JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM:

LOWERING THE CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF JUVENILE OFFENDER

A CASE STUDY

PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT

INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE

PRESENTED BY:

QUIMIO, JANRICE AIRIED B.

During the 2016 election campaign, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte vowed

to clamp down on crime. As part of this promise, he pledged to lower the minimum age

of criminal responsibility, sparking widespread condemnation from children’s rights

organisations and the international community, including the United Nations.

During the review of the Philippines’ human rights record before the United

Nations Human Rights Council on 8 May 2017, numerous states called on the

authorities to refrain from lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility and

instead ensure the effective implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of

2006.

On 28 January 2019, the House of Representatives approved on third and final

reading a bill that would lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 12

years old and the Senate is considering its own version of the bill.

Discussion

Philippine lawmakers will soon decide on the passage of a law to lower the

minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from 15 to 12 years. This reform will

further victimise marginalised youth.

Pointing out that children must be “taught to understand responsibility,” President

Rodrigo Duterte wants the law to be passed. He argues that syndicates are using

children in the drug trade and other criminal activities.

crimes committed by children has been in decline. For 2018, police statistics show that

children committed 11,321 crimes, a mere 2.3 % of the total crime volume. Male

teenagers were involved in more than 93 % of these incidents.

Most at risk are boys aged 14 to 17 who have dropped out of school. Many come

from poor families with no stable income. Because they are considered to be more

physically able, boys are forced to leave school and contribute to the family income.

Many come from families marked by domestic violence. Most get arrested for theft in

Metro Manila’s densely populated communities. They typically steal mobile phones,

clothes, wallets and bags. Drug-related offences are often reported too, including the

selling and use of prohibited substances.

Child-rights advocates point out that most under-age persons who commit crimes

are themselves victims. Normally they have suffered abuse, exploitation and

abandonment. Most are neglected by dysfunctional families. Many live in communities

with high levels of crime. The streets become their homes, and criminal gangs find it

easy to recruit them.

Risa Hontiveros is one of the few lawmakers who oppose the reform. She insists

that punitive measures are not the best way to keep children away from crime. The

senator proposes implementing an existing law more effectively: the Juvenile Justice

and Welfare Act (JJWA) of 2006. It focuses on rehabilitation and special treatment for

delinquent minors of the age groups 12 to 18. Setting the minimum age of criminal

liability at 15 years, it created a separate justice system for children in conflict with the
law (CICL). Guided by the principles of restorative justice, it spelled out that special

programmes must address the needs of children who are in conflict with the law.

It mandated the establishment of child-caring institutions in the country’s 81

provinces and 33 cities. Called “Bahay Pagasa” (House of Hope), these facilities are

supposed to offer short-term residential care to CICL who are above 15 but below 18.

However, the official records show that only 63 of 114 Bahay Pagasa houses that

should have been established were actually built. A mere 58 are operating. Most are

dirty, overcrowded and lack basic furniture, even beds. Only five Bahay Pagasa have

passed the government’s accreditation standards.

Compounding the problems, most facilities do not have the mandatory number of

social workers. The staff typically lacks training in child care. The institutions offer only

limited facilities for girls. Tricia Oco of the governmental Juvenile Justice and Welfare

Council says: “Children are told to keep quiet the whole day and do nothing.”

Senator Hontiveros considers the JJWA a good law that needs to be

implemented properly. Where that was done, good results have been achieved, she

points out. She praises success in Quezon City, Valenzuela and Malabon. She says:

“The number of CICL drops where the law gets efficiently and fully implemented.”

Lacking funds, many local governments are unable to implement the law, the

Senator argues. She expects problems to increase once the minimum age of criminal

responsibility gets lowered. In the absence of proper housing and rehabilitation facilities,

CICL would simply end up in jails that are meant for adult offenders. Instead of social

workers who could serve as positive role models, hardened criminals await them here.
Jails would thus become schools of crime – and rehabilitation would become ever more

elusive. A populist policy that is supposedly tough on crime is therefore likely to result in

yet more crime and despair.

