Santino is one of the many juvenile delinquents savoring the bounties of our bizarre justice

system. According to RA 9344 or The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, minors aged 15
and below are exempted from criminal liability and minors aged 16 to 18 were declared exempt
if they acted without discernment and allowed modification of the penalty if they did act with
discernment.
Sounds pro-children right? I could only imagine how childrens rights advocates would worship
this law as if it were a deity. The birth of this law shows just how much we love our children. The
state does not want them to suffer the stings of reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment. The
state is concerned of their future. The state believes that they are still not fully equipped with
mature moral judgment. But the state, to my and my teams opinion, is growing a little too onesided. So I stand in front of you defending the other side of the coin. I stand in front of you
defending those who agree that the Juvenile Justice Law must be amended.

Few days ago, the Senate approved on final reading a bill amending Republic Act No. 9344,
otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, in order to improve its
implementation. I AM IN FAVOR OF THIS GREAT ACT BY OUR LAWMAKERS.
We all know that Republic Act No. 9344 has been intended to protect the welfare of children in
conflict with the law, majority of who are guilty of petty crimes such as petty theft, vagrancy and
sniffing glue. Prior to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, children in conflict with the
law were thrown into the same prison cells as hardened criminals. Studies show that most of
them were first-time offenders, while eight percent committed crimes against property. These
children are then doomed to a life of crime, rending them victims of a judicial system that
inadvertently breeds criminals. With the implementation of RA 9344, children in conflict with the
law are being provided with intervention programs instead of being thrown into jail. But like any
other law, certain provisions of RA 9344 need to be improved.
Now, Senate Bill No. 3324 amended Republic Act No. 9344, NOT because it wants to revise it,
but simply because it wants to clarify the meaning of fifteen years of age, the age of criminal
responsibility. Current misinterpretation leads to youth offenders under 15 years old being
released when they should instead be subject to formal proceedings.
Under the proposed measure, children 15 years old and under at the time of the commission of
the crime, will be exempted from criminal liability. However, these minors can face civil liabilities
in accordance with existing laws.
Children who are 15 years of age or under shall not be exempt from civil liabilities. Liability of
parents for quasi-delicts and felonies committed by their minor children is direct and primary and
not subsidiary. This means that.