First Speech (Affirmative) CAPTAIN
hope of our nation are now being used in illegal doings or they are
Ladies and gentlemen, we are gathered here today to discuss a
very important matter that affects our society as a whole. The
issue at hand is whether or not we should lower the age of
criminal liability. This debate is crucial because it has a direct
impact on the lives of our children and the future of our country.
Lowering the age of criminal liability is necessary to ensure that
justice is served for victims of crimes committed by minors.
Currently, the age of criminal liability in many countries is set at
18 years old. This means that minors who commit crimes are
often not held accountable for their actions and are instead given
lenient punishments such as community service or rehabilitation
programs. The continuous efforts by Congress to reduce the
minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines to less
than 15 years old severely alarmed the UNICEF. The suggested
age reductions, which range between 9 and 12, are against the
text and spirit of children's rights. I will state an example for all
of you, in Camiguin, a fairly peaceful island province, most of the
offenders there are between the ages of 15 and 12. So I would
say that this would help if we lower the age of criminal liability,
in fact it can lessen the criminal syndicates to use children to
commit for their crimes. In during our research they say that
even if you talk to any Provincial Directors in the Philippine
National Police the number one offender are so what we called
the youthful offender, it stated before that time is different than
now. Human rights organizations and lawmakers who are
concerned about the potential harm the move may do have
criticized a plan to decrease the age of criminal responsibility in
the Philippines to nine years.
Rizal once said that the youth represent the people's hope o sa
tagalog “nasa kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan” but the speech of
RIZAL that the ''kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan'' is not applicable
for everyone, in reality the children who are supposed to be the
the one who's doing something unethical.
There’s a report from 24 Oras news report, A 16-year-old girl was
allegedly raped by a drunken schoolmate and another boy. The
mother was so furious that she slapped the 17 year old boy and the
other boy who raped his daughter. At that time the 16 year old girl
did not know that they will drunk and raped her and it also said
jokingly that they would redo it again. They were charged in a
Republic Act No.7610 or also known as anti child abuse law.
Therefore putting them behind the bars would teach them not to
that.
2ND ROUND (speech)
A pleasing afternoon Ma’am Quimno and ladies and gentlemen, we
firmly believe that the age of criminal liability should be lowered.
The current age of criminal liability in most countries is 18 years old
but we argue that this is too high. We believe that lowering the age
of criminal liability to 16-12 years old will have several benefits.
Firstly, it will deter young people from committing crimes. If young
people know that they can be held accountable for their actions,
they will be less likely to engage in criminal activity. This will lead to
a decrease in crime rates and a safer society. I know that all of our
parents always warn us never to go out especially if it’s night, the
exact lines they always say is ‘’Pag ikaw madakpan sa curfew
bayhana ka, wa juy mama nga mo tunga aron lukiton ka’’ in that
way, we already know that going out pass 10 is not acceptable
especially we are minors, we’re already afraid to go out because
they warned us. Let’s say that those young people who did the
unethical deed need guidance from their parents, Yes we do need a
guide but it is so impossible not to memorize the rules and
reminders of the thing we must do and not do, just like stealing, one
of our classmates stole something that I owned, she knows that
stealing is bad and yet she still did it, she did it because it’s her
decision to steal even though her parents didn’t lack reminding and
teaching her that stealing is bad. Our parents always guide us but
it’s our choice to be made, our choice to choose what to do.
In fact this kids use their age to get away something they did, let’s
say that we put them in a rehabilitation program but later on they
will still do it again or known as youth offender repeaters so let’s
stop that by putting them in jail they can really know on why is it
important not to that crime, because they will realize how
suffocating it is in the jail in that point they won’t do the same crime
again.
Secondly, it will provide justice for victims. Currently if a 16-27 years
old commits a crime, they are often given a lesser punishment than
an adult would receive, just like the case of Maguad siblings where
their orphan child murdered the siblings with a companion and they
were sentenced to 8 years in prison, It’s so unfair to the parents
who lost their children, 8 years is never and will never be enough.
This is unfair to the victim who had to suffer from harm in the arms
of the offenders. Lowering the age of criminal liability would ensure
that all offenders are held accountable for their actions, regardless
of their age.
Thirdly, it will help young people to learn from their mistakes, just
like what happened to my cousin, He was selling marijuana for
years, and take note he was just 18 years old at that time, his mom
is an ofw while his dad is living with his new family and my grandma
is the only one who’s raising him but my grandma is already old and
has no strength to discipline him so he decided to sell marijuana
and my Uncle who is a policeman put him behind the bars and after
years, he got out and never sell marijuana again. If a young person
commits a crime, they need to understand the severity of their
actions. By being held accountable for their actions, they will be
more likely to learn from their mistakes and not repeat them in the
future. We all need punishment for the wrong things we did, we
need to learn, understand, and to accept our failures and mistakes.
In conclusion, lowering the age of criminal liability to 16 years old
would have several benefits. It would deter young people from
committing crimes, provide justice for victims and help young
people to learn from their mistakes.
3RD ROUND
It is nice to see you all here today as you all well know we are
here to discuss a very important issue that has been debated for
a long time. The issue is whether we should lower the age of
criminal liability or not. As we all know, the current age of
criminal liability in our country is 15 years old. However, there
are many arguments that are not or in favor of lowering the age
of criminal liability. In this debate, I will present the benefits and
evidences of lowering the age of criminal liability.
Benefits:
Firstly, lowering the age of criminal liability will help reduce the
number of crimes committed by minors. The current law allows
minors to commit crimes without any fear of punishment. This is
because they know that they will not be held accountable for
their actions. However, if the age of criminal liability is lowered,
it will act as a deterrent and minors will think twice before
committing any crime.
Secondly, lowering the age of criminal liability will not help in
the rehabilitation of minors. However, many of these detention
