CHR: Punish syndicates instead

Meanwhile, CHR reiterated in a statement on Saturday that it opposes the measure,

saying that persons and crime syndicates who exploit children should be the ones
punished instead.

"Ang rason na binanggit ng mga nagpanukala ay upang proteksyonan ang mga bata
mula sa mga sindikatong gumagamit sa kanila. Kung gayon, ang dapat pagtuunan ay
ang pagtugis sa mga sindikato at pagtiyak na mapatawan sila ng mabigat na
kaparusahan sang-ayon sa batas," said CHR.

(The reason given by its proponents is that the measure will protect the children from
crime syndicates that exploit them. But if that is the case, the efforts should be on
pursuing those syndicates and ensuring they will be punished heavily in accordance
with law.)

The agency added that it "runs counter to the responsibility of the State to protect the
interest of the youth."

"Bukod pa dito, hindi pa napapatunayan na ang pagbibilanggo sa mga bata ay

makapipigil sa paggawa ng krimen, bagkus ay nakasasama sa kanila ayon na rin sa
mga pag-aaral. Ilan sa mga masamang epekto nito sa mga bata ay stigmatisation; ang
posibilidad na maging repeat offender; at iba’t ibang masamang epekto sa pisikal,
mental, at emosyonal na pag-unlad ng bata," continued CHR. (READ: Lower age of
criminal liability? Here's why psychologists are against it)

(In addition, it has not been proven yet that putting children behind bars will stop the
commission of crimes; instead, this would badly affect them, based on studies. Some of
these bad effects are stigmatization, the possibility of becoming repeat offenders, and
different effects to the physical, mental, and emotional development of the child.)

Finally, CHR argued that the bill "may deny a bright future to the children branded as
criminals at an early age."

Lower criminal age of responsibility? Fully implement

Juvenile Justice law first
'There are still a lot of misconceptions of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act – that the
child always gets away with whatever crime he or she does but its not true,' says
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council policy and research officer Jackielou Bagadiong

MANILA, Philippines – The full and proper implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act, not the lowering the age of criminal responsibility, will help children at risk and in conflict
with the law from committing crimes, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) policy and
research officer Jackielou Bagadiong said on Thursday, August 23.

“The JJWC advocates for the full implementation first of the law because there are still a lot of
misconceptions of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare act – that the child always gets away with
whatever crime he or she does but its not true,” Bagadiong said during the Department of
Education’s first national child protection summit.

Bagadiong said proposals from lawmakers on lowering the age of criminal responsibility from
15 years old to a “compromise” of 12 years old relied on reports that “hype” the idea of children
in conflict with the law. (DSWD chief: Lower age of criminal liability 'anti-poor,' won't curb
crime)

Lawmakers earlier proposed to lower the criminal age of responsibilty, saying adult criminals
purposely make use of youth to commit heinous crimes, knowing they cannot be held criminally
liable.

“The child still has this liability but we don't detain them because given the current state of our
jails, it wouldn't be possible, it would harm our future generation if we do that,” she said.

Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Law of 2006 sets the minimum age of criminal
liability at 15 years old. This means that those between 15 to 18 years old may be detained in
youth centers and go through rehabilitation programs. Those under 15 years old are exempted
from criminal liability and undergo intervention.

To put children in jail would be like putting them in “schools of crime,” Bagadiong said.

“Our jails in the Philippine setting (are) what we can call school(s) of crime. If a child enters jail,
one can be assured that when he or she comes out, she will have had a network of criminals that
can assist him or her later on,” she said.

There are a number of bills in the House of Representatives seeking to lower the criminal age of
responsibility. A counterpart bill seeking to exempt children under 12 years old from criminal
liability has also been filed in the Senate.

DSWD chief: Lower age of criminal liability 'anti-

poor,' won't curb crime
Pro-child advocates say the proposal treats children in conflict with the law as criminals, not
victims

Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo on Wednesday, November 16, tagged as "anti-poor"
the proposal to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 9 years old.

