Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TO: Atty. Lara Carmela G. Fernando
FROM: Maria Velli C. Badillo (1- 0)
DATE: June 6, 2019
SUBJECT: Proposal to Lower Age of Criminal Liability to Nine (9) Years Old
KEY FACTS
On January 23, 2019, House Bill No. 8858 (HB 8858) was adopted and approved
by the House Committee on Justice with a vote of 146-341 with no abstentions in
substitution of House Bills Nos. 2, 505, 935, 1609, 2009, and 3973 2, as introduced and
authored by Reps. Fredenil H. Castro, Pantaleon D. Alvarez, Victor A. Yap, Tobias M.
Tiangco, Mercedes C. Cagas, Romeo M. Acop, and Estrellita B. Suansing. It was
principally aimed by HB 8858 to lower the age of ‘social’ liability from fifteen (15) to nine
(9) years old but was later modified to twelve (12) years old3 due to the controversy
received by the proposal and also to be consistent with the senate versions of the bill.
Further sought in the bill is the amendment of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of
2006 as gleaned from Republic Acts Nos. 9344 and 10630 to strengthen the social
reintegration programs for children in order to: (1) provide adequate intervention and
diversion measures for children in conflict with the law4; (2) automatically reduce the
penalty to be imposed to children in conflict with the law either by 2 degrees under the
Revised Penal Code or by 2/3 for fixed periods of imprisonment5; (3) construct several
agricultural camps and training facilities facilitated by the Bureau of Corrections and in
partnership with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA in
order to confine convicted children who failed to reform upon reaching 18 years of age
for their successful subsequent reintegration into the community upon their release at the
age of 256; (4) encourage children in conflict with the law to aim for their improvement by
allowing deductions in their service of sentence when they exhibit good conduct and
behavior7; and (5) penalize the parents, foster parents or guardians for their failure to
undergo mandatory counseling or intervention in cases where their children/wards
committed serious crimes or are repeat offenders8.
ISSUE
Whether or not HB 8858 violates the constitutional duty of the State under the
doctrine of parens patriae in defending the right of children to assistance and special
protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development9 by punishing said immature and pre-adolescent children
as provided for by HB 8858.
SHORT ANSWER
No. Contrary to the criticisms raised against the said proposal, to lower the age of
criminal responsibility validates the State’s duty to provide children with an alternative
environment under the protection of the law instead of being returned to their previous
surroundings wherein they will remain to be exploited and abused by their parents, foster
parents, guardians or whomever gains the control over the child, thus placing the child
vulnerable to becoming repeat offenders. The proposed amendment is consistent with
sec. 3 (2) under Article XV of the Constitution that the State must defend the right of
Programs for Children in Conflict with the Law, Amending fir the Purpose Republic Act No. 9344, as Amended,
Otherwise Known as the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, H.B. No. 8858, 17th Cong. 3rd sess. Sec. 3 (par.
2) (2019)
5 See Note 4, supra Sec. 9
6 See Note 4, supra Sec. 14
7 See Note 4, supra Sec. 11
8 See Note 4, supra Sec. 7
9 Const. Art. XV, Sec. 3 (2)
children against conditions prejudicial to their development by extracting them from
exploitations and to rehabilitate them under the supervision of public agencies by
educating these children with various tools of trade in order to be returned to the society
not anymore as victims of impoverished circumstances but as valuable members of the
general public who will no longer resort to illegal nor illicit activities to survive but are
equipped with respectable vocations and skills.
DISCUSSION
Based on the foregoing, it can be gleaned that lowering the age of criminal
responsibility will validate the duty of the State to foster and protect a child neglected and
abused by their social environment by extracting them from same, which in turn may
result in rehabilitating their mental development by cutting their exposure off from “toxic”
and “noxious” examples from their impoverished circumstances.
10https://www.unicef.org/philippines/press-releases/lowering-age-criminal-responsibility-against-child-rights-unicef.
Interests” available at
https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1003&
context=akronlawreview, June 2, 2019