A culture of violence
I did not know Marvin Reglos. He was neither a close friend nor an acquaintance. In the sea of students in our school, I doubt if we ever even had the chance to look at each other’s faces. Nonetheless, when news broke that a fellow law student had been killed during fraternity initiation rites, I felt as if I had known Marvin.
Perhaps the reason for this empathy is that Marvin’s story is not the first I have heard. I was a sophomore undergraduate student when a similar tragedy occurred. The name of Cris Mendez flooded the newspaper headlines and TV airwaves. Cris, like Marvin, died due to injuries he suffered from hazing. Marvin and Cris had a common fate; they were victims of a culture of violence.
Hazing is a test of strength and endurance anchored on the belief that only a person willing to undergo severe pain and suffering is worthy of being called a “brod.” Hazing is a tradition in many fraternities and sororities, although it is neither confined to nor wholly practiced by these organizations.
For student fraternities, the story begins with the inviting tongue of a fraternity member presenting his guarantee of a good life while handing out a star-studded list of alumni to an unsuspecting fellow student. If interested, that student is christened as a neophyte and after a week or so of running errands for his masters, the fraternity members take the paddle out of its shrine and carry out the ritual. Those fortunate to survive the test continue with the practice, while those who are not as lucky, like Marvin, have only their battered bodies to narrate the ordeal.
Several deaths by hazing have occurred over a long period of time, and the practice remains prevalent despite the passage of the Anti-Hazing Law more than a decade ago. Indeed, hazing has developed into a culture of violence.
There is nothing wrong with joining or establishing fraternities per se. But when blood is shed or suffering is inflicted on a person, the thin line between right and wrong is breached. Tradition must succumb to the values of human life and human dignity, and the practice of hazing must be condemned as barbaric and primitive. Fraternities must desist from inflicting physical or even psychological suffering as a precondition to membership. Borrowing the words of the Supreme Court as stated in the case of Lenny Villa, also a victim of fraternity-related violence, there must be a better way to establish “kinship.”
However, the root of this culture of violence is interwoven with an even more violent one—that of palakasan. While no blood is shed in this type of culture, the palakasan system is more violent than the first type because it shatters the foundations of our public and private institutions. There are various reasons why joining a fraternity is so enticing. Some do so to have a support group during their stay in school or to participate in the fraternity’s community projects. But for many, entering fraternities means establishing a network of connections and a web of strings to pull with big-time business executives, prominent lawyers or influential politicians.
Many die, sometimes literally, for this vague opportunity.
Palakasan is abhorrent because it is based, not on merit, but on patronage: One less qualified is chosen over one who has hard-earned credentials. More importantly, it corrupts the minds of the youth, leading them to believe that there is an easier way through school, or an easier way to land a high-paying job. This belief is also indicative of mistrust in the educational system, adequate enough to throw one’s self into masochism. There are brilliant members of fraternities and sororities who actually deserve the positions they hold in the public and private sectors. Still, it cannot be denied that injecting the idea of patronage in the minds of prospective fraternity members has unimaginable consequences, one of which is developing a willingness to yield to physical and psychological suffering, like Marvin did.
At present, hazing is punishable by reclusion perpetua (from 20 years and a day to 40 years imprisonment) if death occurs. Such a penalty may be imposed on the officers and members of the organization, school officials, organization alumni and parents who consent to the act, and even the owner of the place where the hazing was conducted, depending on their degree of participation. Unfortunately, this penalty is insufficient to discourage fraternities and other organizations from conducting hazing.
We must thus revisit our Anti-Hazing Law and determine whether it serves as an effective deterrent to fraternity-related violence. School officials, together with the government, must provide adequate information to students regarding the consequences of conducting and participating in hazing. Schools must also encourage an environment wherein students are afforded various modes of coping with stress from academic demands, and where they need not seek organizations that purport to be tickets to success.
Most importantly, fraternities must find in themselves the determination to discontinue hazing, if not for fear of criminal prosecution, then to accord respect to human life and human dignity.
As we mourn the death of another victim of brutality and express our disgust over the mindless torture he went through, we must realize that justice for Marvin, Cris, Lenny and the others will not be attained unless we put an end to fraternity-related violence. We must recognize that both the victims and the suspects in the crime of hazing are losing parties.
Finally, we must constantly remind ourselves, whether fraternity member or not, that when hazing takes away one’s life, it also crushes one’s dreams and leaves one’s family heartbroken.
Jose Angelo David, 22, is a sophomore law student and part of the Dean’s List at San Beda College in Manila. He is a political science graduate (cum laude) of the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City, and is not a member of any fraternity.
