Lowering the

Age of

Criminal Liability

A reaction paper

Submitted by:

Pualengco, April S.
2016-0848
Human Rights Law
2md Semester S.Y. 2017-2018

Submitted to:

Atty. Irene D. Valones

“Justice is the tolerable accommodation of the conflicting interests of society, and I don't
believe there is any royal road to attain such accommodation concretely.”

-Judge Learned Hand, in P. Hamburger, The Great Judge, 1946

I. INTRODUCTION

In the Philippines, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is fifteen (15) years,
according to Republic Act No. 9344 (R.A. No. 9344) or Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
of 2006, offenders who are below fifteen years of age at the time of the commission of
offense are subject to intervention programs, such as, individualized treatment program,
which may include counseling, skills, training, education, and other activities that will
enhance the psychological, emotional, and psychosocial well-being of the offender. In the
recent years, juvenile offenders have been a serious problem in the Philippines.
Therefore, the increasing number of Filipino children in conflict with the law drives the
government to lower the minimum age of criminal liability from fifteen (15) years to nine
(9) years of age. As a matter of fact, the council for the welfare of children reported that
in the Philippines, from the time span of 1995-2000 there are about 52, 756 children who
have been in conflict with the law, hence, there are roughly twenty-eight (28) children in
the Philippines who get arrested every day or more than one child for every hour1.

As a result, the Philippine congress has been debating whether to lower the age of
criminal liability in the Philippines or not, on the other hand, different institutions stand
against this due to some reasons, most especially in terms of children’s rights. As a
matter of fact, the Unity of Child rights Advocates Against Inhumane Treatment and
Neglect of Children claimed that lowering the minimum age of criminal liability to nine-

1
UNICEF. (n.d.). Children In Conflict With The Law. Retrieved from
https://www.unicef.org/philippines/downloads/Factsheet_CICL.pdf
year (9) old means that the government is evidently abandoning its responsibility of
providing youths with a decent future and depriving juvenile offenders with the
opportunity for development.2

Studies would say that lowering the minimum age of criminal liability would have
implications to children such as the possibility of depriving them with good future.
According to Dr. Lian Alampay, the brain of children at the age of nine is not yet fully
developed as compared to an adult, particularly, the part of the brain which involves the
process on long term consequences and impulse control, thus, children may have the
discernment of what is right and wrong, however, they do not have the capacity to act on
that knowledge3 On that note, lowering the age of criminal liability to deter the high
number of crime rates in the Philippines is not the proper solution to the problem, hence,
the appropriate way to resolve this issue is to uncover the factors and resolve the
underlying issues that causes juvenile offenders in committing such serious crimes, and
also, most importantly to revisit the mandate of the Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) and all other agencies concerned, and see how the law is actually
being implemented. Time and again, we can always make new laws, but if the
implementation thereof is left in the hands of incompetent public officers, then the law
will be nothing but a mere piece of paper.

II. REASONS FOR ARGUMENT

2
Cayabyab, M. (2016). Lowering Criminal Liability Age Leads Youth to Negative Path. Inquirer.

3
Id.
 Psychological arena

According to psychological studies, children who are under the age of nine (9)
years old are not yet fully developed as compared to adults. By lowering the minimum
age of criminal liability, government is depriving the children for a decent future and the
opportunity to reform. Increasing cases of syndicates using children for crimes; adults
should be punished not the children; they are just mere victims of the society. Poverty
and environment as main grounds for children in conflict with the law; instead of
lowering the age of criminal liability, government should focus on uncovering the
underlying factors and resolve issues forcing children to commit serious crimes.

According to the Juvenile Justice Implementers Congress held last June 1-2, 2017,
there are emerging issues concerning the Juvenile Justice in the Philippines, issues
evident, to wit: (i) Lack of standard and monitoring tools for rehabilitation, intervention
and diversion programs; (ii) Proper handling of Children in Conflict with the Law; (iii)
Absence of an after-care program; (iv) Popularization of specific tasking; and lastly
(v)Limited understanding on Juvenile Justice Welfare Council (JJWC) manual protocol
tools.

The study of Bilog on the Implementation of Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006 revealed that there is a high degree of implementation of Republic Act No. 9344
with respect to objectives, compliance to requirements, monitoring and evaluation.
However, each sector experiences problems on implementing R.A. No. 9344. As regards
to the police sector, insufficient knowledge of the child and lack of cooperation among
parents of the child in conflict with the law are existing issues. On the other hand, City
Social Welfare and Development sector encountered issues such as lack of interest and
sense of responsibility of the parents of the child. And lastly, the family court sector
foremost problems encountered are lack of budget for proper implementation, and lack of
proper facilities/ equipment and financial resources.4

Study of Delos Santos, Padawil and Vedana on Juvenile Justice and

Implementation revealed that majority of the juvenile offenders are males belonging to
the age bracket 13-14 and 14-15 years old where the most prevalent crimes or offenses
are theft and robbery; while most dominant reasons that lead to commit crimes are
abandonment, neglect of parents and non-satisfaction of their basic needs. 5