Taguiwalo, along with Commission on Human Rights (CHR) Chairperson Chito Gascon and
non-governmental organizations, opposed the proposal to lower the minimum age of criminal
responsibility from 15 to 9 years old during the hearing of the House justice subcommittee on
correctional reforms.

Lawmakers, including Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, have filed several bills seeking to revert the
effects of Republic Act (RA) Number 9344 or the Juvenile Delinquency Act of 2006, which
raised the minimum age of criminal liability from 9 years to 15 years old.
"Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility is anti-poor," Taguiwalo said in her
position paper presented by social welfare officials who attended the hearing.

She cited data that a "greater majority" of children in conflict with the law (CICL) "come from
lower-income families where parents are either unemployed and/or where a greater number of
siblings result in even lesser per-capita resources."

Taguiwalo also said that lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility "has never
resulted in lower crime rates."

"The Philippine experience, and the experience of other countries attest to this fact," she said.

Social protection for children

In their position papers submitted to the House panel, Taguiwalo and Gascon said the proposed
measures violate the fundamental principles of social protection for children.

Gascon said that "the principle of protecting a child's well-being and development is entwined
with that of their best interest."

"It encompasses the need for addtional measures and protections due to a child's vulnerability
and the duty of the State to provide this protection as enshrined under our Constitution, our
domestic laws, and in various international human rights instruments specifically in the UN
Convention of the Rights of the Child," he said.

"We affirm our previous stance that lowering the minimum age of MACR (minimum age of
criminal responsibility) oversimplifies the nature of juvenile offending and violates the principles
of child protection and welfare as provided for by laws, international treaties, and
internationally-accepted standards," Gascon added.

In defense of his proposal, Alvarez earlier argued that it would rehabilitate juvenile
offenders and not jail them with hardened criminals. He said the measure aims to protect children
from being used by syndicates to commit crimes.

But Taguiwalo argued that the proposal "runs counter to available scientific knowledge about the
cognitive, psychosocial, and neurological development" of children.

"A lower age of criminal responsibility results in more children being detained, substantially
higher cost of public expenditure, and an even higher social cost of re-offending and graver
offending, which simply demonstrates that such measure is not cost-effecive," the social welfare
chief said.

Victims, not criminals

For Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council exective director Tricia Clare Oco, the proposed bills
would damage CICL because they would be treated as criminalsinstead of victims.

“The proposal to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility will merely revert to the
cruel situation of locking up many children in poor and subhuman facilities after they have been
exploited and abused by syndicates, their parents and other adults further victimizing them,” Oco
told the House panel.
Salinhali Alliance for Children's Concerns Secretary-General Kharlo Manano agreed.

“We should regard children as victims of state neglect and abandonment from their right to
survival and be protected, denied from them at one point of their lives. They have been failed by
society that now wants to brand them as criminals,” he said.

Meanwhile, Legal Rights and Development Center Chairperson Rowena Legaspi said criminal
syndicates' continued exploitation of children point to a failure in law enforcement.

“The failure of the system to go after syndicates reflects the weakness of the law enforcers in
implementing the law,” said Legaspi.

“It is our position that these children should be taken care of. The main issues are the absence of
their access to education, justice and health,” she added.

Other pro-child groups and social workers lamented that the country only needs the proper
implementation of RA 9344, not its amendment.

Why lowering the minimum age of criminal

responsibility is false compromise (opinion)
'The kind of protection that’s needed is the actual and effective implementation of the current
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act'

The Philippine House of Representatives caused national and global outrage when in early
January 2019 it consideredlowering the age of criminal responsibility to 9 years old. The House
resolved to “compromise” and changed it to 12 in a revised bill, which it swiftly passed on 28th
January 2019.

If the Philippine Senate discusses and approves a similar bill, the law could become effective in
June 2019.

