Should we lower age of criminal responsibility?

What science says

By Catalina Ricci S. Madarang - January 23, 2019

Are children as young as 9 years old criminally liable? They have no full discernment yet of consequences of their actions,
studies show. (Milo Milk via Unsplash)

The House of Representatives passed the bill that would lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 9 years old despite
questions over scientific basis for the shift in policy.

Local and international child rights groups opposed the development.

The unnumbered substitute bill, which Rep. Victor Yap of Tarlac proposed, seeks to amend the provision in the Juvenile Justice
Law that currently sets the age of criminal responsibility of children at 15 years old and lower it to 9 years old.

What science says

The determination of discernment, according to the passed measure citing jurisprudence, is “the ability of a child to understand
the moral and psychological components of criminal responsibility and the consequences of the wrongful act; and whether a child
can be held responsible for essentially antisocial behavior.”

Scientific studies, however, showed that discernment on decisions and actions—which is apart from the ability to distinguish
right and wrong—does not develop until adolescent years.

A previous position paper from the Philippine Pediatric Society explained that the prefrontal cortex of the brain or the part
responsible for “executive decisions” such as decision-making starts to develop dramatically during adolescent years.

“A younger child, for example, would not be able to fully anticipate all the possible consequences of their actions for themselves
and society as a whole. An older child of 16 years, is able to consider rules based on intention and outcome thus can make
informed decisions especially when properly guided,” the group explained.

The group also emphasized that discernment “requires intellectual, emotional and psychological maturity.”

“This is a tall order for children who are still in the process of developing in all aspects, who still have limited life experiences
and therefore limited worldview to learn and apply what they are taught,” the PPS said.

If a child grew up in a risky environment, the development of these abilities can be delayed.

“Progress toward completion of cognitive and moral developmental stages can be detoured or delayed by cultural, intellectual
and social disadvantage. Children in conflict with the law typically have risk factors such as poverty, mental illness, drug and
alcohol abuse, exposure to crime and violence, homelessness, child abuse and neglect,” it said.

Newer studies also revealed that a human brain’s full development or maturity reaches when a person is already 25 years old.

A neuroscientist named Sandra Aamodt explained in an interview that aside from the prefrontal cortex, another crucial part of the
brain responsible for a person’s reward system is still developing between the ages of 18 and 25 years old.

This is why young adults tend to be more interested in “uncertain situations to seek out and try to find whether there might be a
possibility of gaining something from those situations.”

Parental supervision, she says, also has an impact on a teenager’s activities.

“The risks of crime and car accidents and all the crazy things that adolescents do are actually more issues with young adults,
people in the 18 to 25 age range, largely because they have more opportunities to get into these kinds of trouble because they
have less parental supervision than the younger adolescents do,” Aamodt said.

The Child Rights International Network also explained that age is “arbitrary” in determining a person’s capacity to discern.

“Capacity is therefore not just an innate state; it depends on external circumstances which can encourage or inhibit a child’s
autonomy,” it said.

What lawmakers think

For Malacañang, 9-year-old children are already capable of discernment due to the modern technology they use.

“For me, 9 is fine. Considering the modern technology, nine is like the equivalent of 12, 15 years old. They have discernment
already,” Salvador Panelo, Palace spokesperson, said.

This is contrary to the recommended minimum age of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child or UNCRC, wherein
the Philippines is one of the signatories.

The minimum of criminal responsibility or MACR should be at 12 years old and above, according to its provisions.

Senate President Vicente Sotto similarly filed Senate Bill 2026 that seeks to lower the MRAC to 13 years old.

Sotto cited a study from the CRIN for this measure, but the organization eventually countered it and described the lawmaker as
“misguided.”

The UN had been calling out the country’s justice system since 2016 during the filing of House Bill 2, a previous proposal to
lower MRAC to nine years. House Bill 2 was eventually merged with the new one.

These plans are backed by President Rodrigo Duterte who has since opposed the Juvenile Justice Law and perceived it as the
cause of the rising crimes in the country.

Lawmakers have also cited this law as the reason why children are being used by drug syndicates as peddlers on the streets.

