A POLICY PAPER ON IMPROVING

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RA 9344

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR

NATIONAL SECURITY (PA 323)

BY

JAMAE CONCEPCION R. GARCIA

SUBMITTED TO

ANTONIO L. BOQUIREN, MBA, MNSA, GSC

I – INTRODUCTION
“If you want to know the future of any nation, take a look at what the youths
are doing presently.”
— Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe

It is a universally accepted fact that the development of children is critical in nation-

building. All nations must carefully consider the children’s vital role in their quest for peace and
progress. The United Nations also emphasizes that the transition from youth to adulthood must
be regarded with much concern. The UN ESCAP review on the situation of youth in Asia and
the Pacific states that “it is important to recognize youth as a unique group in society due to the
many aspects of vulnerability they face while passing through a major stage in their lives...In
addition to a recognition of the vulnerability associated with the transitional nature of the identity
of the youth, it is equally important to recognize youth as a positive force, as a human resource
with enormous potentials for contribution to development.1”

With this recognition, the human rights of children is also recognized and enshrined in
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Per CRC definition, children
are persons up to 18 years of age. The CRC establishes in international law that states who are
parties of the Convention “must ensure that all children—without discrimination in any form—
benefit from special protection measures and assistance; have access to services such as
education and health care; can develop their personalities, abilities and talents to the fullest
potential; grow up in an environment of happiness, love and understanding; and are informed
about and participate in, achieving their rights in an accessible and active manner.” 2

In particular, Article 40 of CRC on juvenile justice states that children who are accused
of breaking the law have the right to legal help and fair treatment in a justice system that
respects their rights. Governments are required to set a minimum age below which children
cannot be held criminally responsible and to provide minimum guarantees for the fairness and
quick resolution of judicial or alternative proceedings.3

To adhere to the provisions of the CRC and in response to increasing demand from
children’s rights advocates and the international human rights community, the Philippines
enacted the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act or Republic Act No. 9344 in 2006. The policy was
formulated to promote alternative methods to imprisonment in dealing with children who are
alleged or accused to have committed an offense against Philippine laws or what is termed as

Page 2 of 15
Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL) and ensure their protection, safety and welfare. In the
webpage of Sen. Francis Pangilinan who was the sponsor of the (then) bill, the policy is
described as a system guaranteeing “children are dealt with in a manner appropriate to their
well-being by providing for, among others, a variety of disposition measures such as care,
guidance and supervision orders, counseling, probation, foster care, education and vocational
training programs and other alternatives to institutional care.”4

Prior to this law, children in conflict with law were locked up in jails together with adults
even for petty offenses making them highly vulnerable to abuse during arrest and detention.
According to a report of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) cited on
an online news portal, an average of 10,515 children were arrested every year or one child per
5
hour. Hence, the enactment of RA 9344 was hailed as a breakthrough for the Philippine
juvenile justice system.

However, critics point out that this law is a blanket approach in dealing with CICL as all
offenders merely undergo rehabilitation or probationary programs. They will neither go to jail nor
incur a criminal record, giving off the impression that after getting a slap on the wrist, they go
scot free. Annual statistics of cases involving CICL has also been on the rise since the full
implementation of RA 9344 and the nature of cases, alarming. All these and more, RA 9344 has
been criticized to have become contrary to the principle of child protection it aims to espouse
and inevitably, the source of its own problems. Hence, moves to amend the law are gaining
traction particularly to lower the age of children who may be charged with criminal liabilities from
15 to 12 years old.

This paper presents alternative proposals to effectively implement RA 9344 and fulfil its
intention to uphold and protect the welfare of children.

Salient Features of RA 9344

RA 9344 promotes the principle of restorative justice, which is referred to the framework
of “resolving conflicts with the greatest amount of involvement of the victim, the offender, and
the community.  It seeks to right a wrong for the sake of the victim; restoration of friendly
relations among the offender, the offended, and the community; and reassurance to the
offender that he can be reintegrated into society.”6

Page 3 of 15
 Under RA 9344, a Child in Conflict with the Law is defined as a child who is alleged as,
accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws. Section 6
provides that a child 15 years old and below at the time an offense is committed is exempted
from criminal liability. This age of exemption is higher than what is provided in the old Revised
Penal Code that exempts a child 9 years old and below from criminal liability. In addition, the
age bracket for a child to be declared exempted from criminal liability if s/he acted without
discernment or mental capacity is 15 years old and 1 day to 18 years old. Again in comparison,
this age bracket is higher than the 10 to 15 years old age bracket in the Revised Penal Code.