Here are 5 reasons why a minimum age of criminal responsibility of 12 years old is hardly an
improvement from the proposed age of 9, and needs to be reconsidered at the Senate:

1. It does not account for children’s evolving capacities

Because they differ in their physical and psychological development, children in conflict with the
law deserve to be treated differently compared to adults in the criminal justice system. Setting
the minimum age of criminal responsibility at too low an age is not compatible with the evolving
capacities of children.

Congress should enact measures that recognise both children’s abilities and vulnerabilities.
(READ: [OPINION] Criminalization is not what we owe our children)

2. It is damaging for a child’s development

Criminal punishments can harm children, damaging their future prospects at school or at work.
What’s more, the current conditions in the Philippine penal and corrective system are already
bleak: child corrective facilities and jails are some of the most overcrowded in the world and
some children are placed in jails with adults; neither are the best environment within which to
support children’s development and social integration.

3. It is an ineffective deterrent against those who exploit children for crime

Congress has correctly identified the problem of exploitation of children for crime – but lowering
the age of criminal responsibility will not help to address it. It may encourage those who exploit
children to target more children younger than 12. Children who have been exploited to commit
crime should be treated as victims, not criminals.

4. It does not address the cycle of violence that lawmakers claim to solve

Congress can better use its efforts in ensuring preventive measures that address the root causes of
child offenses. It can make sure intervention is available to – and appropriate for – families
everywhere, helping to support the inclusion and social integration of all children.
(READ: [OPINION] The real syndicate behind lowering criminal liability age)

It can provide sufficient funding, personnel and expertise to social welfare services where they
are most needed. By investing in the realization of children’s economic and social rights today,
Congress will be investing in a less violent future for all.

5. It does not protect children’s best interests

A key theme of the government has been to “protect” the youth, but it fails to live up to its
promise. It has continually restricted our rights and autonomy.

The government already carries out random drug tests on high school students, where previously
it had suggested making them mandatory for adolescents and children as young as 10 in grade
schools. It was President Duterte who referred to children as “collateral damage” during the
deadly drug war, when at least 74 young people lost their lives in the wave of state-sponsored
killings.

The kind of protection that’s needed is the actual and effective implementation of the current
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, protecting children’s best interests.

[OPINION] Criminalization is not what we

owe our children
'It is unacceptable to tag a child as a criminal as if we adults and this society have no accountability for
their action.'

When I was 9 years old, I was about to finish 4th grade but had to fight my way through
bureaucratic and social judgments just to make sure I advanced to the next grade. My teachers
felt I was too young to appreciate fractions and decimals, changes in matter and energy, and
conjunctions in the English language.

Looking back, I did have a hard time keeping up with our lessons. But curiosity and imagination
always thrived at the young age of 9 so I came through. After all, children and the ones in awe of
the workings of nature and the social environment should always be given space and opportunity
to grow and understand their own setting.

But what if they are robbed of these?

'Anti-poor and elitist'

Today, the House committee on justice approved an unnamed bill ammending Republic Act
10630, which will lower the minimum age of criminal liability from 15 to 9 years old.

According to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (UNICEF)

Philippines, the usual profile of children in conflict with the law includes: being neglected by
parents, living in poverty, residing in high crime areas, not having the means to go to school,
sporting low educational attainment, and being exploited both by adults and syndicates.

This information makes lowering the age of criminal liability anti-poor and outright elitist. These
children are victims of socio-economic inequality—victims who are penalized too much simply
by being born into an oppressed class.

However, instead of protecting them, this State chooses to oppress them further.

These children have suffered enough from consequences not of their own choosing. We must
therefore not fall prey to the blunder of projecting the role of an actor, whatever age, to such a
large extent that we fail to acknowledge the interplay of social structures that shape the
conditions of these actors.

They are in a pit and this administration is digging the pit deeper. The aforementioned
amendment may actually encourage syndicates to abuse younger children, since the capture of
these children would mean that a criminal has already been apprehended. Worse, this might even
be used to justify the already horrendous treatment children experience under the Duterte
administration’s war on drugs.

