REPUBLIC ACT

8049: ANTI-
HAZING LAW
EYAS, AVE CHAEZA C.
YU VEGA, CHRISTI MARIE V.
Is hazing allowed in the
Philippines?
YES.
It is not prohibited
Merely regulated
What is only prohibited?
Employment of physical violence
How is hazing defined? (Sec.
1)
It 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
similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting
him to physical or psychological suffering or injury.
Who are covered by the law?
(Sec. 1)
Any club
Armed Forces of the Philippines
Philippine National Police
Philippine Military Academy
Officer and cadet corps of the Citizen's
Military Training or Citizen's Army Training
What is not covered? (Sec.
1)
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
When is hazing allowed?
(Sec. 2)
It is allowed only when there is a prior
written notice to the school authorities or
head of organization seven (7) days before
the conduct of such initiation.
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 the
activities and shall "contain anundertaking
When is hazing allowed?
(Sec. 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 the
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.
What are the legal
consequences of hazing?
(Sec. 4)

It will depend on what will

happen with the neophyte or
applicant.
 Who are liable for hazing? (Sec. 4)

PRINCIPAL

PERSON LIABLE ACT COMMITTED

Officers and members of the
fraternity, sorority or
organization who actually
participated in the infliction
of physical harm
If person subjected to hazing
or other forms of initiation
rites suffer any physical or
dies as a result thereof
 CONSEQUENCE OF PENALTY
HAZING
Death, rape, sodomy or mutilation Reclusion perpetua
Insane, imbecile, impotent or blind Reclusion temporal maximum period
Lost the use of speech or the power to Reclusion temporal medium period
hear or to smell, or lost an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or lost
the use of any such member become
incapacitated for the activity or work
in which he was habitually engaged
Deformed or lost any other part of his Reclusion temporal minimum period
body, or lost use thereof, been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of
the activity or work in which he was
habitually engaged for a period of
more than 90 days
 CONSEQUENCE OF HAZING PENALTY
Have been ill or incapacitated for the Prision mayor maximum period
performance on the activity or work in
which he was habitually engaged for more
than 30 days
Have been ill or incapacitated for the Prision mayor medium period
performance of the activity or work in
which he was habitually engaged for 10
days or more, or that the injury sustained
shall require medical attendance for the
same period
Have been ill or incapacitated for the Prision mayor minimum period
performance of the activity or work in
which he was habitually engaged from 1-9
days, or that the injury sustained shall
require medical attendance for the same
period
Sustained physical injuries which do not Prision correccional maximum period
prevent him from engaging in his habitual
The maximum of the
penalty, in each case, will be
imposed if:
(a)the recruitment is attended by force,
intimidation, violence or deceit;
(b)the person who decides to quit is prevented from
doing so;
(c) the person, after being hazed, is prevented from
reporting the incident to parents, police or other
authorities;
(d)the hazing is committed outside the school or
institution;
 Who are liable for hazing? (Sec. 4)
PRINCIPAL

PERSON LIABLE ACT COMMITTED

Parents who have actual knowledge of
the hazing conducted therein but failed
to take any action to prevent the same
from occurring
Officers, former officers, or alumni of the Actually planned the hazing although
organization, group, fraternity or
sorority
Officers or members of an organization,
group, fraternity or sorority knowingly
cooperated in carrying out the hazing
Fraternity or sororitys adviser present
when the acts constituting hazing were
Hazing is held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity,
group, or organization
not present when the acts constituting
the hazing were committed
Inducing the victim to be present
thereat
Failed to take any action to prevent the
same from occurring
 Who are liable for hazing? (Sec.
4)
ACCOMPLICE
ACT COMMITTED
Failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring
Failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring
PERSON LIABLE
Owner of the place where hazing is
conducted when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted
therein
School authorities including faculty
members who consent to the hazing
or who have actual knowledge for the
acts of hazing committed by the
perpetrators
What is the liability of a
person who is merely
present? (Sec. 4, par. 20)

The presence of any person during a hazing

isprima facieevidence of participation as a
principal unless he prevented the hazing.
Can the mitigating circumstance of "no intention
to commit so grave a wrong" be allowed? (Sec.
4, par. 21)

No, under sec. 4, this mitigating

circumstance is expressly
disallowed.
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.
- Dungo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
209464 (2015)