It’s a move that experts from several fields, including medicine, economics,

human rights, and education, have strongly opposed. Several groups have voiced grave

concern over doing so, saying it could expose more children to the gaps of the juvenile

justice system, which is already struggling to cope with children in conflict with the law

(CICL).

Armed with years spent treating and dealing with children, experts have said

lowering the MACR goes against science and evidence, which proves there are

detrimental risks CICLs face at every moment they come in contact with the juvenile

justice system.

A review of position papers crafted by medical experts, economists, social

workers, and children’s rights group showed there were risks posed to children at 3

stages: before a child may commit a crime, during a child’s stay in a youth detention

center – known as Bahay Pag-Asa (House of Hope), and after a child leaves a

rehabilitation center or jail.

The first and foremost proof experts cite is backed by decades of scientific

research: children are still developing their decision-making capacity and therefore do

not know how to fully discern by themselves yet.

According to the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), this means

that changes in areas of the brain, which are responsible for impulse control, decision-
making, regulating emotions, and evaluating risks and rewards are still taking place.

Unlike adults, children are less able to consider and understand the long-term

consequences of their actions. This matters because it means that while children may

know right from wrong, they are unable to fully understand the consequences of their

actions. Lawmakers, including Senate justice committee chairperson Richard Gordon,

have argued that children should be held accountable for offenses precisely because

they can distinguish right from wrong.

The Child Neurology Society, Philippines and Philippine Society for

Developmental and Behavioural Pediatrics share the position of the PAP and PPS as

neuroscience research has proven that the brain does not fully develop until the age of

25. Because children are often unable to protect themselves, the state has the

obligation to protect them.

As a matter of fact, UNICEF is deeply concerned about ongoing efforts in

Congress to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines below

15 years of age. The proposed lowering vary from 9 and 12 years, and goes against the

letter and spirit of child rights.

There is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the

increase in crime rates committed in the Philippines. Lowering the age of criminal

responsibility will not deter adult offenders from abusing children to commit crimes.

UNICEF supports the Philippine government, as a signatory to the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to ensure that children grow up in a

safe environment protected from crime and violence.

The lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against

children. Children in conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance, mostly

because of poverty and exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Children who are

exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not further

penalized. Instead they should be given a second chance to reform and to rehabilitate.

The current proposal is to delay sentence up to a maximum age of 25 years. If a child is

jailed at 9 years old it means that they may have to waste away their life for 17 years

under imprisonment until they can get a sentence for the crime committed. There is no

mechanism to protect these children from cohabiting with hardened criminals and no

guarantee that in detention they will be protected from violence and exploitation in jail.

Detaining children will not teach them accountability for their actions. In order to

maximize their potential to contribute to nation-building, children must grow up in a

caring, nurturing and protective environment. This requires strong parenting support

programs and access to health, education and social services as well as to child-

sensitive justice and social welfare systems.

The current Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law, which sets the minimum age of

criminal responsibility at 15, already holds children in conflict with the law accountable

for their actions. It provides them with rehabilitation programs using the framework of

restorative, not punitive justice.

Noteworthy efforts from the judiciary and the executive agencies like the Juvenile

Justice and Welfare Council, Departments of Education and Social Welfare and

Development deserve full support of Congress, particularly on increasing life skills of

adolescent learners; establishing an evidence-based parenting program for babies all

the way through adolescence; and decreasing use of detention and increase use of

diversion and community-based mechanisms to address delinquency. UNICEF calls on

the government and civil society to focus on strengthening the implementation of this

law instead of amending it.

Branding children as criminals removes accountability from adults who are

responsible for safeguarding them. If children who have been exploited by criminal

syndicates are penalized instead of the adults who abused them, we fail to uphold the

rights and well-being of children.

If we fail to understand the underlying reasons how and why children commit

crimes, we as adults, fail our children.