Hazing and Organizational Tradition in a Higher Education Institution in the Philippines: What Has the Law Got to Do with It? Open Journal of Social Sciences, 5, 110-125. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2017.512009