TAGSchildren's rightscriminal responsibilityhouse of representativesunicef

RELATED ARTICLES
Filipinos report delayed earthquake alerts from NDRRMC
POLITICS + ISSUES April 25, 2019
Ben Tulfo flares up over Regine Velasquez’s West Philippine Sea tweet
CELEBRITIES April 25, 2019
Duterte says to sail garbage back to Canada
POLITICS + ISSUES April 24, 2019
Rescuers race to find survivors after earthquake kills 16
POLITICS + ISSUES April 23, 2019
Analyst called out for allegedly calling out non-analyst Regine Velasquez
POLITICS + ISSUES April 23, 2019
Why China’s poaching of giant clams around Scarborough is concerning
POLITICS + ISSUES April 22, 2019
CAIRN.INFO : Chercher, repérer, avancer.
Revues Revue Numéro Article
Criminal responsibility of minors in national and international legal order
Reynald Ottenhof
Dans Revue internationale de droit pénal 2001/3-4 (Vol. 72), pages 669 à 673

Article
Introduction
Putting the question of the criminal responsibility of minors on the agenda of the International Association of Penal Law’s XVII
th Congress demonstrates the interest it has and always has had concerning the criminal law of minors. An example of the
Association’s interest can be found in its contribution to the elaboration and the promotion of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (New York, 1989). However, this question has never before been on the agenda of any of its preceding congresses. This
was most likely due to the fact that the principles governing this area were not actually put into question.

Various reasons have led us today to re-examine these principles which had seemed, nevertheless, well established.

A first reason resides in the growing interest in children and youth in general, essentially due to the demographic explosion
experienced in certain regions of the world.

A second reason can be found in the fact that juvenile delinquency has taken a place more and more worrisome in the world of
delinquency, particularly in developed countries. This has sometimes aroused in public opinion reactions of a nature which
reflect on the general criminal policies in this area. One can also observe the same anxiety concerning the increasing number of
minors who are the victims of crime (ill-treatment, sexual abuse, pornography…), leading to the establishment of appropriate
protective measures.

A third reason can be seen in the emergence on an international level of a humanitarian movement in favor of the protection of
children transmitted particularly by non-governmental organizations. This movement extends to minors the rights and guarantees
that had been, up to then, reserved for adults, but also offers rights specifically tied to their status as minors.

Faced with these facts, the judicial system finds itself today confronted with the necessity to take into account the evolution in
this area and to adapt judicial principles to these new realities.

This also applies to the principle of criminal responsibility of minors. Actually, the expression itself could be considered
paradoxical since it is the opposite principle – the irresponsibility of minors which is the rule, and the responsibility the
exception. This presumption which links irresponsibility with the state of minority illustrates the exceptional character of juvenile
criminal justice compared to that which applies to adults. The basis of this presumption resides in the notion that a minor,
contrary to an adult, does not have a personality entirely formed and must, because of this, be entitled to a favorable system
which the sanctions or other specific measures (of education) and procedural rules all reflect.

The judicial fiction on which the irresponsibility of minors lies illustrates the dependence of the criminal law for minors in
relation to the concepts and legal principles conceived for adults. Now, the evolution that has been evoked leads one to conceive
more and more the child as a subject of law, having a specific personality and not simply as an « adult in reduction ». Thus, one
can attest to an emergence of an increasing autonomy of juvenile justice as shown by the affirmation of the principle of criminal
responsibility of minors on the national and the international levels.

I. Justification of the Principle

Without entering into an abstract criminal philosophical debate, it seems indispensable to indicate the basis of the principle of
criminal responsibility/irresponsibility of minors for each national legal system. This leads to the following questions :

Is the principle announced in an explicit manner by a legal text ? When necessary, has the jurisprudence helped to complete the
legislative dispositions or filled the silence of the law ?
Is the principle based on classical legal reasoning (imputability/guilt) or is it based more on a criminological concept of «
criminal capacity » ?
Are there existing doctrinal or legislative tendencies which, if necessary, aim at giving the responsibility of minors a specific
justification ?
Does a specific concept of « juvenile crime » exist which is independent of the principle of criminal responsibility ; and, if so, for
what types of acts ?
Does a tendency exist to exclude minors from benefiting from the juvenile justice system for the sake of treating them as adults
for certain crimes that are particularly serious (for example : acts of terrorism, rape…) ?
Do dispositions (civil or criminal) exist which favor the responsibility of parents for the delinquent behavior of their children who
are not of age based on the notion of objective responsibility ?
II. The Question of Different Categories of Age :
Once the principle of responsibility is established, the essential question is the different age groups which determine the
responsibility/irresponsibility of minors. Thus the following questions :

