A Death In The Family

Here is my column for the week. I actually feel it’s a bit too rational. I wrote a far angrier, and perhaps more impassioned, comment in one mailing list I belong to. Anyway.

The University of the Philippines (UP) is very much in the news again. Unfortunately, it is not because of any scholastic or athletic achievement (unless you count its dismal 0-10 record in UAAP basketball as a dubious distinction of sorts), but for the fact that a student has died under circumstances many consider as indicative of fraternity hazing.

Through the years, in UP and in various other universities across the country, a rather alarming number of promising young men have lost their lives to the practice of hazing; “hazing” being commonly understood as a process of initiation into a fraternity or other organization which involves subjecting an applicant to humiliation, psychological stress, and in some cases, actually physical assault.

While causing injury or death in the course of hazing is clearly criminal even under our older penal laws (physical injuries or murder under the Revised Penal Code, as the case may be), in 1995 Congress enacted a specific law, RA 8049 more commonly known as the Anti-Hazing Law, defining hazing and imposing penalties on persons who inflict injuries or cause death during such process. For a hazing-related death, the law imposes the appropriately stiff penalty of reclusion perpetua, or imprisonment from 20 to 40 years, on those found responsible.

In the 12 years since the Anti-Hazing Law took effect, however, young men have continued to forfeit their lives in the course of fraternity initiations. The problem, as usual, is not so much with the substance of the statute itself but with its enforcement. In many cases involving hazing related deaths, the law is not applied to its fullest extent and the persons responsible are often charged with crimes bearing lighter penalties, such as homicide or criminal negligence.

The Anti-Hazing law also requires that school authorities be informed in writing when any fraternity or organization will conduct an initiation, and that at least two representatives from the school be present during the process to ensure that no physical harm is done to any applicant. Failure to do so exposes the officers of the organization to administrative sanctions such as suspension or expulsion. But again, this legal requirement is more often than not ignored, in some cases with disastrous consequences.

If our society is to see an end to the horrific spectacle of young men senselessly losing their lives to the ritual violence of hazing, courts and school authorities will have to enforce the terms of the Anti-Hazing Law much more strictly.

While it is perhaps unfortunate that those responsible, who more often than not will be equally promising young men, will face sanctions that could possibly destroy their future prospects, it is the only way to ensure a resolution to this problem, and perhaps more importantly, to uphold the principles of accountability and the rule of law so integral to the continued survival of our society.