While officials maintain that children will be convicted not to punish but to reform them, and
that they will be called “children in conflict with the law” (CICL) instead of criminals, the
proposed amendment still begs to be challenged.

Youth and justice

The fact that children as young as 9 can be arrested for committing a crime is labeling them as
criminals in all but name. It is unacceptable to tag a child as a criminal as if we adults and this
society have no accountability for their actions. Moreover, it is cruel to look at them as failures
when we are the very ones failing our children. If we find it okay for them to undergo trial, a
situation not at all child-friendly, this says a lot more about us than about their behavior.

We are robbing them of their right to grow in a nurturing environment. We are killing their
potential to actualize their greatest abilities. We are taking them away from contributing to
nation-building.

It is offensive that this move is backed by the likes of House Speaker Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo who has been charged and then cleared for electoral sabotage and plunder. This is
moreso because juvenile crimes, which mainly consist of theft, only take a little part of the total
crimes in the country. These children did not commit murder nor corruption that many officials
and high-ranking people do but get off scot-free. (READ: Child rights group to Congress on age
of criminal liability: Why the turnaround?)

Our social lives are riddled with double standards that are doubly problematic when they target
our children. We say that they are too young to vote, too young to drive, too young to drink
alcohol, too young to know what is good for them, and so the list goes on. It does not make
sense, then, to claim that they are old enough to go to jail.

When I was 9, there were a lot of things I did not understand—not only within the prescribed
curriculum for my grade, but also concepts even adults find difficult to grasp.

Given all these, how can we expect our children to navigate their way into the complexities of
justice? How can we see them as able to traverse the gray areas of right and wrong? How can we
believe that they know what and what not to do when their everyday reality includes the
normalization of crime among the officials who are supposed to be their role models?
(READ: Change.org petition: ‘No to lowering age of criminal responsibility’)

In her opening statement during the Miss Universe 2018 pageant, Catriona gray said, “We owe it
to our children to believe in them.”

We owe it to them to make sure they get the chance to realize the potential that we know they
have. This means looking into the wider realities that beset their lives, not zeroing the blame on
them. This means addressing the social structures that maintain inequalities among them and
force some of them into deviance.

UNICEF Philippines Slams Move to Lower Age of Criminal Liability

A humanitarian organization has slammed the passage of a bill at the House of
Representatives that seeks to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility,
saying the move will not discourage adult offenders from abusing children to commit
crimes. Despite strong objections from several human rights groups, the House
committee on justice approved on Monday the bill that lowers the age of criminal
responsibility from 15 years old to 9 years old.
In a series of tweets, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF) Philippines said there is lack of evidence and data showing that children
are responsible for the increase in crime rates committed in the country.
“If lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 9 years old is meant to protect
children, what’s going to stop syndicates from exploiting even younger
children?,”

UNICEF Philippines said brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old
according to neuroscience and child development studies.

“Kapag ibinaba ang edad ng criminal responsibility sa 9, parang naniniwala na rin

tayo na ang batang 9 years old ay katulad na ang isang 18 years old na kayang
magdesisyon kung sino ang iboboto niya, kailan siya ikakasal o pumirma sa kahit
anong kontrata,” the UNICEF Philippines said.

The organization also argued that lowering the age of criminal responsibility fails to
address the root causes of social problems such as poverty, lack of parenting support
programs, access to education and other social services.

“Branding children as ‘criminals’ removes accountability from adults who are

responsible for safeguarding them,” it said.
“If we fail to understand the underlying reasons how and why children commit
crimes, we, as adults, fail our children,” it added.

Instead of lowering the age of criminal responsibility, UNICEF Philippines called

on government to support and implement the existing Republic Act 9344 or the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare act of 2006.

“May batas na tayo para sa mga children in conflict with the law: ang Juvenile
Justice & Welfare Act (RA 9344). Ngunit hindi ito nabibigyan ng tamang pondo
at suporta para sa tamang implementation nito sa buong bansa,” it urged.