Further, the policy mandates that a law enforcement officer releases CICL 15 years old
and below to his parents or guardian or to the nearest relative immediately upon arrest. For
CICL between 15 years old and day to 18 years old, an arresting officer is mandated to turn
over the custody of a minor to a social worker who will determine the presence or absence of
discernment and whether or not s/he has to be turned over to the parents or guardian. If proven
that the child acted without discernment, s/he will be made to go an intervention program or set
of activities designed to address the reasons the child committed the offense. CICL 15 years old
and below are also made to undergo intervention programs.

When a CICL between 15 years old and one day to 18 years old is proven to have acted
with discernment, found guilty of the offense charged, convicted and sentenced, s/he is placed
under suspended sentence or on probation instead of being sent to jail. Section 7 of RA 9344
also states that a CICL “shall enjoy all the rights of a child in conflict with the law until he/she is
proven to be 18 years old or older…  In case of doubt as to the age of the child, it shall be
resolved in his/her favor” or in other words, CICL is accorded the presumption of minority.

In 2012, RA 10630 or the Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the
Philippines amended RA 9344 in order to provide a comprehensive and effective intervention
program aimed at curbing the involvement of children in crimes. The new law required local
government units (LGUs) to manage juvenile intervention and support centers called “Bahay
Pag-asa” or House of Hope. PhP 400 million for the establishment of Bahay Pag-asa centers
across provinces and highly urbanized cities was also allocated under this new law to enable
the houses to provide victim with assistance, health and education services, counseling, and
skills training aside from serving as temporary shelters. The new law also imposes maximum
penalty against adults who exploit children to commit crime. It transferred the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Council or JJWC from the Department of Justice to DSWD.

Page 4 of 15
 In summary, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act promotes the concept of law as
restorative justice. It increased the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 9 years old to 15
years old. Detention of children in jail is disallowed as status offenses are decriminalized under
this law. Instead, the comprehensive management of CICL from prevention to rehabilitation and
reintegration through the development of a Comprehensive Juvenile Intervention Program at the
national and local levels is required.

The Situation
Since RA 9344 was fully implemented in April 2008, the statistics of cases involving
CICL have been increasing. Based on figures from the Philippine National Police, there were
1,825 cases in 2007 before the law’s implementation. The statistics increased to 2,258 in 2008
and went on to increase in the succeeding years with 2,735 in 2009 and 4,246 in 2010. By year
7
end 2011, the cases shot up to 5,318, marking a 290% increase since 2007. Separate data
from the PNP annual accomplishment reports8 states that based on collated statistics
nationwide, there were 7,825 cases in 2013 and 14, 993 cases in 2014 against CICL. The
statistics of repeat offenders is another matter that has to be established and evaluated.

Parallel to the rising statistics, some sources claim that the crimes or offenses also
included serious ones such as rape (208 in 2008) and drug use (145 in 2008). Common crimes
include theft and robbery and physical injuries. In addition, police records that are repeatedly
cited by news reports on CICL indicate that children are now actively being used by syndicates,
who have taken advantage of the provisions of the RA 9344 to carry out their criminal
operations.

An article published by the University of Sto. Tomas highlighted two alarming cases of
serious crimes committed by CICL. The first is in Quezon City involving a high schooler who
was beaten to death by his 13 year old classmate. In Puerto Princesa, a 2 year old child was
killed by an 11 year old boy who thought that the victim’s family was stealing from them. The
latter turned himself in and confessed to the local officials that he killed the boy. In both cases,
the minor offenders were not charged of any criminal offense because of RA 9344. 9 There are
also other reports of crimes turned high-profile like the 13 year old boy who shot his 16 year old
friend and then himself at SM Pampanga, the 12 year old boy who was accused of raping a
three year old girl in Sta. Mesa and the 15 year old boy who robbed, raped and almost killed his
employer in Laguna.10 Just recently this year in Davao City, two boys aged 14 and 16 were

