AMONG THE first bills filed in the House of Representatives of the 17th Congress

was House Bill No. 002 of Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez and Capiz Rep.
Fredenil Castro to lower the age of criminal liability from 15 to nine. The measure, according
to Alvarez and Castro, will deter children from committing crimes. They argue that the
current law has “pampered youth offenders who commit crimes” because “they know they
can get away with it.”
Several groups, including legislators and children’s rights advocates, oppose the proposal.
Senator Francis Pangilinan, author of RA 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006, said the government should not hastily implement laws that may affect the future of
children who may simply be lost and confused. Alvarez, on the other hand, maintained that
the bill would focus on rehabilitating children in conflict with the law.
Juvenile Justice in the Philippines
Prior to the passage of RA 9344, the Revised Penal Code exempted only those under nine
years of age from criminal liability. RA 9344 raised the age of criminal liability to 15. Those
above 15 but below 18 years old are also exempted from criminal prosecution but are
subject to rehabilitation programs, unless they are proven to be fully conscious of their acts
and therefore subject to appropriate proceedings.
In 2013, RA 10630, “An Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines,”
amended RA 9344, transferring the administration of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Council
and the implementation of the Act from the Department of Justice to the Department of
Social Welfare and Development. Moreover, RA 10630 mandates local government units to
establish child-care institutions called Bahay Pag-asa which should provide short-term
residential care for “children in conflict with the law,” who are above age 15 and below 18.
Alvarez and Castro’s HB 002 would restore the minimum age of criminal liability to nine.
Should this be passed, it will allow courts to convict minors involved in crimes aged nine to
18 if they are found to have full discernment at the time of the offense.
International Standards
Congress should consider legal as well as other implications that should be considered
before passing the bill.
For one, reverting to the former minimum age of criminal liability would conflict with
international standards. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
of 1989, which the Philippines signed and ratified, defines a child as a person below the age
of 18. As a state party to the convention, the Philippines is obligated to increase the level of
protection for individuals under 18.
Other treaties on juvenile welfare to which the Philippines is a signatory include:

 The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justice, known as the “Beijing Rules,” which states that the minimum age of criminal
responsibility “should not be fixed at too low an age level” in consideration of the
emotional, mental, and intellectual maturity of the children.
  The United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, known as
the “Riyadh Guidelines,” which puts a primer on prevention and rehabilitation of
children in conflict with the law over punishment.

 The UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, which states
that the juvenile justice system should uphold the rights and safety of minors, and
that imprisonment should be used only as a last resort.

Death Penalty for Minors?

Some fear that passing a bill lowering the age of criminal liability along with a bill seeking to
reinstate death penalty (House Bill No. 001, which Alvarez and Castro also authored) might
lead to circumstances which would make the possible the execution of children as young as
nine.
Article 37 (a) of the UNCRC states that children should not be subjected to capital
punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility of release. This provision is also
cited in Article 2 (b) of RA 9344.
Moreover, Section 59 of RA 9344 states that minors should be exempted from death
penalty, notwithstanding provisions from other laws. While HB 002 on lowering criminal
liability seeks to amend RA 9344, it will only amend Section 6 of the law, relating to the
minimum age of criminal responsibility. Unless Section 59 of RA 9344 is amended as well,
executing a child would be improbable.
The Bigger Picture
Lowering the age of criminal liability would be disadvantageous to the poor. Given the
current state of the justice system in the country, the bill risks victimizing the poor, among
whom most offending minors come from primarily because of need. These families’ means
barely cover their needs, let alone hiring a lawyer. While poverty is not an excuse to commit
crime, there ought to be a clear distinction between making the children responsible for their
acts and criminalizing them.
There is a bigger picture surrounding juvenile crime which is usually left out of the
discourse. The problem of children in conflict with the law is deeply rooted in the social ills
of the country—increasing inequality paired with decreasing support for social services such
as healthcare and education. These problems will require more holistic and nuanced
solutions rather than simply lowering the age of criminal liability.
With president-elect Rodrigo Duterte promising a crackdown on criminality, among
his legislative priorities is to lower the minimum age for criminal liability. The
minimum is currently pegged above age 15, with those below 18 also spared from
criminal liability unless “discernment” is established in committing an offense.