Studies show that risk and protective factors function as predictors of violence,
crime and substance abuse at different points in life, as affected by risk factors in the
respective spheres of influence. Four of the five major risk factors for delinquency are
clearly beyond the control of the affected youths. Children do not choose the families in
which they are born, the communities where they live, the schools they attend, or many
of the problems they develop.6 Therefore, juvenile risk reduction involves changing the
condition to which youths are exposed that negatively affects their life chances. 7

According to Delos Santos, Padawil and Vedana, the effectiveness of the law
depends so much on its proper implementation in order to secure and ensure the welfare
and protection of child at risk and those children in conflict with the law, thus, successful
implementation of the law necessitates concerted efforts from all the sectors involved in
order to substantially and effectively reduce juvenile crimes.8

4
Bilog, D. E. (2014). Implementation of The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344): Inputs to Policy
Ammendments. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 54-69.

5
Delos Santos, M. M., Padawil, A. K., & Vedana, M. B. (2016). Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law Implementation:
The Philippine Urban City Case. International Journal of Humanities and Management Sciences (IJHMS), 2320-4044.

6
Id.

7
Howell, J. C. (2009). Juvenile Delinquency: A Comprehensive Framework. USA: Ed Sage Publiciations
Incorporation.

8
Supra at note 5.
 On the issue of discernment

For developmental psychologist Dr. Liane Peña Alampay, the issue goes beyond a
"simplistic understanding of discernment." She says that if you ask very young children if
they know right and wrong, most of them would say yes. However, the situation or
question is more complex than that sort of 'right versus wrong' notion of discernment. It
is not just knowing, but having the capacity to act on that knowledge.9

Alampay, a member of the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP)

and a professor at the Ateneo de Manila University, noted that a person's brain is still
developing through childhood and adolescence. In fact, she said, the slowest developing
part of the brain is the part that governs higher-order thinking capacities, the ability to
plan, make long-term decision, control impulses, regulate behaviours, and "all those
capacities that make a person mature, responsible, and accountable." As such, Alampay
said children and teenagers do not yet have the cognitive capacity to make reasoned
decisions, to control their emotional impulses, and to consider "with forethought" the
consequences of their actions the same way most adults can. She also highlighted the role
of experiences in brain development, noting that adverse childhood experiences affect
brain function.10

Since the typical profile of a Filipino child in conflict with the law "is a child or
youth who is poor and highly exposed to adverse childhood experiences and
criminogenic environment," Alampay said such experiences and environments not only
prevent healthy brain development, but even further diminish cognitive capacities. She
further added that the label of 'criminal' shapes their sense of self and makes it likely that
they will imbibe a criminal identity. Instead of putting children behind bars and "setting
them on a lifelong negative trajectory," Alampay encouraged the public to provide them

9
Geronimo, J.Y. (February 18, 2017). Lower age of Criminal Liability? Here’s why psychologists are against it.
Retrieved from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/161860-lower-age-criminal-responsibility-psychologists

10
Id.
with positive and formative experiences to help them develop mature cognitive skills and
positive behaviours.11

Political arena

In a speech during a youth forum in Quezon City by incumbent Vice President

Leni Robredo, the latter has expressed concern over the proposed measures lowering the
age of criminal liability to nine years old and the reinstatement of death penalty.
According to her, children and youth have lost loved ones to the war on drugs, 7,600
deaths so far are giving out a silent cry that few seem to care. Plus there is a brewing
concern. The age of criminal responsibility made lower from fifteen (15) to nine (9) years
old supposedly so children can understand responsibility and so our nation can, I quote,
'Stop producing a generation of criminals,' She further inquired, "Can you imagine a nine
(9) year old imprisoned for crime? This is on top of the fact that the death penalty will be
imposed soon." 12

Vice President Robredo, on the other hand, said she is hoping that her generation
had given the youth a "better world than this." She went on by saying how she wishes,
we, your elders gave you a better world than this. How she wishes, we, your parents were
able to fix the problems of our country before you reached teenage years.13

Vice President Robredo also praised the youth, saying that there has never been as
energetic and creative as "millennials" these days. According to the Vice President, the
future that lies in the youth today holds more power now than at any other time in the

11
Id.

12
Bondoc, M.R.C. and Dioquino, R.A.J. (February 18, 2017). Lowering age of criminal responsibility a ‘brewing
concern’. Retrieved from: http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/600125/lowering-age-of-criminal-
responsibility-a-brewing-concern-robredo/story/

13
Id.
history of mankind. The generation of new millennials are about to take over the world,
in fact you are taking over the world, changing the world.14

Vice President Robredo has been a staunch critic of the proposal to further lower
the age of criminal liability and as well as the re-imposition of the death penalty. House
Bill Number 2 or the "Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility Act." is currently
pending in Congress which seeks to bring back the minimum age of criminal
responsibility from 15 years old to 9 as stated in the Revised Penal Code. The said
measure was filed by House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Capiz Rep. Fredenil
Castro.15