Page 5 of 15
taken into custody for allegedly killing a 15-year-old boy in one of the subdivisions in the city.
The victim sustained multiple-stab wounds and died while undergoing treatment at a nearby
hospital.11

Moreover, some critics argue that the policy has failed to consider the rights of the
victim, especially if the victim is also a minor. Its provisions are focused on the rehabilitation of
the offender but nothing is provided for the victims at the other end. 12

There are also questions on the effectiveness of the policy’s implementation in terms of
the capacity of the agencies mandated to provide the holistic rehabilitation and intervention
programs. According to a 2010 data of the Department of Interior and Local Government, only
5,208 (13%) of the 39,535 barangays had functioning Barangay Councils for the Protection of
Children (BCPC) and 3,876 confirmed of not having a functional BCPC. An online article states
other factors that impede the effective implementation of the policy, which are “the lack of
information among law enforcers and local officials, LGUs that have different priorities, role
overload being experienced especially by social workers, and/or the lack of consciousness and
understanding on the importance of promoting and defending the interest of disadvantaged
children.” 13

DSWD reports that as of June 2015, there are only 21 Bahay Pag-asa nationwide
located as follows: Abra in CAR; Pasig City in NCR; Cauayan City, Isabela in Region II; (1)
Botolan, Zambales, (2) San Jose City, Nueva Ecija and (3) Talavera, Nueva Ecija in Region III;
(1) Calauan, Laguna and (2) Bacoor, Cavite in Region IV-A; Puerto Princessa City in Region IV-
B; Mina, Iloilo in Region VI; Naval, Biliran in Region VIII; (1) Claveria, Misamis Oriental and (2)
Tudela, Misamis Occidental in Region X; (1)Tugbok District, Davao City, (2) Nabuturan,
Compostela Valley, (3) Banaybanay, Davao Oriental (4) Mati City and (5) New Corella, Davao
del Norte in Region XI and Surigao City and Tandag City in CARAGA Region. Four houses are
funded by LGUs, 12 by Senator Francis Pangilinan, four by Senator Pia Cayetano, and one
funded by JJWC. While there are only 21 centers, DSWD reports that Bahay Pag-asa centers
have handled 589 cases as of November 2014.

There are also criticisms on the effectiveness of the Bahay-Pagasa centers as some
advocates argue that some centers are not far from jails. In a news report, the executive director
of Preda, a human rights organization and JJWC member, claims that “most of these LGU-run
centers are substandard, young children are abused by older, bigger children, sometimes even

Page 6 of 15
with the knowledge and worse, consent of the staff” while JJWC executive director, admitted
that there are still several LGUs which “have not reached the highest accreditation standards of
DSWD.”14

Statement of the Problem

In view of the foregoing, this paper presents alternative proposals for the effective
implementation of RA 9344.

Specifically: What is the best alternative proposed policy to effectively implement RA

9344 particularly in terms of extent of effectiveness and efficiency, economic and legal feasibility
and acceptability to stakeholders?

II – Evaluation Criteria

In order to effectively implement RA 9344, the following evaluation criteria is set for the
proposed alternative policies:

Extent of Effectiveness and
Efficiency
Economic Feasibility
Legal Feasibility
Acceptability to
Stakeholders
Will the proposal help curb the rising incidence of CICL 30%
cases?
Will it help RA 9344 meet its objective to protect the welfare of
children?
Are there available funds and resources to support and 25%
sustain this proposal?
Will the proposal conform to existing child protection laws, 25%
rules and regulations?
Will the proposal be acceptable to child / human rights 20%
advocates, implementing agencies and involved families??

III – Alternative Policies

1) Lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from 15 to 12 years old
Proponents of lowering the MACR argue that the present minimum age of MACR at 15
years old is not in accord with the reality nowadays. Today’s children have more advanced
sensibility than the children ten years ago as they are more exposed and have better and easy
access to modern communication, technology and other sources of information. This has been
compounded by the age of social media. Thus, children nowadays are more matured in their
perspectives in life and they develop discernment to know what’s right or wrong even before
they reach the age of 15 years. When MACR is lowered to 12 years old, the risk of more

Page 7 of 15
children getting involved in crimes and / or being used in the perpetration of crimes will be
minimized.

