SC asked to strike down 'unconstitutional' provisions of Anti-Hazing Law

A sorority member standing trial for the August 2008 death of a fraternity neophyte in Quezon province has asked the Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional certain portions of Republic Act 8049 or the Anti-Hazing Law.

In her petition, Devie Ann Isaga Fuertes contested Sections 3 and 4 of the law, which punish every member of a sorority or fraternity who are present in an initiation rite even if he or she has no actual participation in the death of a neophyte.

Fuertes is a member of  Tau Gamma Sigma Sorority who was among the 46 accused in the death of Tau Gamma Phi Fraternity neophyte Chester Paolo Abracia in August 2008.

Abracia was a sophomore student of Marine Technology at the Enverga University in Barangay Ibabang Dupay in Lucena City, where he was found dead on August 2.

"Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed of the honorable court to declare as unconstitutional Sections 3 and 4 of RA 8049 which punish a mere member present in the premises of an initiation rites where one of the neophytes later died, as principal for failing to take any action to prevent the same," said Fuertes in her 16-page petition.

Section 3 of the law states that "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."

Meanwhile, Section 4 states: "If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as principals."

Furthermore, the section adds: "The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.

In her petition, Fuertes asked the high tribunal to stop government agencies from implementing the contested provisions to members of the Tau Gamma Sigma Sorority.

Fuertes, who was just 17 years old when the incident happened, said she was merely at the venue but neither witnessed nor participated in the initiation rites. She also claimed she did not know that hazing was part of the rites.

Named respondents in the petition were the Senate; the House of Representatives; the Departments of Justice, Interior and Local Government, Budget and Management, Finance; the City Prosecutor of Tayabas; the Presiding Judge of the Lucena City Regional Trial Court Branch 30; as well as the heirs of Abracia.

Fuertes said the two contested sections of the Anti-Hazing Law violate Sections 1 and 19 of the Bill of Right under Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Articles 1 and 19, respectively, give a person the right to due process and equal protections of the law, as well as the right against "excessive fines, cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment."

"In so far also that said member like the herein petitioner who was merely present in the premises, and is charged as principal, the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, without bail, is a cruel and unusual punishment that is in gross violation of Sections 1 and 19 of the Article III of the Constitution," the petition said.

The charge against Fuertes is non-bailable so she is considered at large some five years after the hazing incident. — Mark Merueñas/KBK, GMA News