THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

IN PHILIPPINES BOX OF CICL

Jeza Mae Sarah C. Sanchez

I.
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE LAW
A. The Juvenile Justice as Hope in the lure of Pandoras Box
Greek mythology tells us that Zeus, the supreme Olympus god, sent his daughter Pandora
to earth to marry Epimetheus along with the gift of a mysterious box that came with the
admonition that it could never be opened. It was perhaps inevitable that a day would come
when the lure of the box would become irresistible. When Pandora opened the lid of the box,
all of the evils known to humankind quickly escaped from the box. Opening Pandoras box
has since stood as a warning that some things are best left unexplored. But that Pandora story
as popularly recounted is incomplete. Once the evils had escaped from the box, one thing was
remaining that Pandora removed from the box Hope. The evils created by children in
conflict with the law may seem to be irreparable but Juvenile Justice Welfare Act gives us a
glimpse of hope in not only preventing evil but in correcting the evildoers.
On May 20, 2016, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) celebrated the
10th Anniversary of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA), when President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act, with the theme RA 9344: Isang Dekadang Pag-asa (A Decade of Hope) at the
Century Park Hotel Manila. Child welfare groups, of course, have been at the forefront of the
process long before it gained currency, as well as respectability, among various sectors in the
JJWC as a preferred mode of handling children in conflict with the law.
For a better appreciation of what JJWA is all about, it may be defined as a process
covering the different stages involving children at risk and children in conflict with the law
from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration. It is therefore, a source of comfort that

Administrative and Legal Officer of the Office of the Chief, Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology, Philippines
Page 1 of 10

the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council has pursued this effort with vigor despite criticisms
and some setbacks, like the beautiful dragonfly form of Hope, touching the wounds created
by children and healing them.
B.

Laws on Juvenile System as Laws on Hope

By way of background, prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9344, children at risk and

CICL were treated much like adult offenders as when former President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr.
signed into law the Judiciary Reorganization Act 1980 which abolished the juvenile and
domestic relations courts. As such child offenders were subjected to the same adversarial
proceedings as their adult counterparts.
As an offshoot of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), the R.A. No. 9344 intends to deal with these children without resorting to judicial
proceedings. Instead of punishing juvenile offenders and treating them as criminals, these
child offenders will be provided by the State and the community with assistance to prevent
them from committing future offenses.
Two of the main features of R.A. No. 9344 are the diversion and intervention
programs. In diversion, the responsibility and treatment of CICL will be determined on the
basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or educational background without
resorting to formal court proceedings. During the intervention programs on the other hand,
they will undergo a series of activities to address issues that caused them to commit an
offense. This may take the form of counseling, skills training, and education.
The law likewise raises the age of criminal responsibility from nine years of age under
Presidential Decree 603 to a minimum of 15 years old. CICLs aged 15 and above are also
exempted from criminal liability unless the prosecution proves that they acted with

Page 2 of 10

discernment- the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. These offenders are also afforded
all the rights of a CICL until he/she is proven to be eighteen (18) years old or older under the
presumption of minority rule.
The concept of restorative justice as opposed to retributive justice has also been
introduced by R.A. No. 9344. It spouses resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement
of the victim, the offender and the community. It primarily aims to achieve reparation for the
victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the community, and enhancement of
public safety. It also ensures that the childs right will not be infringed when he/she admits to
the offence.
All of these approaches have been introduced into the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act in order to ensure that detention or imprisonment shall only be a disposition of last resort
and which shall be for the shortest appropriate period of time. Through these, the State can
truly offers holistic approach to dealing with children at risk and in conflict with the law.
Similarly, the Judiciary Reorganization Act 1980, Presidential Decree 603, RA 9344,
and the concept of restorative justice are based on the school of thought which assumes that
recovery of youth offenders comes only through purging the hidden and distressing emotions
of children. The myth of Pandora offers several important lessons. First is the
acknowledgment that the good within these children can be fully discovered despite the evils
done. In the Pandora story, hope only becomes visible and accessible after the evil spirits
have escaped. And so we have the peculiar situation of increased crimes brought by children
whose remedy involves correction of these crime offender the children.