UNICEF: Lowering age of criminal liability

'act of violence against children'
The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) opposed Friday fresh calls to lower the age of
criminal liability, saying it 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," UNICEF representative to the Philippines Lotta Sylwander
said in a statement.

Lawmakers, she said, should instead focus on strengthening the implementation of the law to address
juvenile delinquency.

"There is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase in crime rates
committed in the Philippines," Sylwander added.

The House Committee on Justice on Monday, Jan. 21, will hold a hearing to repeal Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act of 2006, which exempts children 15 years old and younger from criminal liability.

An amendment to the law in 2013, through RA 10630, states that children aged 12 to 15 who were
involved in serious crimes shall be mandatorily placed at the Intensive Juvenile Intervention and
Support Center, which is located within youth facilities called “Bahay Pag-asa” (House of Hope).

The proposed measure from the House of Representatives seeks to lower criminal responsibility to 9.

At the upper chamber, Senator Tito Sotto III wants to set the minimum age at 13.

President Rodrigo Duterte had said that he was in favor of repealing the law, saying that discerning
teens lose their “sense of accountability.”

Law enforcers, he said, are dealing with a lot crimes committed by minors.

The UNICEF however argued the proposals, saying that a person reaches maturity only at 16 based
on scientific studies.

"Proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility argue that children as young as 9 years old are
criminally mature and are already capable of discernment," Sylwander said.

She added, "If this was the case, then why is the legal age to enter marriage, legal contracts and
employment in the Philippines at 18 years old?"

What children in conflict with the law, UNICEF said, is a strong support program and access to
social services and child-sensitive justice system.
#ChildrenNotCriminals: Rights groups slam
bill lowering age of criminal liability
Unicef Philippines says it is deeply concerned about the bill, describing it as 'an act of violence
against children'

Saying that the measure is "not in the best interest" of children, several groups slammed the bill
lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 years old to 9 years old.
(READ: House panel OKs bill to lower age of criminal liability to 9 years old)

On Monday, January 21, the House committee on justice approved the substitute bill that would
amend Republic Act No. 10630, the law that currently retains the minimum age of criminal
liability at 15 but allows children as young as 12 to be detained in youth care facilities or Bahay
Pag-asa for serious crimes such as rape, murder, and homicide. (READ: Arroyo supports
lowering age of criminal liability to 9 years old)

Save the Children Philippines said the move "will only push them to further discrimination,
abuse, and eventually, into a more antisocial behavior."

Unicef Philippines also said it is deeply concerned about the bill, describing it as "an act of
violence against children."

"Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not
further penalized.... They should be given a second chance to reform and to rehabilitate," the
group said.

The bill would mandate that children 9 to 14 years old who will commit serious crimes – such as murder,
parricide, infanticide, serious illegal detention, carnapping, and violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 – be subjected to "mandatory confinement" for rehabilitation at Bahay Pag-
asa.

According to Unicef, lowering the age of criminal responsibility would not deter adult offenders
from using children to commit crimes.

Below are other statements released by rights groups condemning the measure.

Youth Act Now Against Tyranny

"Instead of criminalizing children, the government should demand accountability from

syndicates and address poverty. Children deserve free education, adequate healthcare access, and
housing, not liability for something they were forced to do. Making children criminals is not
justice but a mere cover-up of the societal problems the government keeps on burdening the
people with."

Salinlahi Alliance for Children's Concerns

"Children in conflict with the law together with their families are victims of poverty, hunger,
social inequality, and state neglect, but instead of addressing these pressing socioeconomic
issues, the Duterte government and his minions in the Philippine Congress are consistent in
promoting and pushing for anti-children and anti-people policies."

Y-PEER Pilipinas
"This is counterintuitive with the government's intention of providing welfare and well-being to
Filipino children and is a violation to the commitments made by the Philippines to adhere to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties on child protection as a
principal signatory."

