Practice question
A school assigns representatives to an approved initiation. Hazing nonetheless occurs, but both representatives perform overt acts to stop it. Is their mere presence plus occurrence of hazing enough, under the section 5 proviso, to impose the specified monitoring liability automatically?
- Yes, because any occurrence conclusively establishes failure to act
- No, the proviso requires proof that they failed to perform an overt act to prevent or stop it
- Yes, because stopping efforts are legally irrelevant
- No, because representatives may never incur liability
- Yes, if the initiation application was truthful
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2018/ra_11053_2018.html — RA 11053 amendments to RA 8049, especially current sections 2–5, 12 and 14, hazing definition, initiation safeguards, consent and liability.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.