What is the age of criminal majority ? Has this age been recently modified ?
Are there existing tendencies to increase or lower this age ? For what reasons ?
Is there a minimum level under which the minor can not be punished or receive educational measures for the crime he/she has
committed ? If so, does this level consist of a chronological age or can it vary according to the subject ? In this latter case, what is
the criterion (legal, psychological…) which determines this level ?
Does there exist specific categories that benefit from a particular regime ?
What measures are possible in the case of an infant committing a crime ?
Are there specific dispositions that apply to the category « young adults » ? If so, up to what age can a subject be considered a
part of this special regime ?
III Judicial Establishment of Criminal Responsibility of Minors
Without entering into an exposé on the totality of the procedural dispositions concerning minors, it seems timely to examine the
following questions pertaining to the principle that we are analyzing :

Are there special jurisdictions competent to judge minors who commit crime ? When these jurisdictions exist, to what extent do
they use juries or have members of other professions to sit with the professional judges ?
Specify the composition of these jurisdictions.
How is the responsibility/irresponsibility of the minor established judicially ?
Does the jury or do the non professional judges take part in pronouncing the minor guilty or not guilty ?
Does the court have recourse to prior investigations, obligatory or optional
(expertise, medico-psychological examination, personality study), before ruling on the question of the responsibility of the minor
?
Are there two distinct stages, one deciding the question of the minor’s guilt
(conviction stage) and the other pronouncing the sanction (sentencing stage) ?
Briefly describe the role of the victim when the crime is committed by a minor. Can the victim initiate the action ? Is the victim
allowed to ask for reparation before the jurisdiction that judges the minor’s responsibility ? Can the victim obtain reparation even
if the minor is considered irresponsible ?
Before what court (civil or criminal) ? Finally, do alternative procedures (of the mediation-reparation type) exist ?
IV Sanctions and other Measures
Describe the specific sanctions and measures that can be applied to minors or, in absence of these dispositions, the modalities of
applying to minors the general sanctions and measures of adults.

What measures can be applied to minors before judgment (provisional detention, judicial supervision, constraining measures
and/or educative measures) ?
If the minor is judged responsible, does the court have a choice between pronouncing a punishment or an educational measure, or
does it have no choice ?
What is the general tendency concerning specific measures applicable to minors ?
Do legal criteria for determining the sanction exist ?
Does the court possess the means to moderate the punishment (for example, the defense of lack of criminal capacity) or to allow
for a more flexible execution of the sanction ?
Does the execution of the sanction have any particular supervision and according to which modalities (for example, a magistrate
which supervises the execution of the sanction) ?
Does a tendency exist which favors the decriminalization of juvenile justice ?
Is this tendency based on the dissociation of the responsibility and the sanction ?
Can capital punishment be pronounced in the case of a juvenile, and if so, at what age ?
Does the punishment of life imprisonment or for an indeterminate time exist ?
V. International Aspects
Besides the general dispositions of international and humanitarian law which apply equally to adults and minors, one must
underline the specific dispositions concerning minors that influence the determination of criminal responsibility. Without making
an exhaustive list of these dispositions, certain should be mentioned such as « the Rules of Beijing » which fix the « minimum
rules » concerning juvenile justice (Res. 40/33. Ass. Gen. U.N. Nov. 29,1985), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Ass.
Gen. U.N., Nov. 20,1989) and whose importance does not need to be mentioned in this area, the resolutions of the United Nations
VI Congress (Havana, 1990) particularly Resolution II concerning the protection of minors deprived of liberty. Also, on a
regional level, numerous dispositions have an important influence in this area. This is true for example of European
recommendations, particularly Recommendation n° R 87-20 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning
social reaction to juvenile delinquency (Sept. 17,1987).

One must not forget, finally, the dispositions that apply to minors in the statutes of international criminal courts. In this manner,
the authors of the Treaty of Rome creating the International Criminal Court (July 17,1998), aware of the role of minors in armed
conflict, were careful to enact dispositions concerning the criminal responsibility of minors.

