Is loco parentis applicable in the case faced by Adamson University?

Hazing is a part of the culture of Fraternities and Sororities which, according to the frat men, is
an initiation where they can share the pain and where every member must undergo the said rites; it is
like a mother in labor for the child to be born. Fraternities and Sororities are not new in some
Universities where our former colonizers introduced this organization and its culture.

The University has authority over these fraternities, and the Educational Institution has the
power to regulate their activities within the Campus regarding recruitment and other things as may the
law mandated, especially prohibiting the Fraternities from initiating such thru hazing, which by law
criminalized it. When the crime of hazing happens within the Campus, then the University may be held
liable for that which there is a contractual relationship between University and its Students; it can be
outside of the Institution’s premises which is the supervision, instruction, or custody so that special
parental authority to apply and responsibility. It must be that authority and responsibility shall apply to
all activities with authorization.

In the case of the death of Salilig, a Member of Tau Gamma Phi has died thru hazing outside the
premises of the University. The main issue on the Senate hearing conducted by Committee on Justice
and Human Rights is whether Adamson University is liable for the death of its Student who died thru
hazing outside the University premises. Is loco parentis still applicable in that case?

The senate hearing must first ascertain when, how, and what particular conditions the loco
parentis operates and whether there is due diligence in the responsibilities that come with the
substituted parental authority (loco parentis) if it was proven that the said Student who died or the time
when the injury or crime happened is under the custody of educational Institution which was subject of
fishing and insulted by the Senators on that hearing.

The head of Student Affairs, who was summoned to that hearing, said that they did not
recognize the said fraternity, and they conducted such orientation regarding Anti-Hazing Law and others
to prevent that. The advice of Senator Tulfo is futile; what is the purpose of calling the attention of the
Member of Tau Gamma Phi, even the Head of Student Affairs who has knowledge of the alleged
existence of fraternity in undergraduate them by saying “kilala ko kayo alam ko nag exist kayo” or even
warned which that frat men already know about the Anti-Hazing Law before that crime committed, it
still the same! It is just like a threat of a mosquito. No one should call anybody I.N.U.T.I.L if someone is in
good faith, has diligence in the responsibilities, or has any who prove their diligence.

On this issue of whether or not Adamson University is liable for the death of its Student who
died of hazing outside the University, which is 22 km away from the said University. My unsolicited
opinion is, first, let's define what loco parentis is under the law; under the existing jurisprudence, loco
parentis is a doctrine that the legal responsibility of some person or organization to perform some of the
functions or responsibilities of a parent. Moreover, in Palisoc Doctrine, concerning the loco parentis that
hat teachers are responsible for the acts of their students, not only minors but those emancipated as
well who were under the custody of the person or Institution with a substitute parental authority of that
Student. In the case of Amadora v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that, as long as it can be
shown that the student is in the school premises in pursuance of a legitimate student objective, in the
exercise of a legitimate student right, and even in the enjoyment of a legitimate student right, and even
in the enjoyment of a legitimate student privilege, the responsibility of the school authorities over the
student continues. Indeed, even if the student should be doing nothing more than relaxing on the
campus in the company of his classmates and friends and enjoying the ambiance and atmosphere of the
school, he is still in custody and subject to the discipline of the school authorities. In this jurisprudence,
the loco parentis operates when the Student is within their premises, and those activities inside and
outside with the authority of the Institution are where the loco parentis operates.

In this case, Adamson University has taken necessary steps to orient its Student on Anti-Hazing,
as mentioned by the Head of Student Affairs, and the fraternities did not recognize or do not have given
authority to have existed within the Campus. The crime happened 22 km from the Institution, which is
there is the possibility that they are not under custody or control and are under the influence of
Adamson University. In the case of Amadora v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court refined the
definition of “custody” it was held not to mean the student must be boarding with the school
authorities. However, it does signify that the student should be within the control and under the
influence of the school authorities at the time of the injury, whether the semester or school term has
not yet begun or has already ended. As long as the student is still subject to the school's disciplinary
authority and cannot consider himself released altogether from the observance of its rules, he is in the
custody of the school.

The Senators on that committee hearing must ascertain if that initiation is allowed or has
authority from Adamson to be conducted outside the premises; in the absence of that, then Adamson
University must not be insulted by Senator Tulfo where those Students and the Victim were not under
the custody of Adamson University, which that fraternity is not recognized, resulting from their
prohibition against fraternities to have existed within their premises. At the time of the crime, those
Students were not within the control and under the influence of Adamson. It should be solely against
the Members present in the initiation rites and its Officers. Adamson must be liable if the crime is
committed while under such authority. Where the Senate hearing manifests that there is no custody
over the Students, does not have control or influence over them at the time of the crime where the
University did not authorize the initiation rites, and it has not happened on Campus.

The Doctrine of Loco Parentis was not applicable in the case against Adamson University, and
the Senator must stop to insist on the doctrine which does not apply in the case and use it to grandstand
and insult the resource speaker in the senate who will prove their innocence. The Senator must practice
the Constitutional Presumption of innocence of any person, whether Natural or Juridical.