II.
FACTS AND FIGURES BEHIND THE LAW
A. Data Before the Implementation of the Law
Page 3 of 10

The Council for the Welfare of Children of the UNICEF reported that from 1995 to
2000, the Philippines has 52,756 CICL. The most tragic about this data was that majority of
these children were detained with adult offenders. The Department of Social Welfare and
Development (DSWD) also registered an average of 10,515 child arrest every year which is
roughly around one child per hour.
It is to be emphasized that more than half of the crimes for which minors are charged
are not serious offenses which may include petty theft, sniffing of glue or solvents, vagrancy
and violation of curfew hours.
In spite of heroic efforts on the part of the DSWD and other government and nongovernment organization, youth detention in isolation from adult offenders has not taken off
as its proponents and supporters might have expected prior to the enactment of R.A. No.
9344.
B. Data After the Implementation
A year after the implementation of R.A. No. 9344, data from the DSWD showed that
from a record of 8,661 CICL served by the agency in 2006, the number decreased to a yearly
average of about 2,500 from 2007 to 2009. The number has further declined by more than
50.0% from 2,631 in 2009 to 1,207 in 2010.
The decreasing number of CICLs served by the DSWD however does not mean that
the number of child offenders also went down as the reduction was brought about by the
reintegration of the children with their parents after undergoing rehabilitation process under
the supervision of community-based shelter centers.
III.

CRITICISMS ON THE LAW

While the number of CICLs served by the DSWD decreased, data from the Philippine
National Police (PNP) indicates an increase in reported incidents on child offenses in the
country from 2006 to 2012. This is corroborated by the data of the Juvenile Justice and
Page 4 of 10

Welfare Council (JJWC) which oversees the implementation of the law. The JJWC reported
that in 2009, over 11,000 crimes involving CICL have been committed.
This prompted some lawmakers, government officials, and law enforcers to lament
that R.A. No. 9344 is ineffective as instead of addressing crimes involving minors, the law
made the problem worse. It has been reported that criminal syndicates and parents in the
depressed areas use children in their illegal operations to avoid prosecution.
This was the justification behind Senate Bill 892 which was filled in 2007 by former
Senator Robert Barbers which seeks to lower the age limit of convicts who can be meted the
death penalty. He claims that an iron hand is the best crime deterrent especially those related
to drugs.
In 2012, the House of Representatives, the lower house of the Congress, passed House
Bill No. 6052 with the aim of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15
years old to 12 years old.

IV.

IN DEFENSE OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AS PROVIDED FOR

BY LAW

The DSWD, JJWC, the Commission on Human Rights and lawmakers like Senator
Miriam Defensor-Santiago voiced out their objection to the lowering of the minimum age of
criminal responsibility. The reduction, they say will be in contravention to the UNCRC and
other international treaties promoting and protecting childrens rights to which the Philippines
is one of the signatories.

Page 5 of 10

They also claimed that the law is anti-poor as most children involved in crimes were
poor-most from dysfunctional families who lack access to basic needs, education and parental
love. A majority of these children committed theft and crimes against property- crimes
committed for survival.

V. AMENDING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE WELFARE ACT

In October 2013, President Benigno Simeon Aquino sided with those who advocated
for the rights of the youth offenders by passing Republic Act No. 10630or the Act
Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System.
The establishment of an Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center for
children (IJISC) under the minimum age of criminal responsibility in Bahay Pag-asa
(House of Hope) is one of the key enhancements in the law.
The Bahay Pag-asa is a 24-hour child-caring institution funded and managed by
local government units (LGU) and licensed and/or accredited non-government organizations.
Children in conflict with the law who are 15 to 18 years old shall be housed in these
temporary shelters while awaiting trial and the judgment to be rendered by the courts.
The law also clarified procedures for children below the MARC, including those who
commit serious offenses. It provides that any child aged 12 to 15 who commits a serious
offense punishable by more than 12 years imprisonment should be deemed a neglected child
under the Child and Youth Welfare Code. As a neglected child, the minor should be placed in
the IJISC. The social welfare officer of the local government unit where the crime was
committed or the social worker of the DSWD is required to file a petition in the court for the

Page 6 of 10

involuntary confinement of the minor in the IJISC where the child is to undergo appropriate
intervention programs.
The Bahay Pag-asa will managed by a multi-disciplinary team composed of a social
worker, a psychologist/mental health professional, a medical doctor, an educational guidance
counselor, and a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC).
They will come up with individualized intervention plan for the child and his/her family.
While these children remained to be exempted from criminal penalties they are
nonetheless not exempted from civil liabilities.

