Recently, the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) was rocked by another incident of hazing. Twenty underclassmen were subjected to physical abuse by their upperclassmen on April 3, 2026. Three cadets were arrested after victims were found with burns and injuries caused by exposure to a mixture of drain cleaner and muriatic acid.

The plebes were punished after being blamed for an issue involving a cadet who intended to resign. Charges were filed under Republic Act No. 11053, the Anti-Hazing Act. The Chief of the Philippine National Police immediately issued a statement emphasizing zero tolerance for hazing.

The message was strong, categorical, and familiar. We have heard this before. Another scandal. Another round of condemnations.

Another promise that hazing will not be tolerated. And yet hazing continues. It persists through reforms, memoranda, and public pronouncements.

The persistence of hazing in the PNPA is not simply a matter of individual deviance or failure to comply with rules. It is deeply embedded in the culture of police socialization. It is transmitted across generations of cadets.

It is justified by those who endured it. It is romanticized by those who survived it. It is tolerated informally even while condemned publicly.

Social learning theory provides a powerful explanation for why hazing continues despite strict prohibitions. According to social learning theory, behavior is learned through interaction with others, particularly through observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Individuals learn not only techniques but also motivations, rationalizations, and attitudes toward certain behaviors.

Within the PNPA, hazing has become part of the informal curriculum. When freshmen enter the academy, they are mentored by upperclassmen who themselves had been subjected to hazing. These upperclassmen replicate what they experienced, often believing that the process is necessary for the development of discipline and resilience.

The style, form, and severity of hazing may change across batches, becoming more sophisticated or more concealed, but the underlying rationale remains consistent. Hazing becomes normalized as part of the initiation process into the police profession. Justification 1: It builds discipline Many cadets justify hazing as a necessary component of discipline.

They argue that police work involves constant pressure and exposure to danger, requiring officers to make rapid decisions under stressful conditions. Hazing, they claim, simulates the pressure of real-life police work. The hardship endured during hazing is framed as preparation for the harsh realities of policing.

This justification reflects the mechanisms described in neutralization theory, where individuals rationalize deviant behavior by appealing to higher purposes or denying the harmful consequences of their actions. Hazing is reframed not as abuse but as training. Pain becomes discipline, and violence becomes preparation.

The argument appears persuasive on the surface, but its logic collapses under closer scrutiny. Professional competence is not developed through cruelty. Ethical decision-making is not strengthened by humiliation.

Discipline is not cultivated through fear. Empirical research on police deviance suggests that organizational cultures that tolerate internal abuse are more likely to tolerate external abuse. When violence becomes normalized internally, it becomes easier to justify violence externally.

The acceptance of hazing may therefore contribute to the normalization of excessive force and other forms of misconduct. In my previous work examining police corruption and noble cause corruption in the Philippines, I observed that strong internal loyalty combined with weak accountability mechanisms creates fertile ground for misconduct. The so-called code of silence becomes a protective shield against administrative sanctions and criminal liability.

Police officers are reluctant to testify against fellow officers, especially those belonging to the same batch. Loyalty to the group takes precedence over loyalty to the law. Justification 2: It promotes solidarity Another justification offered by cadets is that hazing promotes bonding and solidarity among batch members.

Shared hardship produces strong emotional ties, reinforcing loyalty and mutual protection. Sociological theories of group cohesion explain how shared experiences of adversity strengthen interpersonal bonds. Military organizations often use controlled hardship to build solidarity.

However, solidarity becomes problematic when it transforms into complicity. The same cohesion that strengthens teamwork may also weaken accountability. Officers may become more willing to conceal wrongdoing to protect their peers.

Loyalty becomes a barrier to ethical conduct. The bonding produced by hazing reinforces the development of tightly knit networks within the police organization. In the Philippine context, where personal relationships often influence organization