UNICEF and the UN weighs in

The proposal to lower the age of criminal liability from 15 to nine years old is
being opposed by the United Nations Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF), contending
that biology plays a role in delinquency among young children. In a statement, UNICEF
said neurobiology studies show that children don’t reach brain maturity until 16 years
old. As such, reasoning and impulse of children younger than 16 years old are easily
affected by their social environment. In addition, UNICEF said that what could also add
to the mental and emotional damage of children is when they are exposed to violence,
particularly if they are from dysfunctional families.16

On the question of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the

organization stressed that lowering the age of criminal responsibility could even have
“long-lasting damaging effects on their cognitive, psychosocial, and neurological health;
harming their overall development.” Putting them to jail further stigmatizes them as

14
Id.

15
Id.

16
ABS-CBN News (July 22, 2016) .UNICEF warns against lowering age of criminal liability. Retrieved from:
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/07/22/16/unicef-warns-against-lowering-age-of-criminal-liability
criminals and creates an environment that triggers repeat offense, often extending to
adulthood. Children, especially the most marginalized and at risk, must be treated with a
sense of dignity and self-worth.17

Instead of imprisonment, UNICEF said treatment would be the best approach to

have delinquent children be reintegrated into society. It also noted that there has been a
“steady improvement” in the juvenile justice and welfare system since Republic Act No.
9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, was passed in 2006. In fact, the group said
diversion programs and similar alternatives to detention or imprisonment has reduced
offenses by up to 70 per cent. It added that if children who have been exploited by
criminal syndicates are penalized instead of the adults who had abused them, we fail to
uphold the rights and well-being of children; that if we fail to understand the underlying
reasons why they commit crimes, we fail children.18

A reminder from Marta Santos Pais, special-representative of the United Nations

(UN) secretary general on violence against children, to the leaders of the Philippine
Congress was that lowering the age of criminal responsibility would give children more
contact with the criminal justice system and only increase the risk of recidivism. 19

According to Pais, one of the key lessons from criminological research is that
early induction into the youth justice system does not lower the risk of offending, rather,
contact with the criminal justice system at an early age means that young people will be
more likely to offend for a longer period, more frequently and go on to offend when they
become adults. She added that research also shows that lowering the minimum age of
criminal responsibility and other punitive criminal justice responses to youth offenders

17
Id.

18
Id.

19
Andrade, J.I. (March 30, 2017). Lowering age of criminal responsibility has negative effects, says UN exec.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/154183/lowering-age-of-criminal-responsibility-has-negative-effects-says-un-
exec#ixzz5IJqffUrB
has other negative consequences. She cited the exposure to criminal networks in
detention facilities, as well as to high risk of stigmatization as criminals, violence, and
neglect among such consequences.20

The latest research in neuroscience is also particularly noteworthy as it shows that

the human brain is not fully developed in its capacity for cognitive functioning and
emotional regulation until well into the period of young adulthood. In fact, the capacity to
distinguish between what is right and wrong continues to develop throughout
adolescence. Suggestions for diversion and other noncustodial alternatives were made to
reduce recidivism among youth offenders.21

Such programs, Pais noted, had benefitted young offenders who showed fewer
tendencies towards violence. They were also, she pointed out, less costly than
incarceration. Pais said that the personal price paid by children who become involved
with the justice system is high but so too are the costs incurred by society xxx Indirect
costs, such as a child abandoned to a life of crime, may be more difficult to measure as
this has long-term ripple effects on the social fabric of communities.22

The UN’s child rights envoy further said: “The strong legal provisions introduced
in 2006 on juvenile justice and the age of criminal responsibility constitute a sound basis
to build upon and need to be preserved. I am confident you will express strong support to
this ethical, normative and evidence-based approach.” According to Unicef’s Philippine
representative, Lotta Sylwander, punishing and jailing children involved in crime would
only condemn and damage them for life. Sylwander said: “The underlying and structural
factors that bring about child abuse, exploitation and violence must be addressed first.
We need to invest in the full implementation of the Juvenile Justice Law, which is a

20
Id.

21
Id.

22
Id.
much commended law. Then there should be support for parenting programmes to deter
at-risk children from committing crimes.”23

III. CONCLUSION

In fine, lowering the age of criminal liability will pave the way to victimizing the
children in conflict with the law even more instead of the corrective measures the
proposed law is promising to promote. Secretery-General Kharlo Manano of Salinhali
Alliance for Children’s Concerns has accurately put it: “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.”

Another advocate of children’s rights also said that the failure of the system to go
after syndicates reflects the weakness of the law enforcers in implementing the law. It is
the position of the government that these children should be taken care of. The main
issues are the absence of their access to education, justice and health must first be
addressed before corrective measures such as these may even be considered.24

23
Id.

24
Cepeda, M. (November 16, 2016). DSWD chief: Lower age of criminal liability ‘anti-poor’, won’t curb crime.
Retrieved from: https://www.rappler.com/nation/152587-dswd-chief-lower-age-criminal-responsibility-anti-
poorRetrieved from