Taking into consideration these observations, the national reporters are invited to consider more particularly the following
questions :
What are, briefly enumerated, the relevant dispositions in international law having an incidence on the determination of the
criminal responsibility of minors ?
What authority do these dispositions have vis-à-vis national sources ?
Do they have a real influence in positive law (for example, direct application) ?
Do particular dispositions exist concerning the criminal responsibility of foreign minors ? How, for example, can one determine
the age of a minor in the absence of official documents that attest the alleged age ?
Do special dispositions concerning police, judicial and penitentiary cooperation exist that apply to minors who are in a criminal
procedure ?
Criminal responsibility of minors in national and international law is a complex question which can not be treated in an
exhaustive manner by the present commentary. In an effort to avoid dogmatic debates in which the synthesis could become
hazardous, the reporters are invited to evoke in the most concise way possible, the concrete questions that are likely to permit a
comparison of the different legal systems. For this reason, if it seems necessary to present a general view of the state of juvenile
delinquency in the country being considered, one must avoid describing the entirety of dispositions that apply to juvenile
delinquents and limit oneself to the examination of the questions that have been evoked.
https://doi.org/10.3917/ridp.723.0669
House revises crime liability threshold from 9 to 12
Jess Diaz (The Philippine Star) - January 24, 2019 - 12:00am
MANILA, Philippines — The leadership of the House of Representatives approved yesterday the measure that seeks to lower the
age of criminal liability for children, but compromised for 12 years instead of the originally proposed nine.

“This was the consensus of all the House members. Of course, we would like to get a feel of all the members of Congress. There
were many reservations with regard to nine, so we got the majority uniform it to 12 instead of nine,” Oriental Mindoro Rep. Doy
Leachon, chairman of the House justice committee, told journalists at a briefing shortly after House Bill 8858 was passed on
second reading by the plenary.

The Senate has yet to pass a counterpart bill, which sets the age of criminal liability at 12. The chamber is scheduled to conduct
public hearings on its version of the measure.

President Duterte is amenable to 12 years as the age of discernment for criminal offenses, as the debates on the proposed measure
lowering age rage both inside and outside the halls of Congress.

“If it’s the final decision, I am comfortable with it as long as it’s above 12 below 16, yung indeterminate sentence papasok doon.
Binabalik ko yung (Bring back the) original, above nine below 12, above 12 below 16,” Duterte said in an ambush interview at
the gathering of tricycle drivers last night in Pasay City.

In a speech during the annual assembly of the Provincial Union of Leaders Against Illegality at the Quezon Convention Center in
Lucena City the other night, Duterte referred to a recent police anti-drug operation where children “as young as six, eight, nine,
14” were among the suspects rounded up by authorities.

Speaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo said yesterday she is supporting the bill lowering the age of criminal liability because it is
among Duterte’s legislative priorities.

Asked why she is pushing for it, she said, “Because the President wants it.”

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said his department submitted to Malacañang last Tuesday its legal opinion supporting the
move in Congress to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the country without specifying the age.

“We’ll leave it to Malacañang to process our recommendation and make it known,” he said.

Education Secretary Leonor Briones is standing by her position against lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

In an interview on Tuesday, Briones said the human development and poverty reduction cluster of the Cabinet, to which the
Department of Education (DepEd) belongs, has issued a statement opposing the proposal.

Briones noted that the move to lower the criminal age of responsibility is aimed at addressing the issue of children supposedly
being used by drug syndicates.

She said, however, that passing the law would affect all children, including those who commit petty misdemeanors.

Philippine National Police (PNP) chief Director General Oscar Albayalde said proposals lowering the minimum age of criminal
liability needs careful study, with collective ideas not only coming from the government but also from other sectors of society.

Speaking at the Kapihan sa Manila Bay news forum yesterday, Albayalde cited police statistics that 12,139 minors aged five to
17 were accosted since 2016 for various crimes such as rape, robbery and illegal drugs.

He also expressed concern that among these offenders are 1,800 minors accused of rape.

Albayalde said the problem of juvenile deliquency will not be solved solely on the law enforcement perspective.