Plan International Philippines

"Aside from the lack of evidence to prove that punishing and incarcerating children will result in
crime reduction, scientific studies show that children below the age of 16 do not have the
maturity to discern right from wrong."

Philippine Association of Social Workers

"The issue of violence against children including children in conflict with the law (CICL) has
severe and lasting negative impact on the affected children's biophysical, psychoemotional,
mental, and socioeconomic conditions."

#ChildrenNotCriminals: Rights groups slam

bill lowering age of criminal liability
Unicef Philippines says it is deeply concerned about the bill, describing it as 'an act of violence
against children'

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS. Several rights groups slam the bill lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility
from 15 years old to 9 years old.

MANILA, Philippines – Saying that the measure is "not in the best interest" of children, several
groups slammed the bill lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 years old
to 9 years old. (READ: House panel OKs bill to lower age of criminal liability to 9 years old)

On Monday, January 21, the House committee on justice approved the substitute bill that would
amend Republic Act No. 10630, the law that currently retains the minimum age of criminal
liability at 15 but allows children as young as 12 to be detained in youth care facilities or Bahay
Pag-asa for serious crimes such as rape, murder, and homicide. (READ: Arroyo supports
lowering age of criminal liability to 9 years old)

Save the Children Philippines said the move "will only push them to further discrimination,
abuse, and eventually, into a more antisocial behavior." (READ: [OPINION] Children's rights
pay the price for political gain)

Unicef Philippines also said it is deeply concerned about the bill, describing it as "an act of
violence against children."

"Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not
further penalized.... They should be given a second chance to reform and to rehabilitate," the
group said. (READ: Lower age of criminal liability? Here's why psychologists are against it)

The bill would mandate that children 9 to 14 years old who will commit serious crimes – such as
murder, parricide, infanticide, serious illegal detention, carnapping, and violation of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 – be subjected to "mandatory confinement" for
rehabilitation at Bahay Pag-asa.
According to Unicef, lowering the age of criminal responsibility would not deter adult offenders
from using children to commit crimes.

Below are other statements released by rights groups condemning the measure.

Youth Act Now Against Tyranny

"Instead of criminalizing children, the government should demand accountability from

syndicates and address poverty. Children deserve free education, adequate healthcare access, and
housing, not liability for something they were forced to do. Making children criminals is not
justice but a mere cover-up of the societal problems the government keeps on burdening the
people with."

Salinlahi Alliance for Children's Concerns

"Children in conflict with the law together with their families are victims of poverty, hunger,
social inequality, and state neglect, but instead of addressing these pressing socioeconomic
issues, the Duterte government and his minions in the Philippine Congress are consistent in
promoting and pushing for anti-children and anti-people policies."

Y-PEER Pilipinas

"This is counterintuitive with the government's intention of providing welfare and well-being to
Filipino children and is a violation to the commitments made by the Philippines to adhere to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international treaties on child protection as a
principal signatory."

Plan International Philippines

"Aside from the lack of evidence to prove that punishing and incarcerating children will result in
crime reduction, scientific studies show that children below the age of 16 do not have the
maturity to discern right from wrong."

Philippine Association of Social Workers

"The issue of violence against children including children in conflict with the law (CICL) has
severe and lasting negative impact on the affected children's biophysical, psychoemotional,
mental, and socioeconomic conditions."

Kadamay

"The urban poor sector will once again be the prime target of this anti-poor policy. As if the tens
of thousands killed in the war on drugs and the everyday hardships of the poor aren't enough."

At the Senate, there are two pending bills lowering the minimum age of criminal liability to 12,
but senators will still hold debates on the age.

President Rodrigo Duterte himself has been pushing for the age to be lowered to 9 years old.
Lowering age of criminal liability
contradicts laws protecting children
Moves to lower the age of criminal liability run counter to the spirit of various Philippine laws
which recognize the vulnerability of minors

The debate on lowering the age of criminal liability heated up when the House justice
committee approved House Bill (HB) 8858 on January 22, 2019.

