Juvenile Justice: Bunso’s Marginal Note to Criminal Responsibility

-Andree Lynn B. Defenio

Age is a relatively major concern in the implementation of justice for children with juvenile delinquents as documentary
“Bunso” shed to light. Perceived by most as some sort of privilege or cut loose for ages 15 and below to commit criminal
offenses. However, the concept of age and coming up to the conceptualization of the minimum age for criminal responsibility
remained vague for some (Gerry, 2004). Criminal responsibility according to the Model Penal Code or MPC occurs to a person
who has committed a criminal offense under recklessness, negligence, or intention and shall undergo a criminal liability
procedure (Maryville University, 2023). Under the Republic Act 9344 of 2006, An Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile
Justice and Welfare System, a Bunso (let be a representation of children in conflict with the law), aged 15 years old and below
shall be exempt from criminal liability. But does that mean that Bunso of this age do not have consequential responsibility for
their offenses? Under the same law that others would perceive as their shield towards proper justice, there are consequential
responsibilities Bunso should face like probation and rehabilitation as most needed (RA 9344). That perception had been the
factor for debate under the Senate Bill 2026 proposed by Senate President Vincente Sotto III towards lowering the minimum
age for criminal responsibility, lowering it to the age of 13. Therefore, this paper seeks to go against the proposal of lowering
the minimum age of criminal responsibility due to the following reasons: a. there won’t be room for rehabilitation and reform
for Bunso who have committed such offenses due to out-of-control factors; b. branding Bunso the criminal liability turns a
blind eye to the inadequate fostering of their minds. c. Lowering and sending Bunso under the proposed age to take criminal
accountability is not an ultimate prevention towards lowering the rate of criminal offenses of minors.

Beacon of light as prioritizing the hopeful of the future, RA 9344 bask and unfolded the harsh reality that children in
conflict with the law are the ones who suffer from harsh circumstances namely: poverty, insufficient access to proper
nourishment of their well-being, safe environment, education, and even the bare minimum care and guidance from their
parents (UNICEF, 2018). According to the National Institute of Health, brains from ages 1 to 20 are still in the process of
development. Neurobiology studies revealed that adolescents' brain function does not mature until they are around 16 years
old which hinders them from proper reasoning and impulse control (UNICEF, 2023). Therefore, proper guidance and a
nourishing environment are crucial factors to the healthy growth of one’s mind. Lowering the criminal responsibility to children
aged 13 and branding them as criminals is a way of neglecting the deeper needs of children rooted in many harsh factors as
mentioned that most need proper rehabilitation and alignments of their misery.

Consequently, children in conflict with the law are solely facing criminal liability at such a young age that they should
have been accessing opportunities of their childhood but have no choice but to hang to sharp blades for survival. While
malicious eyes stare at those innocent gazes, their own hands are putting on blindfolds for adults, especially the parents, who
should have taken responsibility and accountability for raising and nurturing their children first and foremost. Granting them
their most basic needs like a safe environment, education, care, and guidance. As resources were lacking and these factors
impacted the negative fostering of their young minds, will these children face such harsh branding while adults who had failed
them get by?

On a different note, the Senate's logic and objective of implementing the bill is the very reason that it would prevent
children and adults from using these children to commit heinous crimes. The goal was to lower the crime committed by minors.
However, that is not the case. Syndicates, whether in the presence of juvenile justice, would continue to use children for
exploitation. Going to factors why children are so, UNICEF (2018) revealed that according to research, children from
dysfunctional households and those exposed to harsh environments endure toxic stress, which affects delayed brain
development, these children are vulnerable to adult coercion and exploitation. With the influence of adults in these immoral
actions, having children in conflict with the law face criminal liability is unfair. I agree much with UNICEF's statement that the
Senate’s argument is flawed. Children who are already disadvantaged and exploited by adults should not be punished further
but safeguarded so that they would not most likely engaged or be involved with such immoral acts. Detention or
institutionalization of children is the least effective and most costly method of prevention. Community-based initiatives have
a greater impact, according to evidences UNICEF holds.

While I firmly stand to be against the bill to lower the minimum age for criminal responsibility, rehabilitation and
counseling resources of the Local Government Unit and the community should be the focus of funding and support. Seeing
the impact of community-based initiatives, this will be a lot more effective if given the chance to advance and be progress.
Evident shows, at the risk of putting the future of these Bunso at sake, by actions that they still haven’t fully grasped yet.
Therefore, I conclude, that we are to fight the stigma with the most effective alternative. This means going against the bill due
to reasons of children not having a chance for reflection, unfair treatment of them, and the ineffectiveness of the proposed
bill. No Bunso deserves to be deprived of their basic needs but speaking vulnerability it is best that no Bunso shall be left
behind.
REFERENCES:
LawPhil Porject. Republic Act No. 9344. Arellano Law Foundation. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9344_2006.html
Maher, G. (2004). Age and criminal responsibility. Ohio St. J. Crim. L., 2, 493. https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/72864/1/OSJCL_V2N2_493.pdf
Maryville University (2018). Criminal Responsibility: Evaluation and Overview, Bachelor's in Forensic Psychology/Criminal Justice. https://online.maryville.edu/blog/criminal-responsibility/
UNICEF (2018), UNICEF: do not lower minimum age of criminal responsibility. https://www.unicef.org/philippines/press-releases/unicef-do-not-lower-minimum-age-criminal-responsibility