He said there should be a system where concerned agencies must contribute to ensure rehabilitation of children who run afoul of
the law.
Health Secretary Francisco Duque III sees no problem in lowering the age of criminal liability.

He said lowering it to nine years is unlikely to cause negative impact on the health of children who might eventually be caught
for committing crimes.

“The children will be taken where there will be reformation program and there they will also be provided with appropriate health
service so we would be able to help them,” Duque noted.

Detained opposition Sen. Leila de Lima opposes the bill lowering the age of criminal responsibility as she challenged the
government to run after big-time drug syndicates instead of children.

“Children are not criminals. They’re victims too,” De Lima said, describing proponents as “heartless monsters.” – With Christina
Mendez, Edu Punay, Emmanuel Tupas, Janvic Mateo, Mayen Jaymalin, Cecille Suerte Felipe, Delon Porcalla, Robertzon
Ramirez, Alexis Romero, Paolo Romero, Helen Flores, Edith Regalado
MANILA, 18 January 2019 – UNICEF is deeply concerned about ongoing efforts in Congress to lower the minimum age of

criminal responsibility in the Philippines below 15 years of age. The proposed lowering vary from 9 and 12 years, and goes

against the letter and spirit of child rights.

There is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase in crime rates committed in the Philippines.

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not deter adult offenders from abusing children to commit crimes.

UNICEF supports the Philippine government, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

(UNCRC), to ensure that children grow up in a safe environment protected from crime and violence.

Sadly, lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against children. Children in conflict with the law are

already victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty and exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Children who are

exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not further penalized. Instead they should be given a

second chance to reform and to rehabilitate.

Scientific studies show that brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old, affecting children’s reasoning and

impulse control. Proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility argue that children as young as 9 years old are criminally

mature and are already capable of discernment. If this was the case, then why is the legal age to enter marriage, legal contracts

and employment in the Philippines at 18 years old? A 9-year old child has not yet even reached the age of puberty and their

brains are not developed to understand the consequences of actions.

The current proposal is to delay sentence up to a maximum age of 25 years. If a child is jailed at 9 years old it means that they

may have to waste away their life for 17 years under imprisonment until they can get a sentence for the crime committed. There

is no mechanism to protect these children from cohabiting with hardened criminals and no guarantee that in detention they will be

protected from violence and exploitation in jail.

Detaining children will not teach them accountability for their actions. In order to maximize their potential to contribute to
nation-building, children must grow up in a caring, nurturing and protective environment. This requires strong parenting support

programs and access to health, education and social services as well as to child-sensitive justice and social welfare systems.

The current Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law, which sets the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15, already holds

children in conflict with the law accountable for their actions. It provides them with rehabilitation programs using the framework

of restorative, not punitive justice.

Noteworthy efforts from the judiciary and the executive agencies like the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council, Departments of

Education and Social Welfare and Development deserve full support of Congress, particularly on increasing life skills of

adolescent learners; establishing an evidence-based parenting program for babies all the way through adolescence; and
decreasing use of detention and increase use of diversion and community-based mechanisms to address delinquency. UNICEF

calls on the government and civil society to focus on strengthening the implementation of this law instead of amending it.

Branding children as criminals removes accountability from adults who are responsible for safeguarding them. If children who

have been exploited by criminal syndicates are penalized instead of the adults who abused them, we fail to uphold the rights and

well-being of children.

If we fail to understand the underlying reasons how and why children commit crimes, we as adults, fail our children.
BEYOND ANGRY TWEET REACTIONS
Age of criminal liability needs serious, rational debate
BY THE MANILA TIMES
JANUARY 24, 2019

A BARRAGE of criticisms greeted Monday’s decision of the House Committee on Justice to approve a bill lowering the age of
criminal liability to nine years old from 15.

But the critics, led by Caloocan Bishop Pablo David, UN Rapporteur Agnes Callamard, the Commission on Human Rights, and
the usual coterie of militant lawmakers, seem to be reacting to news headlines and 280-character tweets.

They ought to read the substitute bill, which should be subjected to rational debate.

To be clear, The Manila Times, like everyone else, will not agree to children being mixed with adults in regular prisons, or
otherwise subjected to any confinement in which conditions are inhuman. This point is no longer in contention.