centers are overcrowded and understaffed. As a result, many
minors do not receive the necessary rehabilitation and end up
committing more crimes in the future. There’s a report If the age
of criminal liability is lowered, minors will be sent to regular
prisons where they will receive better rehabilitation and
counseling.
Thirdly, lowering the age of criminal liability will help in
reducing the burden on the justice system. Currently, the justice
system is burdened with a large number of cases involving
minors. If the age of criminal liability is lowered, many of these
cases will be transferred to regular courts, which will reduce the
burden on the juvenile justice system.
Evidences:
There are many countries around the world that have already
lowered the age of criminal liability. For example, in the United
States, the age of criminal liability varies from state to state.
Some states have lowered the age of criminal liability to 10 years
old. Similarly, in the United Kingdom, the age of criminal liability
is 10 years old. These countries have seen a reduction in the
number of crimes committed by minors after lowering the age of
criminal liability.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, lowering the age of criminal liability will have
many benefits. It will help reduce the number of crimes
committed by minors, it will help in the rehabilitation of minors,
and it will reduce the burden on the justice system. Additionally,
there are many countries around the world that have already
lowered the age of criminal liability and have seen positive
results. Therefore, we urge you to support the lowering of the
age of criminal liability. Thank you.
LAST PART (CAPTAIN)
Now that we heard both sides I am going to complete my debate
on why we agree, debating the lowering of the age of criminal
liability is a sensitive topic that has been discussed for years.
Some people argue that it is necessary to hold children
accountable for their actions, while others believe that it is unfair
to criminalize young people who are still learning.
On one hand, proponents of lowering the age of criminal liability
argue that it will deter young people from committing crimes.
We believe that children as young as 12 or 13 years old are
capable of understanding right from wrong and should be held
accountable for their actions. We argue that if children know that
they could face criminal charges, they wi ll be less likely to
engage in criminal activity.
On the other hand, opponents of lowering the age of criminal
liability argue that it is unfair to hold children responsible for
their actions. They argue that children are still developing
mentally and emotionally and may not fully understand the
consequences of their actions. They also argue that criminalizing
young people can have long-term negative effects on their lives,
such as limiting their opportunities for education and
employment.
Furthermore, opponents of lowering the age of criminal liability
argue that it is not effective in reducing crime. They argue that
children who are charged with crimes are more likely to become
repeat offenders and that there are more effective ways to
address juvenile delinquency, such as counseling and
rehabilitation programs.
In conclusion, the debate about lowering the age of criminal
liability is complex and multifaceted. While some argue that it is
necessary to hold children accountable for their actions, others
believe that it is unfair to criminalize young people who are still
developing mentally and emotionally. Ultimately, it is up to
lawmakers to consider the arguments on both sides and make a
decision that is in the best interests of society as a whole.
Why do you think that lowering the age of criminal liability
should be lowered?
Because we must consider the consequences of our actions and
decisions.
First and foremost, lowering the age of criminal liability would
help to deter young people from committing crimes. Currently,
young people under the age of 18 are not held accountable for
their actions in the same way as adults. This means that they
may feel that they can get away with committing crimes
without facing any real consequences. By lowering the age of
criminal liability, young people would be more likely to think
twice before engaging in criminal activities.
Furthermore, lowering the age of criminal liability would send
a message that criminal behavior is not acceptable, regardless
of age. It would also help to ensure that young people receive
the support and guidance they need to stay on the right path.
Currently, young people who commit crimes may not receive
the help they need to address underlying issues such as mental
health problems or substance abuse. By holding them
accountable for their actions, we can help to ensure that they
receive the support they need to turn their lives around.
Finally, lowering the age of criminal liability would help to
ensure that victims receive justice. Currently, young people
who commit crimes may not face any consequences for their
actions, even if they cause harm to others. By lowering the age
of criminal liability, we can help to ensure that victims receive
the justice they deserve.
Do you think juveniles who commit serious crimes
should be treated as adults?
It's also wrong. While young people must be held
accountable for serious crimes, the juvenile justice
system exists for precisely that purpose. Funneling more
youth into the adult system does no good and much
harm. Juveniles are not adults, and saying so doesn't
make it so.
What will happen to the child who committed an
offense if exempt from criminal liability and not acted
with discernment?
9344 as amended, CICL who committed an offense at
age 15 years old or lower or above 15 years old but
below 18 who acted without discernment based on
assessment are exempt from criminal liability. They
should undergo intervention programs to be facilitated
with the help of the community and the local government
unit.
Are those juveniles who commit offenses that if
committed by adults would be considered crimes
and these offenses are considered illegal from
among the children?
In juvenile cases, a "status offense" involves conduct that
would not be a crime if it were committed by an adult. In
other words, the actions are considered to be a violation
of the law only because of the youth's status as a minor.
Don’t you think that parents are liable for damage
caused by their child in the Philippines?
Article 2180 of the Civil Code imposes civil liability upon
the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the
mother, for any damages that may be caused by a minor
child who lives with them. Therefore, parents are liable
for the acts or omissions of their minor child living in their
company, but the responsibility shall cease when the
father or the mother is able to prove that they observed
all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent
damage. This “parental liability” can be easily understood
as the natural or logical consequence of the duties and
responsibilities of parents — their parental authority —
which includes the instructing, controlling and disciplining
of the child. In this sense, parental liability can be viewed
as a sub-classification of vicarious liability subject of
Article 2180.
But what happens if parental authority is no longer
lodged in the parents living with the child — who
then bears the responsibility?
 
