“LOWERING OF THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL

RESPONSIBILITY”

Margarette Angulo and Agnes Rae Emperio, Affirmative

v.
Abigail Rem Soliva and Mryll Enah A. Rubio, Negative

DECISION
OCUL, L:

Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Law of 2006 (JJWA) sets the minimum age of
criminal liability at 15 years old – meaning those between 15 to 18 years old may be detained in
youth centers and be put through rehabilitation programs. Those under 15 years old are exempted
from criminal liability and undergo intervention. Prior to this law, children were locked up in
jails together with adults even for petty offenses. They were vulnerable to abuse during arrest
and detention. The new proposed legislation allows children as young as 9 years old to be held
criminally liable for serious crimes such as rape and murder, among others.

The affirmative side’s arguments emphasized that lowering the age of criminal
responsibility would not mean punishing a child similar to an adult delinquent but to provide
rehabilitation for the young offenders. Reformative institutions provided in the Act helps
children get integrated back to the community after committing criminal acts and protect the
children from being used by criminal syndicates as a means of evading prosecution and
punishment. However, the affirmative side did not elaborate the assurance of lowering the
possibility of repeat offense and incarceration of the child once the amendment will take effect.
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility would incur the government additional funding,
human resources and infrastructures. The cost and benefit in amending this act should also be
taken into consideration.

On the other hand, the negative side’s arguments stressed out the lowering the age of
criminal liability does not change the state of crime for the better in our country. Criminals will
only adapt and opt to use another strategy and technique to combat the change in the rule. It was
also emphasized that children are not psychologically mature enough to be criminally
responsible and still have a restricted capacity to act. Putting children in prison or detaining them
will only cause more harm to the child and to the community.

Despite the arguments expressed by both sides, there is a need to put into consideration
the present state of the country. It is evident that lowering criminal age would incur additional
funding and human resources since a number of children will now be catered with the increased
age range. However, the government, even with the prior law, shows weak commitment of the
local government units on the implementation of the law. Out of the 114 Bahay Pag-asa that
should have been established by Provincial Governments and highly-urbanized cities as
mandated by law, there are only 35 operational centers nationwide that offer services for CICL.
The problem in the Philippines is not the lack of laws but the lack of teeth of these laws.

The regressive law, if passed, will endanger children’s lives rather than reduce the crime.
The ‘war on drugs’ – in whose name this law was drafted – is a reckless war on the poor that has
already left numerous deaths, including children. The future of children in conflict with the law
remains uncertain. It is easy to change under a controlled and healthy place. But once they are
released, they will be back in their harmful environment, with a possible chance of committing
crimes again.

There are indeed challenges in amending the JJWA and these must be effectively
addressed. However, difficulties in implementing the law cannot be used to justify the
amendment. There are legitimate concerns that must be attended to by means of thorough study
of processes to assist children in conflict of law and children at risk. What is glaring however is
the lack of evidence-based information to support the moves to lower minimum age of criminal
responsibility and the negative impact of criminalizing children.
 Hence, upon careful deliberation, this Court is convinced and rules that Lowering of the
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility should not be implemented.

SO ORDERED.

LAIZA MAY G. OCUL

Chief Justice

HARY D. DALISAY VIA NIKKA A. JIMENEZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

WENHERN RAPLH O. OPONDA RAYMOND JOSE URSAL

Associate Justice Associate Justice