2) Outsource intervention and rehabilitation programs to private institutions

As discussed in the introduction above, one of the main challenges in the
implementation of RA 9344 is the lack of capacity of the implementing agencies both in the
national and local levels. There are only few existing Barangay Councils for the Protection of
Children all over the country and the qualifications of the assigned staff need further
assessment. DSWD’s Bahay Pag-asa centers also face the same difficulties in terms of the
facility itself, and the skills and qualifications of their staff to handle CICL especially those
involved in drugs use and / or heinous crimes. While there is an unquestionable need to put
professionally trained people in these centers and at the barangay level, the government lacks
such kind of people.

Hence, the alternative solution would be to outsource or hire the services of private
rehabilitation and counselling centers / institutions with professional staff who could properly
assess the needs of each CICL on a case to case basis and provide the needed holistic
diversion program as necessary for a given case.

3) Link the CICL intervention and rehabilitation programs with DSWD’s Conditional Cash
Transfer (CCT) Program
Available data show the profile of CICL as: usually male between the ages of 14-17, has
low educational attainment, belongs to large, low-earning family of six members and has
stopped schooling. In order to help address the poverty dimension of CICL cases, DSWD can
integrate families of CICL in the CCT program and create guidelines for their inclusion that
would encourage the positive and proactive involvement of parents, guardians or elders in the
rehabilitation and diversion programs. This way, reintegration of CICL into the society would be
wholly supported.

4) Combination of proposals 2 and 3

Page 8 of 15
 IV - EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE POLICIES

1) Lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from 15 to 12 years old
CRITERIA
Extent of Effectiveness and Efficiency –
30%
Will the proposal help curb the rising there is a corresponding consequence to every
incidence of CICL cases? Will it help
RA 9344 meet its objective to protect
the welfare of children?
Economic Feasibility – 25%
Are there available funds and resources
to support and sustain this proposal?
Legal Feasibility – 25%
Will the proposal conform to existing
child protection laws, rules and
regulations?
Acceptability to Stakeholders – 20%
Will the proposal be acceptable to
child / human rights advocates,
implementing agencies and involved
families?
EXPLANATION RATING
Lowering the MACR will impose a sense of
accountability at a younger age to children that
action particularly acts that are against the laws.
In a way, this proposal will protect the welfare of
children particularly those in the 15-12 years old 7 x 30% =
2.1
age group as they will no longer be used in
perpetrating crimes. However, there are other
factors for children’s involvement in crimes that
this proposal cannot address.
In terms of economic feasibility, this proposal
10 x 25%=
would not entail additional cost to implementing
2.5
agencies.
Although the proposal to lower the MACR to 12
years old is still higher than the MACR provided
in the Revised Penal Code (9 years old),
policymakers are constrained to lower the MACR
7 x 25%=
because the international standards is set at 15
1.75
years old. In effect, lowering the MACR is like
taking a backward step from meeting the
internationally accepted standards in child
protection.
This proposal would be highly unacceptable to
child / human rights advocates. For instance, the
0 x 20%=
Child Rights International Network has expressed
0
deep concerns over nations that have reduced /
lower the MACR in recent years.
Total: 6.35

2) Outsource intervention and rehabilitation programs to private institutions

CRITERIA EXPLANATION RATING

Page 9 of 15
Extent of Effectiveness and Efficiency – This proposal will address one of the biggest
30%
challenges faced by the implementation of RA
Will the proposal help curb the rising 9344, which is the lack of capacity and available
incidence of CICL cases? Will it help
resources of the implementing agencies. By
RA 9344 meet its objective to protect
the welfare of children? outsourcing or tapping the services of private
institutions with the adequate facilities and
trained professionals to handle CICL cases, then
individual cases of CICL will be addressed on as
needed basis instead of the existing blanket 9 x 30% =
2.7
approach of rehabilitation programs that do not
consider the individual differences /
circumstances of children. By giving the
appropriate rehabilitation or diversion programs,
the purpose of the law to promote restorative
justice and reintegration to the society will be
met.
Economic Feasibility – 25% As mentioned above, the government has
allocated funding for the Bahay Pag-asa centers
Are there available funds and resources
to support and sustain this proposal? as well as skills development of staff. Instead of
pouring resources to put up lowly and under-
maintained centers with haphazardly trained
8 x 25%=
people, the funds may be allocated to tap the
2
services of private institutions with adequate
facilities and trained professionals. As for
sustainability, the government must ensure to
include in the yearly appropriations the funding
for this proposal.
Legal Feasibility – 25% Existing child protection laws do not prohibit 9 x 25%=
2.25
against government–private institution
Will the proposal conform to existing
child protection laws, rules and partnerships and in fact encourage governments
regulations?
to exhaust resources to uphold and protect the
welfare of children.
As for government rules and regulations,
government agencies may partner with private
institutions through direct contracting, public-
private partnership, built, operate and transfer