It should be clear however, even to critics, that the status quo, in which minors are exploited by adults into participating in
nefarious activities for the latter to avoid criminal liability, is no longer tenable. The House bill is bringing the matter to the
plenary to start debates and try to change the status quo.

Setting the age of criminal liability at 9 years old is not new to the Philippines. Such was the case for nearly 70 years until
Republic Act 9344, or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act,” was passed in 2006 and raised the minimum age to 15. As a result,
criminals found a loophole and employed juveniles, who could not be held criminally liable, to do their bidding.

Advertisements
Under the bill that the House has passed — and perhaps many of those who oppose it are unaware of this provision — children
will not be branded criminals, but as “children in conflict with the law.”

Children found to have committed “serious offenses,” and aged between 9 and 15 years old, will not be sent to a regular prison,
or the Bilibid, Correctional or Iwahig, but to “mandatory confinement,” and only for crimes such as murder, parricide,
infanticide, serious illegal detention and car theft.

Moreover, children in conflict with the law will not be punished. They will stay in “reformative institutions” that will help them
integrate with their communities.

It should also be noted that countries like Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, South Korea, Japan, the United States, England and
Switzerland have comparable legislations.

Some of the objections pertain to the quality of reformative institutions. Indeed, conditions at the existing Bahay Pagasa need to
be improved, but this does not mean there should be no more discussions on the bill.

The solution is the allocation of enough funds to upgrade the status of these institutions. The bill places the Bahay Pagasa under
the supervision of national agencies, such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development, instead of local governments
that could deprive these institutions of funding.
Another objection stems from the view that the government should focus more on their adult exploiters, not the children. This is
false dichotomy; the bill could deal with both at the same time. The substitute bill, in fact, punishes these exploiters with up to 40
years in prison.

Any reasonable citizen should find in the bill a good starting point for discussions on much-needed reforms in the Philippine
criminal justice system. The usual critics need to do their homework and join the debate, rather than hyperventilate.
QUEZON City, Philippines (June 16) – The subject of mixed opinions and sparking much debate, the issue of the government’s
proposition to lower the age of criminal liability in the Philippines from 15 years old to 9 years old is one of the most important
proposals by the Duterte administration. Basically, the question boils down to: “Should kids as young as 9 years old be held
accountable for their actions?”

Source: philstar.com
Many parents would agree that their child must be raised in a disciplined environment where they will be taught how to be
accountable for their actions. At the same time, many also are of the view that children committing a wrong should be held
with the same standards as adults.

Even if criminals are using children to commit their unlawful deeds, it is not reason enough to send nine-year-olds to jail. At such
a tender age, many do not have the necessary discernment to tell what’s right or wrong. At the very least, it is the parents who
should be charged because instead of guiding their kids, they neglect their parental duties, giving criminals the opportunity to
exploit the children for their nefarious deeds.

Children in their formative years are easily influenced by their surroundings. Being arrested and accused of committing a crime
can be detrimental to their development. A more systematic process should be done first instead of sending them to jail or
bringing them directly to social welfare groups.

We all know that in the Philippines the problems of poverty remain unsolved, which is one reason why some crimes are being
committed. The aim of our government should be to create a progressive system that will help children transform their lives for
the better, instead of locking them up inside a jail.

Yes, there are rehabilitation facilities and services supervised by trained staff where children who have allegedly committed a
crime are cared for under a structured therapeutic environment. However, these rehabilitation facilities are not well-funded. So,
the government’s another aim should be to ensure that these rehabilitation facilities are efficient in helping children who are at
risk and in conflict with the law.

Source: cnnphilippines.com
Instead of generalizing the consequences for the crimes committed by all juvenile offenders, the government should take into
consideration the gravity of the offense in deciding what punishment is needed. Children below the age of 12 should be exempted
from criminal liability, for these children do not actually understand what is going on and are still in need of proper guidance.
However, they should be under strict and close watch by their parents in order for them to realize their mistakes. If the count of
these minor offenses increases to a certain number, they shall be taken into custody by the social welfare group assigned by the
government. Meanwhile, those who are considered as adolescents, children aged 13-17, shall be taken automatically in the
custody of social welfare groups since the legal age here in the Philippines is 18 years old. Now, the aim of the social welfare
groups should be to create more programs and seminars that will shape the morality and development of the child.

