Topic: Age of crime responsibility

Issue: Lowering the age of crime responsibility in the Philippines.

Thesis Statement: Lowering the criminal age of responsibility in the Philippines should not be
implemented.

Introduction:

With Philippines having one of the worst crime in the world, is lowering the crime age really
is the solution? Do you agree that kids as young as 12 years old be held accountable for their actions?
The continuous use of illegal drugs, murders, human trafficking, corruption, and domestic violence
still remains as significant concerns in the country. Knowing the fact that Philippines have the high
rate in terms of crime , The House of Representatives recently proposed to lower the minimum age of
criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 years old on January 28. 2019. Some agrees that the children
committing unlawful deeds should be held the same standards as adults but more people believes that
its not reason enough to send a 12 year old to jail. Also, scientific studies show that children below
the age of 16 do not have the maturity to discern right from wrong. Therefore, we say no to lower the
minimum age of criminal responsibility.

Argument 1: Lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not lower the crime rates.

Evidence 1: According to the data of Philippine National Police the percent distribution of crime
committed by adults is higher at 98%, while those involving children is only 2%.

Evidence 2: DSWD Undersecretary for Protective Operations and Programs Group Mae Fe Ancheta-
Templa said that 8% of crimes committed by children involved serious crimes while 92% were
categorized as ‘’non-serious’’

Evidence 3: Based on to the Philippine National Police, children commit only 1.72% of total crimes
in the Philippines.

Argument 2: Instead of lowering the crime age responsibility, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006 needs to be fully implemented.

Evidence 1: Under the Republic Act No. 10630 , Children’s as young as 12 who committed serious
crimes such as rape, murder, and homicide should be detained in youth care facilities or Bahay Pag-
asa instead of putting them in jail as they didn’t understand what is going on.

Evidence 2: Research officer Jackielou Bagadiong mentioned that ‘’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’’.

Evidence 3: Jackielou Bagadiong added that “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’’

Argument 3: Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights.

Evidence 1: Scientific studies show that brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old,
affecting children’s reasoning and impulse control. For this reason, children are not yet mature and
are not able to discern the right from wrong.

Evidence 2: According to UNICEF, there is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible
for the increase in crime rates in the Philippines. This will not discourage the adults to stop abusing
children.

Evidence 3: The Child Neurology Society, Philippines and Philippine Society for Developmental and
Behavioral 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, that’s why children are often unable to protect
themselves.

Argument 4: Lowering the crime age responsibility means the need for more facilities that would
cause more problems as the government already lacks budget.

Evidence 1: CHR Commissioner Leah Tanodra-Armamento said the government is not even
prepared to house CICLs as there are only 58 Bahay Pag-asa facilities out of 114 as required by the
law.

Evidence 2: Based on the statement of Manuel Zubiri, Bukidnon 3rd District Representative, the
reality on the ground in rural areas especially in far-flung areas in Mindanao, is that there are not
enough facilities for children in conflict in the law. This means that they usually end up in a
“slummer” or overcrowded, squalid facilities that are not conducive to proper rehabilitation.

Evidence 3: It was confirmed by the CHR Commissioner Leah Tanodra Armamento that there is no
funding for services like doctors, nurses, psychiatrists in the facilities that will help children.
Therefore, there is no assurance of the safety of the children.

Counterargument 1: It has been argued that crime syndicates are using children in their illegal
activities to get away with crimes so the children need to be detained to stop them from committing
offenses.

Evidence 1: The statement just shows that the children are the victims of such actions.

Evidence 2: It doesn’t change the fact the children should be rescued and provided rehabilitative
support and the syndicates should be the ones arrested and penalized for their criminal acts to avoid
using even much younger children to commit their wrongdoings.

Counterargument 2: Some say it is the act and the gravity of harm that should be judged, and the not
the age of the perpetrator.

Evidence 1: I strongly oppose to the argument as it violate the Republic Act No. 7610 which is
known as the ‘’ "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act"
because the child is not even mature yet during that age.

Evidence 2: According to the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), 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 shows that children may not fully
understand the consequences of such actions.

Conclusion: To conclude, the proposal to lower the criminal age of responsibility should not be
implemented. Carrying out this proposal does not lower the crime rates, we should focus on full
implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 and we should aim to arrest the
syndicates not the children. They are also the victims of circumstances, mostly because of poverty,
and not to be able to access a caring, and protective environment. Therefore, we call on the
government to protect and respect the children’s right by not lowering the age of crime responsibility
instead focus on the syndicates that are using the children for their wrongdoings. We should join
groups that advocates about a child’s protection and we should agree to retain the minimum age as it
is. These ages are too young to be expose in this toxic world.