Under the proposed bill, children aged 9 to below 15 will face criminal charges if found guilty of
committing serious crimes. These crimes include kidnapping, murder, parricide, infanticide, and
serious illegal detention.

Two days later, the committee increased the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR)
from 9 to 12.

The bill seeks to amend Republic Act (RA) 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Act of 2006 which
exempts 15- to 18-year-olds from criminal liability.

A minimum 12 years of imprisonment in juvenile care units would be imposed as punishment.

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DWSD) and other licensed non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) will be mainly responsible for taking care of "criminally
liable" children in Bahay Pag-Asa centers, or youth care facilities. (READ: When 'Houses of
Hope' fail children in conflict with the law)

The hashtag #ChildrenNotCriminals flooded social media with sentiments decrying the
consequences of putting minors behind bars.

‘Children’ as defined by laws

The Child and Youth Welfare Code recognizes the child as the country’s "most important asset."

Thus, it is the duty of the nation to make sure that the rights of a child are protected – from the
moment he/she is born to the time he/she becomes a fully-developed Filipino citizen.

Article 3, Section 12 of the code states:

“Every child has the right to grow up as a free individual, in an atmosphere of peace,
understanding, tolerance, and universal brotherhood, and with the determination to contribute
his share in the building of a better world.”

Also under this law, a "child" is defined as anyone who is below 21 years old.

Children this age are exempt from voting; prohibited from entering into a contract, buying liquor,
and riding in motorcycles with given considerations. They cannotengage in sex or get married
without parental consent, and can be employed only with certain exemptions.

At this age, parental consent and authority are needed because children are not yet capable of
deciding for themselves. This is supported by the findings of neuroscience research and
psychological annotation which say that a person reaches full emotional, mental, and intellectual
maturity only at the age of 25.

According to Human Rights Commissioner Karen Gomez Dumpit, the above-listed provisions of
the laws are designed to guide children because they are "vulnerable members of our society that
need to be formed and protected." (READ: Lower age of criminal liability? Here's why
psychologists are against it)

Once they reach the age of 18, individuals are already legally responsible for their civil acts (Art
236, Section 1 of Republic Act 6809).

Here's a list of laws that intend to protect children from all kinds of abuses:

 Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination

Act (RA No. 7610)
 Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children (RA No. 9262)
 Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labor (RA No. 9231)
 Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act, as amended (RA No. 9208)
 Anti-Child Pornography Act (RA No. 9775)
 Anti-Bullying Act (RA No. 10627)
 Anti-Rape Law (RA No. 8353)
 Indigenous Peoples' Rights Act (RA No. 8371)
 Children's Emergency Relief and Protection Act (RA No. 10821)
 The Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD 603)
 The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, as amended (RA No. 9344)

Dumpit argued that lowering the MACR "definitely contradicts" the purpose of these laws,
which intend to protect children from harm and violence.

"All the laws mentioned recognize that fact, such that the crimes are either considered
aggravating circumstances when committed against children, or they are given very stiff
penalties."

As signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Philippines is
obliged to follow the rules under General Comment No. 10, which states that the country should
no longer lower its MACR once it has been set; in our case, it is at age 15.

It would be a big contradiction to our international commitment if the bill is passed into la.

Furthermore, Dumpit stressed that the proposal not only "regresses but reverses the trajectory
towards the fulfillment of children’s rights, particulary article 40 on juvenile justice."

She reiterated that the country should continue upholding the standards of the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

Those advocating for changing the age of criminal liability argue that this will hold them
“accountable” for their unlawful actions. They said children are used by syndicates because they
aren't jailed when they do anything illegal.

The word “home” is mentioned several times in the Child and Youth Welfare Code. Suppose that
a jail or a detention center serves as home for "criminally liable" children, how secure will they
be from violence and will their self-development still be possible?