Children should be living their lives exercising their rights to freedom, education, and happiness under the care of their parents.
By penalizing children who have been exploited by criminal syndicates instead of the adults who abused them, we are not
upholding the rights and well-being of the children. If we do not understand the reasons for their crimes, we will fail to come to
their aid.

Sources: https://ph.theasianparent.com/age-of-criminal-responsibility/2/

http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-brain-fully-developed/

(written by Arlyn Dungao, edited by Jay Paul Carlos, additional research by Vince Alvin Villarin)
 UNICEF: do not lower minimum age of criminal responsibility

Children's agency, along with civil society, call for improved implementation of existing juvenile justice law
27 September 2018

MANILA, 26 September 2018 – UNICEF is deeply concerned on the legislative efforts (ie, SB 2026) to lower the minimum age

of criminal responsibility; from 15 to 12, and in some circumstances, to nine (9). UNICEF and civil society call on the legislature

to continue and improve the implementation of the current law, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA) of 2006, as

amended in 2012.

To brand children as criminals removes the responsibility and accountability from adults who have failed them. Children in

conflict with the law are victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty; and because they are not able to access a caring,

nurturing and protective environment.

The Philippines, in line with its international obligations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, has already made

tremendous progress in the realization of children’s rights by the passing of the JJWA in 2006 which raised the minimum age of

criminal responsibility from nine to 15. The passage of the law in 2006 was a major victory for the Philippines and a shining

moment for Congress, recognising that children in conflict with the law are first and foremost children and the value and

effectiveness of rehabilitating children within their communities.

Senate Bill 2026 attempts to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 and allow children to be placed in a closed youth

facility from the age of nine (9). This is a giant leap backward. Based on its explanatory note, the Bill argues that lowering the

age of criminal responsibility will curb criminality and stop adults from using children. This is a flawed argument. Already

disadvantaged children, exploited by adults should not be further penalised. They should be protected and supported. Detaining

or institutionalising children are the least effective and the most expensive measures for preventing reoffending. Evidence shows

that community based interventions have more impact.

Studies in neurobiology also show that adolescents’ brain function reach maturity only at around 16 years old, affecting their

reasoning and impulse control. Research also has shown that children who are in dysfunctional families and those exposed to

violence experience toxic stress which damages the brain’s architecture. Because the brain of the child is still maturing, and some

children at risk even have delayed brain development, these children would then be susceptible to coercion and exploitation of

adults.

The current JJWA law does not let children in conflict with the law go without measures of discipline and accountability. Rather,

it provides these children the rehabilitation, and encourages reparation for their wrongdoings. Further, the law was already

amended in 2012 - children between 12 and 15 who commit serious crimes are subject to intensive interventions in institutions.
Further changes will only serve to weaken the system of prevention of juvenile offending and rehabilitation. By lowering the
minimum age of criminal responsibility, syndicate groups who exploit children into committing crimes for them, will instead use

and abuse even younger children to commit their wrongdoings.

What the current law needs is not another arbitrary amendment but a stronger implementation. Efforts from the judiciary and the

executive agencies like the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council, Departments of Education and Social Welfare and

Development are ongoing, noteworthy and deserving of full support of Congress. This is to ensure that the promise of the law of

restoration, rehabilitation and decreased re-offending are articulated and operationalized and therefore felt and supported by the

community.

The previous age of fifteen (15) was based on studies done in the Philippines in order to assess the age when criminal

discernment is possible. SB 2026, however, presents no scientific study to support the ages of 12 and nine. Instead, it refers to

ages set by a 1930 law, the Revised Penal Code, which in its age is currently being amended by Congress to be more reflective of

today’s modern standards and needs.

We call on the Government to uphold its responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfil children’s rights by not lowering the age of

criminal responsibility and instead focus on the full implementation of the existing juvenile justice law. We join the groups who

are advocating for the rights of the child and agree that it is in their best interests to retain the minimum age as it is and to support

the programs on restorative justice.

A 12-year old child is not yet even a teenager. A 9-year old child has not yet even reached the standard age of puberty. These

ages are too young and exposing them to the harshness of the criminal justice system, where even adults are rightly intimidated,

is a grave wrongdoing.