VI. FACTS AND FIGURES AFTER THE ENACTMENT OF LAWS

To date 19 local government units have put up Bahay Pag-asa shelters which are
located in 18 LGUs in nine regions of the country. This is after almost two years since the
signing of the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 10630. Only 13 of these
centers are operational, four have yet to start operations while two have closed down.
The BJMP, mandated by law to safe-keep and develop inmates in all district,
municipal and city jails nationwide, maintains jurisdiction over 359 minors in its jail
facilities. These children are aged 15 and above but below 18. Included also are those who
have reached the age of majority while their case are as yet to be resolved. Unlike in the
locked-up cells of the Philippine National Police (PNP) which mostly do not have separate
facilities for children, in BJMP-manned these children are segregated from adult offenders.
A continuing problem still persists with the contradicting provisions in the Revised
Rule on CICL issued by the Supreme Court with that of the provisions on R.A. No. 9344 and
its implementing rules and regulations. Sec. 26 of the Revised Rules on CICL provides that in
Page 7 of 10

the absence of a youth detention home the youth offender shall be placed under the care of a
provincial, city, or municipal jail. This runs contrary with R.A. No. 9344 and its
implementing rules and regulations which expressly provides that in no case shall there be
jail detention for children in conflict with the law.
In its response, the Office of the Court Administrator supported the Revised Rules on
CICL stating that jail should allocate an area specifically for CICL. During the 10 th
Anniversary of the JJWA, Atty. Tricia Claire A. Oco, Executive Director of the JJWC
pronounced that they are against jail detention since it runs contrary to the spirit and express
mandate of the law. She also maintained that such confusion is an effect caused by the
absence of youth detention homes in some areas in the Philippines and this has already been
addressed during the budget hearing in the General Appropriations Act of 2016 and it was
subsequently approved.

VII.

THE CASE OF CEBU CITY JAIL MINOR DORMITORY

In 1998, the local government of Cebu City facilitated the construction of a separate
detention facility for minor offenders which was called the Cebu City Operation Second
Chance Center. This is currently manned by the BJMP with the support of the local
government unit (LGU).
To date, it houses 202 CICLs, with 180 of these males and 22 are females. Aware that
this is in direct contravention with the letter and the spirit of the juvenile justice laws, BJMP
requested in 2012 for the transfer of supervision over it to the local government unit. The
LGU refused citing lack of manpower and necessary skills to handle CICLs.

Page 8 of 10

VIII. CONCLUSION
The Philippines has hurdled its way into recognizing the rights of children at risk and
in conflict with the law, but it is still a lot to be done to move juvenile justice forward and
truly make it the preferred and acceptable mode of juvenile justice system. It is disappointing
that to date, there still presence of CICL in some jail facilities. Republic Act No. 9344
provides that "Juvenile Justice and Welfare System" primarily aims to ensure the normal
growth and development of children at risk and children in conflict with the law.
While the laws enacted to realize the principle of juvenile justice and welfare are all
laudable, the facts and figures about its implementation still leave much to be desired.
Yet considering that it has only been more than a year since the implementing rules
and regulations of the Strengthened Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act has been passed, much
is still to be hoped for.
What is important for now is that all the reforms instituted by the previous
administration when it comes to dealing with these children should be continued if not
improved by the administrations that will follow. It would be the height of unreasonableness
if the efforts would be suspended on the guise of eradicating criminality.
Clearly, there is a need for the JJWC to exert a more determined campaign to raise the
awareness and potential of juvenile justice system as an efficient and effective method of
resolving problems on children in conflict with the law.
According to the theory of evolution, it is only those who are most adaptable to
change who will survived. Yet it is still incumbent upon the all members of the society,
humans as they are, to protect those who by reason of circumstance beyond their control were
unable to adapt and grow normally. Because humans as they are, these beings also have this
Page 9 of 10

innate capacity to develop and transcend the challenges put through by their environmentmuch like how the juvenile justice and welfare survived the criticism hurled against it and
evolved into its much strengthened version.
Challenges still continue to test our juvenile justice system, just like the evil creatures
stung Pandora over and over again as she slammed the lid of the box shut. It is up to the
present set of administration if it would decide to let the voice of hope calling to them to be
let out or decide to look for another box.

Page 10 of 10