Page 10 of 15
 scheme and / or joint ventures as long as laws on
procurement of services, Commission on Audit
rules, and other pertinent regulations are
complied with.
This proposal is also not in contrary to the
mandated functions of the DSWD or the
barangay councils.
Acceptability to Stakeholders – 20% This proposal would be highly acceptable to
stakeholders as this would address the problem
Will the proposal be acceptable to
child / human rights advocates, of lack of capacity of implementing agencies.
implementing agencies and involved 7 x 20%=
However, this may be resisted by the
families? 1.4
implementing agencies themselves as this strips
them of the direct control and funding over the
programs for CICL.
Total: 8.35

3) Link the CICL intervention and rehabilitation programs with DSWD’s Conditional Cash
Transfer (CCT) Program
CRITERIA EXPLANATION RATING
Extent of Effectiveness and Efficiency – This proposal will help address the poverty
30%
dimension of cases of CICL. By supporting their
Will the proposal help curb the rising families vis-à-vis grant conditions to be satisfied,
incidence of CICL cases? Will it help
the parents / guardians would be encouraged to
RA 9344 meet its objective to protect
the welfare of children? take proactive involvement in helping the CICL. 7 x 30% =
2.1
However, this proposal will not be effective for
CICL without families and those without
permanent guardians.
Economic Feasibility – 25% A portion of DSWD’s funding for CCT may be
allocated to support this proposal. DSWD can
Are there available funds and resources
to support and sustain this proposal? also review the list of their existing family 7 x 25%=
1.75
beneficiaries to check if these have CICL
members and transfer these beneficiaries under
the conditions for families with CICL.
Legal Feasibility – 25% Supporting the families of CICL is in conformity to
the ideals of child protection. 9 x 25%=
Will the proposal conform to existing
2.25
child protection laws, rules and
regulations?

Page 11 of 15
Acceptability to Stakeholders – 20%
Will the proposal be acceptable to
child / human rights advocates,
implementing agencies and involved
families?
This proposal would be highly acceptable to
stakeholders as this would address some factors
9 x 20%=
that lead to children’s involvement in crimes such 1.8
as family woes and being out-of-school.
Total: 7.9

4) Combination of proposals 2 and 3: Outsource intervention and rehabilitation programs

to private institutions and link the CICL intervention and rehabilitation programs with
DSWD’s CCT Program
CRITERIA EXPLANATION RATING
Extent of Effectiveness and Efficiency – This combination will address the major
30%
challenges that hamper the effective
Will the proposal help curb the rising implementation of RA 9344 namely: lack of
incidence of CICL cases? Will it help 9 x 30% =
capacity and available resources of the
RA 9344 meet its objective to protect 2.7
the welfare of children? implementing agencies and poverty incidence
among CICL.
Economic Feasibility – 25% As discussed above, there are available funds
9 x 25%=
that may be diverted to support this combined
Are there available funds and resources 2.25
to support and sustain this proposal? proposal.
Legal Feasibility – 25% As discussed above, this combined proposal is
legally feasible. 9 x 25%=
Will the proposal conform to existing
2.25
child protection laws, rules and
regulations?
Acceptability to Stakeholders – 20% As discussed above, this combined proposal is
highly acceptable to stakeholders.
Will the proposal be acceptable to 9 x 20%=
child / human rights advocates, 1.8
implementing agencies and involved
families?
Total: 9

