THE AGE OF MARRIAGE

MUST BE REMAIN AT 18 YEARS OLD AS EXPLAINED BY

CRIMINAL LAW


How Children are viewed under Criminal Law:

Republic Act No. 9344 (and plenty of other laws) defines a child as a person
below eighteen (18) years of age. In Malto v. People (G.R. No. 164733), the First
Division of the Supreme Court explained why those who are below 18 are not
allowed to give consent under our civil laws, as well as to any lascivious act. The
rationale is quoted as follows:

A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on the
rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully
understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parens
patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of
their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years
deserve its protection.

The harm which results from a childs bad decision in a sexual encounter may
be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should
protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior.
For this reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual
activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law
which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and
discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner will be justified, or even
unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In
other words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to
any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.

This must be so if we are to be true to the constitutionally enshrined State
policy to promote the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being of
the youth. This is consistent with the declared policy of the State to provide special
protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and
discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development; provide
sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and
deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation, and
discrimination. (emphasis supplied) as well as to intervene on behalf of the child
when the parents, guardian, teacher or person having care or custody of the child fails
or is unable to protect the child against abuse, exploitation, and discrimination or
when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian,
teacher or person having care and custody of the same. (emphasis supplied) This is
also in harmony with the foremost consideration of the childs best interests in all
actions concerning him or her.

The best interest of children shall be the paramount consideration in all
actions concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent
with the principles of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted to promote the
welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life.

In another case, Caneda v. People (G.R. No.182941), the presumption of the law on
the lack of intellect possessed by minors was mentioned, to wit:

R.A. No. 9344 was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and took effect on May 20,
2006. Its intent is to promote and protect the rights of a child in conflict with the law
or a child at risk by providing a system that would ensure that children are dealt with
in a manner appropriate to their well-being through a variety of disposition measures
such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counseling, probation, foster care,
education and vocational training programs and other alternatives to institutional
care. More importantly in the context of this case, this law modifies as well the
minimum age limit of criminal irresponsibility for minor offenders; it changed what
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended,
previously provided i.e., from under nine years of age and above nine years of age
and under fifteen (who acted without discernment) to fifteen years old or under
and above fifteen but below 18 (who acted without discernment) in determining
exemption from criminal liability. In providing exemption, the new law as the old
paragraphs 2 and 3, Article 12 of the RPC did presumes that the minor
offenders completely lack the intelligence to distinguish right from wrong, so
that their acts are deemed involuntary ones for which they cannot be held
accountable. The current law also drew its changes from the principle of restorative
justice that it espouses; it considers the ages 9 to 15 years as formative years and gives
minors of these ages a chance to right their wrong through diversion and intervention
measures.

It is apparent from the cited cases that a minor under criminal law cannot yet take
care of themselves fully and are subject to certain abuses. They are vulnerable and
are presumed to lack the intelligence to distinguish what is right from what is
wrong. To allow minors (or those who are below 18) to marry would defeat the
intent of these laws, because if they cannot even take care of themselves, then how
are they going to fulfill the obligations of marriage? Also, it is important to note that
even the civil liability of minors arising from criminal acts are passed upon their
parents, as explained in the case of Salen v. Balce: (G.R. No. L-14414)

The civil liability which the law imposes upon the father and, in case of his death or
incapacity, the mother, for any damages that may be caused by the minor children
who live with them, is obvious. This is a necessary consequence of the parental
authority they exercise over them which imposes upon the parents the duty of
supporting them, keeping them in their company, educating them in proportion
to their means, while, on the other hand, gives them the right to correct and
punish them in moderation (Arts. 134 and 135, Spanish Civil Code). The only way by
which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all
the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage (Art. 1903, last
paragraph, Spanish Civil Code.) This defendants failed to prove."

This emphasizes the fact that even the family, as a basic social institution, recognizes
the need to guide children due to their lack of intelligence or comprehension.