Anti-Hazing Law: What Is Banned and the Penalties

Section 2(a) defines hazing as "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 rite or practice made as a prerequisite for admission or a requirement for continuing membership in a fraternity, sorority, or organization".

The law gives examples: paddling, whipping, beating, branding, forced calisthenics, exposure to the weather, forced eating or drinking of any food, liquor, drug or other substance, and any brutal treatment or forced physical activity likely to harm physical or psychological health. It also includes activities that humiliate, embarrass, degrade, abuse or endanger a recruit by requiring "mental, silly, or foolish tasks".

Section 3 says "All forms of hazing shall be prohibited in fraternities, sororities, and organizations in schools", including citizens military training and citizens' army training. The ban also applies to groups that are not school-based, such as community-based fraternities, sororities and organizations.

"Organization" includes any club, association, group, fraternity and sorority, and also the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police, the Philippine Military Academy, the Philippine National Police Academy and other similar uniformed service learning institutions (Section 2(c)). Approved physical and fitness tests for AFP and PNP recruits are not hazing. Hazing can never be made a requirement for employment in any business (Section 3).

Only those that do not involve hazing. For school-based groups, Section 4 requires a written application to the school at least seven days before the initiation, and the initiation may not last more than three days. At least two school representatives must be present during the initiation (Section 5). Community-based groups apply to the punong barangay or to the city or municipal mayor (Section 10).

No. Section 12 says any approval, consent or agreement, written or otherwise, or any waiver of the right to object to an initiation that consists of hazing, "shall be void and without any binding effect on the parties". It adds that "The defense that the recruit, neophyte, or applicant consented to being subjected to hazing shall not be available to persons prosecuted under this Act."

Section 14 sets the penalties, depending on the person's role and the result:

Owners or lessees of the place where hazing happened, and parents if it was held in their home, who had actual knowledge and did not act or report it, are liable as principals. School authorities and barangay, municipal or city officials who allowed it or failed to act are liable as accomplices.

The law also says a person charged under it cannot claim the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong, and that a final conviction "shall be reflected in the scholastic record, personal, or employment record of the person convicted".

Schools, uniformed learning institutions, the AFP and the PNP may impose administrative sanctions after notice and a summary hearing, even before a conviction (Section 13).

Yes. Section 14 says the presence of any person during the hazing, even a non-member, is prima facie evidence (evidence that stands unless disproved) of participation in it as a principal, unless that person prevented the acts or promptly reported them to the authorities if this could be done without danger to the person or his or her family.

The prosecution must still prove that hazing happened. In Bartolome v. People (2021), decided under the older law (RA 8049), the Supreme Court acquitted two accused and said that "before the prima facie presumption can apply against petitioners, there is a need to first satisfy the elements of hazing". The Court also noted that RA 11053 "now imposes more severe penalties". No Supreme Court decision applying the penalties of RA 11053 was found for this page.

These are made-up examples to show how the rules work. They are not advice for any real case.

Paolo, a college freshman, is told to drink a full bottle of liquor and is paddled as a condition for joining an organization. That is hazing under Section 2(a). The written "consent" he signed is void (Section 12). Members who planned or took part face reclusion perpetua and a ₱2,000,000 fine, and members who were merely present face reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a ₱1,000,000 fine (Section 14).

Mark has twice said no to joining a community fraternity, but its members keep inviting him and pressuring him. Under Section 14(e), persistent and repeated invitations to a person who has twice refused are prima facie evidence of vexation, punished by prision correccional in its minimum period.

Hazing cases carry very heavy penalties, so a lawyer is needed early on both sides: for a victim or family who want to file a complaint or claim damages, and for anyone who was present at an initiation and is being investigated, including students, officers, alumni, advisers and parents. If someone was hurt, see also Penalties for physical injuries. For bullying among elementary and high school students, see Anti-Bullying Law.

If you cannot afford a lawyer, see Free legal help in the Philippines.