V – COMPARING ALTERNATIVES

CRITERIA P1 P2 P3 P4
Extent of Effectiveness and
7 x 30% = 2.1 9 x 30% = 2.7 7 x 30% = 2.1 9 x 30% = 2.7
Efficiency – 30%
Economic Feasibility – 25% 10 x 25%= 2.5 8 x 25%= 2 7 x 25%= 1.75 9 x 25%= 2.25
Legal Feasibility – 25% 7 x 25%= 1.75 9 x 25%= 2.25 9 x 25%= 2.25 9 x 25%= 2.25
Acceptability to Stakeholders 0 x 20%= 0 7 x 20%= 1.4 9 x 20%= 1.8 9 x 20%= 1.8

Page 12 of 15
 – 20%
Total: 6.35 8.35 7.9 9

As shown in the table above, Proposal 4 garnered the highest score using the

established criteria.

VI – ASSESSING OUTCOMES

Based on the foregoing, RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act should be
upheld and its effective implementation does not rest on the issue of lowering the minimum age
of criminal liability. The capacity of the agencies involved in its implementation should be
strengthened and the other significant actors in the lives of children like the families should take
proactive involvement for the sound and effective implementation of this policy.

Therefore, Proposal 4 or the combination of outsourcing intervention and rehabilitation

programs to private institutions and linking the CICL intervention and rehabilitation programs
with DSWD’s CCT Program is recommended to effectively implement RA 9344 and fulfil its
intention to uphold and protect the welfare of children. In the adoption of Proposal 4, these
conditions must also be satisfied:

1) Establish sound accreditation system of private institutions to ensure that the highest
standards of facilities and staff;

2) Establish inter-agency (e.g. DSWD, DOJ, Department of Health) supervision / control

mechanisms over the private institutions to ensure control and check and balance in the
discharge of their functions;

3) Properly delineate the functions of private institutions, DSWD and barangay councils
in the programs for CICL to avoid overlapping / duplication of functions;
4) Establish mechanisms / contingency measures to ensure proper allocation of
resources especially for areas / regions where CICL cases are high but do not have existing
private institutions for rehabilitation and diversion programs;

Page 13 of 15
 5) Craft guidelines for the inclusion of families with CICL in DSWD’s CCT programs that
will reinforce the role of families in the reintegration of CICL into the communities but will not
promote long term economic dependence of the beneficiaries solely to the government.

REFERENCES:

Page 14 of 15
1
As cited by Sanidad-Leones, Celia V. Effective Preventive Measures for Youth at Risk in the Philippines.
2
Convention on the Rights of the Child, FAQs and resources. Retrieved August 2015 from
http://www.unicef.org/crc/index_30225.html
3
Ibid.
4
The Juvenile Justice Law (R.A. 9344). Retrieved August 2015 from
http://www.kiko.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=57
5
On 2nd chances: Children in conflict with the law. Retrieved August 2015 from
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/78690-children-conflict-law
6
The Juvenile Justice Law (R.A. 9344). Retrieved August 2015 from
http://www.kiko.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=51&Itemid=57
7
Repeal Republic Act 9344. Retrieved August 2015 from http://www.sunstar.com
8
PNP Annual Accomplishment Reports 2013 and 2014. Retrieved August 2015 from
http://pnp.gov.ph/portal/index.php/component/jdownloads/viewcategory/13-pnp-annual-accomplishment-report?
Itemid=112
9
de Vera, Celina S. Congressional Child Care a Juvenile Attempt at Law Making: Revisiting the Justice
System for Children in Conflict with the Law. Retrieved August 2015 from
http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.LII/Congressional_Child_Care_a_Juvenile_Attempt_at_Law_%20
Making.pdf
10
Children in crime: Cracks in the country's juvenile justice system. Retrieved August 2015 from:
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/14780/children-in-crime-cracks-in-the-countrys-juvenile-justice-
system
11
Duterte: Pangilinan law gave rise to number of child lawbreakers. Retrieved March 2014 from:
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/duterte-pangilinan-law-gave-rise-to-number-of-child-lawbreakers/
12
Ibid.
13
Children in crime: Cracks in the country's juvenile justice system. Retrieved August 2015 from:
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/14780/children-in-crime-cracks-in-the-countrys-juvenile-
justice-system
14
On 2nd chances: Children in conflict with the law. Retrieved August 2015 from
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/78690-children-conflict-law