Unnecessary Senate probe | Inquirer Opinion

Unnecessary Senate probe

/ 05:14 AM November 17, 2017

The urgent need to amend Republic Act No. 8049, or the Anti-Hazing Act of 1995, in the aftermath of the untimely death of Horacio Castillo III allegedly from hazing, is certainly well taken. But if the desired amendment is the sole purpose of the ongoing investigation by the Senate committee on public order and dangerous drugs chaired by Sen. Panfilo Lacson, then, with all due respect, I beg to submit that such investigation may only be nice to have but not really quite necessary.

Reliable legislative records indicate that our lawmakers have amply recognized the necessity for amending the existing Anti-Hazing Act in order to make it more effective. For one, majority leader Sen. Vicente Sotto III passed Senate Bill No. 223 in 2016 to impose maximum penalty for violators under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, as well as when a nonresident or alumni fraternity member is present during the hazing rites.

Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian’s Senate Bill No. 199 and Bagong Henerasyon Party-List Rep. Bernadette Herrera Dy’s House Bill No. 3467 filed also in 2016 both seek to ban all forms of hazing, and only allow initiation rites that do not inflict physical or psychological harm. Gatchalian’s bill also proposes to impose stiffer penalties and fine on nonresident and intoxicated members involved in hazing, additional fines if hazing results in death, mutilation, rape, and sodomy; as well as requiring schools to conduct awareness campaign on hazing.

Article continues after this advertisement

Some of Gatchalian’s and Dy’s proposals already partly duplicate provisions in the Sotto bill. Meanwhile, RA 8049 also practically prohibits such initiation rites or practices that would subject a neophyte to physical or psychological suffering or injury. Moreover, in addition to requiring schools to conduct awareness campaign on hazing, it also requires the presence of at least
two school representatives during the initiation.

FEATURED STORIES

So I ask: What other improvements of the present law are we persistently looking for, which
only the ongoing Senate probe on Castillo’s death may provide?

I do not know if others who watched the televised probe on Castillo’s death have noticed but most of the senators asking questions are ostensibly more interested in finding fault with the school authorities and/or certain parties than in truly seeking for newer ways to improve the present law. Aren’t those questions more in aid of prosecution than of legislation?

Article continues after this advertisement

RUDY L. CORONEL, [email protected]

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: hazing, Horacio Castillo III

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.