Duterte himself has not mentioned a specific age, but lawmakers are said to be eyeing
a return to the previous minimum of 12 years. While any effort to save minors from
the stigma of a criminal record is laudable, crime rings saw the advantage of the
higher minimum age and recruited minors for illegal activities.
The revised Juvenile Justice law, enacted in 2013, penalized the inducement of
children to commit crimes. Still, children were recruited by adults as drug couriers,
jueteng bet collectors, members of organized pickpocketing rings, and runners for
fences of snatched mobile phones and other items. Many thieves of vehicle parts are
minors. Because of such activities, lowering the minimum age of criminal liability is
likely to enjoy public support.

The move, however, must not overlook the fact that these are minors who still have
many years ahead and deserve a chance to enjoy fruitful and productive lives.
Lowering the age of criminal liability must be accompanied by a boost in the state’s
capability to rehabilitate juvenile offenders. The revised law, Republic Act 10630,
provided for the establishment of halfway homes or Bahay Pag-Asa in every province
and chartered city for juvenile offenders. How many are in operation and doing the
job?

RA 10630 also created a Juvenile Justice and Welfare Committee in every region to
implement the law and craft effective intervention programs to rehabilitate young
offenders. The incoming administration must review the progress of these regional
committees.

The objective in the intervention programs is to make juvenile offenders, most of

whom come from impoverished families, realize that poverty need not be synonymous
with a life of crime. As the name of the Bahay Pag-Asa halfway homes indicate,
young offenders must be given hope. They deserve a second chance; they must be
able to dare to dream that life can be better.

Read more at https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2016/06/11/1591726/editorial-age-

criminal-liability#FyCqz8hRoRvpchkG.99
MANILA - Children as young as nine could be jailed in the Philippines for certain crimes under a
proposed law backed by the president, sparking concern Monday from the United Nations and rights
groups.

President Rodrigo Duterte's allies have been pushing to pass laws by December that would restore
the death penalty and lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 9.

 READ: DSWD chief leads charge vs lowering age of criminal liability

Duterte won May elections largely because of a vow to kill tens of thousands of drug dealers, also
promising on the campaign trail to close a loophole in the juvenile justice system that he said allowed
traffickers to use minors as narcotic couriers.
"Adult criminals knowingly and purposely make use of youth below 15 years of age to commit
crimes, such as drug trafficking," Pantaleon Alvarez, one of the proposed law's main backers, said in
an explanatory note.

 READ: Why Speaker wants age of criminal liability lowered

While Duterte wanted the age threshold dropped to 12, his allies went one step further by calling for
it to be lowered to nine.

The UN children's agency UNICEF reminded the Philippines of its international obligations.

Manila is a state party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says criminal
responsibility below the age of 12 is not acceptable.

"Jail is no place for a child. It is alarming for children to be institutionalised (sent to a penal
institution)," UNICEF said in a position paper sent to AFP Monday. "It will be retrogression on the
part of the Philippine Government."

 READ: UNICEF warns against lowering age of criminal liability

https://sa.kapamilya.com/absnews/abscbnnews/media/news-special1/nation/07/22/juvenile-
072216.jpg

Rights organizations launched a campaign called #ChildrenNotCriminals to urge lawmakers to

reconsider their support for the law.

One of the groups, Plan International, told AFP that children on the wrong side of the law were often
victims of criminal gangs.

"It is unfair that it's always the children who are blamed. This will result in children becoming
hardened criminals," said Ernesto Almocera of Plan International Philippines.

The advocates appealed to Duterte to explore factors that led children to commit crimes, such as
poverty and lack of parental guidance and education.

"We cannot hold children to the same standard as we hold adult offenders," Melanie Llana of the
Philippine Action for Youth Offenders told AFP. "Are we really going to jail 9-year-olds who we
know are not fully mature?"

Duterte's hardline approach to criminals has drawn criticism from its ally the United States, the UN
and human rights groups.

Nearly 2,000 people have been killed in police operations and 2,800 have died in unexplained
circumstances since Duterte took office on June 30, according to official figures.

Critics allege some of these deaths amount to state-sponsored extrajudicial killings, a charge Duterte
has rejected.