Since the law was passed and until the present, various moves have been done to repeal the law or to amend it to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the latest of which was in 2025 when Senator Robin Padilla filed a Bill lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility to ten (10) years old. It has always been CLB’s position that 9344 should not be repealed. 

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA) passage in 2006 is a victory not only for CLB but for all the NGOs and GOs who are working for the welfare of the children and of course for the children themselves.

 

The Philippines for a long time did not have a separate justice system for children when they come in conflict with the law.  Filipino children have been treated in the same manner as the adults when they commit crimes.  They undergo the same process, they even are confined in the same detention center and it is only after the decision when the juveniles’ sentences are suspended when they are treated differently from the adults.  This system only makes the children who come into conflict with the law more criminal than before.  It is seldom that they get rehabilitated and lead useful lives since detention is like a factory for hardened criminals.  These children commit crimes because they have experienced neglect, abandonment and abuse.  By treating them in the same way as adults, they are made to suffer more.  Thus, the cycle is not broken but continues and they end up committing the same offenses over and over again and even graduate into serious offenses as the years go by and they become adults.

This is the very reason why the international community through the United Nations has come up with several guidelines and rules protecting the children in conflict with the law (CICL) and the rights of these children are also included in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child which the Philippines ratified in 1990.  These international standards provide that there should be a separate juvenile justice system where children are treated differently from the adults when they commit crimes, detention is the last resort and for the shortest possible time, alternatives to detention and diversion programs should be provided, respect for the children’s rights shall be afforded at all stages even in detention, among others.  Yet, before R.A. 9344 was passed, Filipino children continued to languish in jail together with the adults with detention centers at a very dismal state.

No less than the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has brought to the attention of the Philippine government its obligation to implement these international standards in its Concluding Observations on the Philippine Report on the Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1995 and was reiterated in 2005.

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act incorporated these international standards on juvenile justice.  Now the Philippines can be proud that at last it has established a comprehensive juvenile justice system.  We should now be concerned on its implementation so that juvenile delinquency would be prevented, children who commit crimes would be held responsible and at the same time they would be rehabilitated and reintegrated to the community to the end that they are given a chance to become useful members of society.  

CLB also opposes any amendment lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility or MACR.

The age of above fifteen (15) years old as the age of criminal liability is based on Beyond Innocence, a 1997 study by the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila commissioned by the Council for the Welfare of Children that established the age of discernment for Filipino children at 15 years old.  

There have been studies conducted in the United States that show that a person’s brain is not yet fully developed “in those relevant parts that govern impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences, and other characteristics that make people morally culpable” until the early 20s.  

According to a study by the  Ateneo Human Rights Center, “any attempt to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be based on guidelines provided by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and International Standards:  xxx that it should be based on the emotional, mental, and intellectual maturity of the child; it should not be lower than 12 years old; any adjustment in the age should not be to lower it but to adjust it towards a higher level; there should be no exceptions to the MACR, i.e. it cannot be lowered in certain cases such as when the crime involved is a serious offense xxx.”

If there is to be any amendment, it should not focus on lowering the age of criminal responsibility but on strengthening of structures and appropriating budget for the full implementation of the law.

Thus, we welcomed the amendment of the law R.A. 10630 as it did not lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility but instead strengthened intervention programs for those minors committing serious offenses and repeat offenders (although this is not the majority of CICL), established Bahay Pag-asa and appropriated budget for this.  It also improved the structure by placing the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) under the DSWD instead of the DOJ as provided under RA 9344.  As the council is headed by the DSWD Undersecretary it is just logical to place it under DSWD as well to avoid confusion.  Regional Juvenile Justice and Welfare Councils were also established to strengthen monitoring of implementation at the regional level. 

Any move to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility to nine years, ten years or even twelve years of age without any basis or scientific studies is clearly contrary to international standards and the best interest of the child, entirely negates the purpose of the law and may be tantamount to a repeal.

The law as amended should be given a chance.  Everyone should work hand in hand for full implementation rather than another amendment.

Although the law has been there for around twenty years already and the amendment R.A. 10630 for more than 10 years, it is a fact that aside from the provision on the minimum age of criminal liability, i.e., that children 15 years old and below will not be imprisoned, other provisions have not been fully implemented.  The law is comprehensive.  It addresses prevention up to rehabilitation and reintegration of the child in conflict with the law.   

Until the present, most of the LGUs do not have Comprehensive Juvenile Intervention Programs yet.  Only few LGUs have prevention, diversion and other intervention programs for the children in conflict with the law in place.  The budget for the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council has not even been released fully. 

Thus, it is only expected that there will be an imbalance.  Children 15 years old and below who have committed crimes and are just released do not receive the proper intervention programs and those over 15 but below 18 committing non-serious offenses are not given proper diversion programs. These intervention and diversion programs are supposed to make the CICL learn from his mistake and not to do it again.  Moreover, there are few prevention programs to address the causes of delinquency.  

After the Implementing Rules and Regulations as well as the Supreme Court Rule on Juvenile in Conflict with the Law were issued, some difficulties and questions in the process and implementation have been clarified.  The implementing rules provided details and procedures in determination of discernment and implementation of diversion, among others.

Some provisions of the said Supreme Court Rule have provided measures so that not all minors would be released when they commit crimes, i.e, release on recognizance could only be availed of for non-serious offenses and that bail could not be granted for offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when the evidence of guilt is strong.   

With the amendment (R.A. 10630), many concerns raised against the law were addressed.  For one, interventions for children 12 to 15 years of age committing serious crimes or were repeat offenders were strengthened with establishment of Bahay Pag-asa with Intensive Juvenile Intervention Support Center established and funds appropriated for the same.  It also provided maximum penalty for persons using children for criminal activities and the establishment of the Regional Juvenile Justice and Welfare Councils for more effective implementation and monitoring of the law at the regional level. 

It is understandable that people are reacting to the new law because it adopts the principle of restorative justice when we have been used to the traditional retributive justice.  We have been used to penalizing offenders based on the crimes committed regardless of the circumstances of the offender, the feelings of the victim and community safety.   We have been used to incarcerating minors who commit crimes.  We think there is no justice if the minors who commit crimes are not imprisoned.  But restorative justice is a different paradigm where justice is still served but through a different approach, not incarceration but through other means like intervention and diversion.

The law may not be perfect.  There is no perfect law.  There are difficulties in implementation and the law can still be improved but for us, what is important is the adoption of the principle of restorative justice as well as international standards.  

Many people may not be aware of it because the media projects the negative stories of minors committing heinous crimes, but since the law was passed, there have been many success stories of CICL becoming fruitful members of society as a product of intervention, diversion and rehabilitation programs under the law.  Some have even become police officers and others work in government, private sector or are self-employed.

Amending the law to lower the MACR may prove to be counter-productive as this will give rise to other problems. We do not even have enough capacity and facilities to accommodate and serve those who are above fifteen but below 18 acting with discernment, how much more if we extend this to those who are below fifteen and above nine, ten or twelve years old?  

If there are already successes when the law had not yet been fully implemented, with the structures, infrastructure and programs in place under JJWA as amended, there is no reason for law to fail in addressing the issue of juvenile delinquecy.  

We have been applying the retributive justice principle since the time of the Spanish period.  We had the death penalty. Yet, criminal rates continue to rise.  More children come in conflict with the law.  It is about time that we apply restorative justice and give it a chance to work especially for our children.