References: 1: Cipriano, M. M. (2017).

The minimum age of criminal responsibility: A medico-legal

perspective. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 51, 25-31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2017.07.006

2: UNICEF. (2019). Minimum age of criminal responsibility around the

world.
https://www.unicef.org/philippines/media/1681/file/Minimum%20age
%20of%20criminal%20responsibility%20around%20the%20world.pdf

3: Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective

interventions
with juvenile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims and
Offenders, 4(2), 124-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612573

4: Schwalbe, C. S. (2007). A meta-analysis of juvenile justice risk

assessment instruments: Predictive validity by gender. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 34(11), 1367-1381.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807305151

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1049651
In an article of phillipine news agency authored by christoper Lloyd
caliwan the aricles title was Pnp backs sotto bill lowering the age of
criminal liability

In oct 1,2018 The PNP expressed their support to senate president

Vicente sotto III’s bill pushing for the lowering the age of criminal
liability to 13,citing the rise in the number of crime now being
committed by minors,PNP Director General Oscar Albayalde told to the
ffbreporter that “we are supporting the proposal of the good senator, we
are just getting inputs from the different regions and legal service” this is
what pnp general albayalde told to reporters in a pressconference that
day

Also on senator president Vicente sotto III’s interview it is said in his

statement that “remember in foreign countries,there are no limit,there are
even 6,7 and 10,in Mexico 6,in south Africa
And uk is 10” and we affirmative team researched about his statement
and we find out that he’s stating facts and not only that even our former
president Rodrigo roa Duterte has repeatedly criticized senator francis
pangiligan, the author of law, saying criminal accountability should be
lowered since some children are involved in various criminal activities.
Opening Statement of Captain: "Ladies and gentlemen, esteemed
judges, and fellow debaters, we, the affirmative team, stand here
today to argue in favor of lowering the minimum age of criminal
responsibility from 15 to 12 years old. In filing Senate Bill 2026,
Sotto noted that criminal syndicates are exploiting the provisions of
Republic Act 9344 of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
by using minors in the commission of crimes. Citing a study
conducted by the Child Rights International Network, Sotto pointed
out that the average minimum age of criminal responsibility in Asia
and Africa is 11. In the United States and Europe, it is 13. In his
explanatory note for Senate Bill 2026, Sotto said, "Due to the
continuing challenge in the implementation of RA 9344, as
amended, the aforesaid law must be further amended to lower the
minimum age of criminal liability in order to adapt to the changing
times." This bill will finally give clarity to the true intention of the
law. The amendment to the law will institutionalize the criminal
liability of teenagers who committed serious criminal offense. As
teenage engagement in criminal activity is on the rise, we firmly feel
that this change is important to ensure accountability and justice in
our society."
Affirmative Speaker 1: Argument 1: “Thank you, team captain. Our
first argument centers on the issue of deterrence. By lowering the
minimum age of criminal responsibility, we send a clear message to
young individuals that they will be held accountable for their actions.
This serves as a deterrent to engaging in criminal behavior at a young
age. Without consequences, there is little incentive for young people to
refrain from committing offenses. Moreover, by holding young
offenders responsible, we can also protect the rights and interests of the
victims and the society, who deserve justice and reparation.”
Evidence/Supporting Point: “Studies have shown that jurisdictions with
lower minimum ages of criminal responsibility have lower rates of
juvenile crime. For example, in countries where the age of criminal
responsibility is set at 12, such as Canada, Japan, and the Netherlands,
there is a significant decrease in juvenile delinquency compared to those
with higher age limits, such as the Philippines, where the age of criminal
responsibility is currently 15. This suggests that lowering the age of
criminal responsibility can have a positive effect on reducing the
incidence and severity of juvenile offenses.” Explanation/Analysis:
“This evidence supports our argument that lowering the age of criminal
responsibility can deter young people from engaging in criminal
behavior, as they will face legal sanctions and consequences for their
actions. This can also prevent them from becoming habitual or chronic
offenders, as they will learn from their mistakes and correct their
behavior at an earlier stage. Furthermore, by lowering the age of
criminal responsibility, we can also uphold the principle of justice and
fairness, as young offenders will not escape liability for their crimes, and
the victims and the society will receive appropriate compensation and
protection.

” Affirmative Speaker 2: Argument 2: “Building on our first point,

lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility also facilitates
early intervention and rehabilitation. By identifying at-risk youth at an
earlier age, we can provide them with the necessary support and
resources to address underlying issues such as poverty, abuse, or neglect.
Early intervention programs can help steer young offenders away from a
life of crime and towards productive citizenship. These programs can
also enhance the development and well-being of young offenders, as
they can receive education, health care, counseling, and other services
that can improve their skills and opportunities.” Evidence/Supporting
Point: “Research has shown that early intervention programs, such as
counseling, mentorship, and community service, have a positive impact
on reducing recidivism rates among juvenile offenders. For instance, a
meta-analysis of 548 studies found that early intervention programs
reduced recidivism by an average of 12.6 percent. Another study found
that early intervention programs that focused on family involvement,
social skills training, and cognitive-behavioral therapy were more
effective than punitive or deterrent approaches in reducing juvenile
delinquency. By intervening early, we can break the cycle of criminal
behavior and promote positive outcomes for our youth and society as a
whole.” Explanation/Analysis: “This evidence supports our argument
that lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility can facilitate
early intervention and rehabilitation, as young offenders can access
programs and services that can address their needs and problems. This
can also prevent them from becoming hardened or violent criminals, as
they can be guided and mentored by professionals and peers who can
help them change their attitudes and behaviors. Moreover, by lowering
the age of criminal responsibility, we can also enhance the potential and
well-being of young offenders, as they can receive education, health
care, counseling, and other services that can improve their skills and
opportunities.” Affirmative Team Captain: Closing Statement: “In
conclusion, lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from
15 to 12 years old is a necessary step towards addressing juvenile
delinquency, promoting accountability, and facilitating rehabilitation. By
implementing this change, we can create a safer and more just society
for all. We have presented two arguments to support our motion: first,
that lowering the age of criminal responsibility can deter young people
from engaging in criminal behavior, and second, that lowering the age of
criminal responsibility can facilitate early intervention and
rehabilitation. We urge you to support our motion. Thank you.”