The nuances of the law and this burning question were
addressed in Tamargo vs Court of Appeals (G.R. 85044,
3 June 1992), where the court had the opportunity to
clarify the effects of parental liability accorded by an
adoption decree, vis-à-vis actual custody and the issue of
control or supervision of the minor offender.
 
The court found that the natural son of private
respondents with an air rifle occurred when parental
authority was still lodged in private respondents as the
natural parents. The complication in that case was the
issuance of a decree of adoption in favor of the Rapisura
spouses, vesting the parental authority over said minor
child to the latter. The decree was issued before the
shooting, but a time when the trial custody period either
had not yet begun or bad already been completed at the
time of the air rifle shooting.
 
Hence, the paramount consideration is not just the legal
concept of parental authority but rather whether the minor
adoptee was in fact under the control of the adoptive
parents at the time the tort was committed. While it is
well-established that parental liability for the torts of their
minor children living with them is based upon the parental
authority vested by the Civil Code upon such parents, the
civil law assumes that when an unemancipated child
living with its parents commits a tortuous act, the parents
were negligent in the performance of their legal and
natural duty closely to supervise the child who is in their
custody and control.
 
After all, parental liability is anchored upon parental
authority coupled with presumed parental dereliction in
the discharge of the duties accompanying such authority.
you did because you cannot always get away with it. Even if you put
them in rehabilitation they wouldn’t even receive any necessary
rehabilitation and would still commit more crimes in the future just
because of an unstaffed and overcrowded detention centers. Will
these answer to your question? Well then thank you for that
question.

So parents, beware, responsibility does not end with

rearing a responsible, dutiful and upstanding citizen. This
extends to potential civil liability for any tort committed by
one’s child for whom one is responsible, both morally and
legally.

OTHER OPPONENT: Don’t you think this may be too much for
a child to be imprison at a young age and may loss some
opportunities in the near future?

: It is not unfair, why? just because they are kids they can’t make
any wrong doing? They know the consequences of the crime they
did yet they still did it. They must face the punishment. Even if you
say that it is unfair. However, that’s only your opinion. If ya’ll
remember our report before that dequina once said “If it’s your
fault then face your consequences” we are not kids anymore we
already know at the age of 10 above what is morally right and
wrong. Why? just because you commit a crime you can just get
away with anything because you are a child? NO! Face what have