26 February 16, 2019

Nayeon Kim EAPP

“Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability in the Philippines”

At the beginning of 2019, a house bill was passed by the House of Representatives of the

Philippines. The main purpose of the bill was to lower the minimum age of criminal liability in

the country from the current 15 years old to 9 years old, which was later changed into 12.

Minimum age of criminal liability or minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) refers to

the age wherein an individual can legally be held accountable for the crimes he or she has

committed. Upon the announcement of approval of the proposal of the House, certain groups of

people stood up against the idea, saying that children ages 9 to 12 are still too young to be

labelled as criminals. In fact, it was stated by UNICEF (2010) that the absolute minimum age of

criminal liability that they will consider is 12, and its members are encouraged to increase the

minimum age. Many child advocates claim that the MACR should not go any lower as they are

concerned with the welfare of the children. Indeed, welfare of the children must be protected.

However, the reason that children must not go to “jail” because of their age is flawed. Pleading

that these poor children must not be placed in the prison does not make sense as the Juvenile

Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 clearly defines that these children will not end up in jail, but

they will be placed at juvenile detention centers. Thus, this is the not reason the MACR should

not be lowered, but there are other reasons. The other reasons include the following: lowering the

MACR will not necessarily solve the problems as proposed by the government; even if the bill

gets approved as a law, the Philippines does not have adequate resources and budget to place all

the youth in juvenile centers; and the current law is enough to control and guide the juvenile

delinquency, it is just that they have to be kept. Lowering the minimum age of criminal liability
should be opposed not based on pity, but it should be based on the logical reasons mentioned

above.

First of all, according to the Salvador Leachon, the sponsor of the bill, one of the biggest

reasons they are aiming to lower the MACR is to protect the children from being exploited

(Roxas, 2019). This is because due to the age of the children, different gangs may task them to

commit the crimes for them. It is easier to use the children as they are below the age of 15, they

will surely be exempted from the criminal responsibilities. According to criminologist Atkinson-

Sheppard (2018), there are crime groups in Bangladesh that hires children to conduct crimes. The

gangs make the children carry weapons, smuggle and sell drugs, and even kill. Atkinson-

Sheppard also mentioned that the biggest reason these children agree to commit such crimes is

their vulnerability. These children live in the streets without any guidance from their parents, and

in order to survive, they participate in different crimes and receive money as rewards. Although

the setting of this case is in Bangladesh, it cannot be denied that the Philippines has a similar

problem. Since there are many children who are from the vulnerable sector of the country, they

are likely to agree to these offers, and commit crimes.

This may allow the people to think that if this is the case, it is reasonable to lower the

MACR. However, this is not true because this is simply a way of avoiding the real problem,

which is the groups that are hiring these children. Even if the MACR is lowered to 12, these

groups are capable of finding other ways to achieve their goals. By lowering the MACR, it may

seem like the number of these cases are going to decrease, and the children will be protected.

However, as long as the source, the organized crime group, is present, the threat will be always

there. Thus, instead of lowering the MACR, the government should find alternative ways to

eradicate these criminal groups such as intensifying the punishment for these groups.
 Secondly, Section 9 of Republic Act No 10630 (2013), the amended version of Juvenile

Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, states, “each province and highly-urbanized city (the LGUs)

shall be responsible for building, funding and operating a ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ within their

jurisdiction following the standards that will be set by the DSWD and adopted by the JJWC.”

Bahay Pag-asa center is an institution funded by the local government units in order to

rehabilitate the children within the age bracket of 15 to 18 who are in conflict with the law. The

facility aims to provide care for the children so that they will be able to return to the society

without going back to their old ways. However, the number of the facilities are lesser than what

is required by the law.

Going back to Section 9, it is stated there that each province and highly urbanized cities

must have a Bahay Pag-asa center. There are 81 provinces in the Philippines (Number of

Philippine provinces, 2016). There are also 33 cities in the country that are classified as highly

urbanized (PhilAtlas, n.d.). Adding the two numbers, the country should have 114 Bahay Pag-asa

centers based on the law. However, according to Cabico (2019), as of 2019, there are only 63

Bahay Pag-asa nationwide, five of which are no longer operational. This means that there are

only 58 operating facilities, which is only about 51% of the required number.

Due to the lack of budget, there are only limited number of juvenile detention centers for

the children in conflict with the law. Even when the age bracket of the teenagers staying at these

facilities are from 15 to 18, there is already lack of the centers. However, if the age range is

increased from 12 or 9 to 15, the population that needs to go to these centers will surge. If there

will be no available slots in these juvenile detention centers, that may result to putting the

children in inefficient facilities, which are not capable of taking care of these children. In fact,

Cabico (2019) mentioned that there are some juvenile detention centers that are worse than
actual prison. This should not be the case as it is cleared stated in the law that the children in

conflict with the law must receive proper treatment and care so that they will be able to go back

to the community as responsible individuals. In order for them to receive proper care, more

Bahay Pag-asa centers must be established in the country. However, in order to do so, there must

be a bigger budget allocated for this matter.

According to Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, 2.5 billion pesos must be

allocated as the budget of the construction and renovation of the Bahay Pag-asa centers (Legaspi,

2019). Drilon explains that 2.5 billion pesos is a reasonable budget as out of 58 operating Bahay

Pag-asa centers, 55 are run by the local government, and these centers are not in the condition

that satisfy the requirements given by the law. However, the actual budget that the government

allotted for this matter was 1 billion pesos (Cervantes, 2019). This is only about 40 percent of

what Drilon has suggested. With this, it can be said that the budget allocated by the government

is not enough to construct the targeted number of detention centers and to maintain and operate

the center in a good condition. On top of that, when more children in conflict with the law

(CICL) are added to these centers due to the lowering of MACR, the gravity of the problem will

intensify. If more children are added to poorly managed juvenile detention centers, the centers

will not be able to perform its purpose on rehabilitating the children. This will only further ruin

the lives of the children. Thus, it can be concluded that considering the quantity and the quality

of the juvenile detention centers in the country, no more children should be added to the

facilities, especially if the place is incapable of forming and rehabilitating the children.

Lastly, the priority of the government should not be about lowering the MACR, but it

should be about reinforcing the law that has already been implemented and amended. The

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 has a comprehensive solution in terms of forming and
guiding the CILC in order for them to have a better life. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council

(JJWC) was even formed in order to supervise this problem. However, the law is not being kept,

and thus, it disturbs the welfare of the children who are affected by this law. One of which is the

problem of having inadequate number of facilities to guide the children. Once the law will be

reinforced throughout the country, there is a higher chance of the once detained children

experiencing better lives. This is because a part of the law is that the children in the juvenile

detention centers will be given different psychological and vocational training which will allow

them to acquire various skills to earn a living once they return to the society.

A lot of problems stems from when the mentioned law is violated. For example, if a

child was placed in a worse environment, unlike what is written in the law, there is a chance of

him learning worse crimes. Also, when the child is not able to receive proper counseling that is

needed to reflect and learn from his past, there will be a higher chance of him going back to his

old ways. This was seen in the documentary, “Bunso” by Ditsi Carolino, where one of the

children who was in the prison was not able to rehabilitate during his stay. Without realizing his

mistakes, he went back to his old ways, and he eventually died. If ever he was able to receive

proper counseling and treatments, things might have turned out differently.

According to Bayer and Pozen (2003), the recidivism rate depended on how the juvenile

detention centers were programmed. In for-profit management centers, there were higher

recidivism rate compared to the other types such as nonprofit and state-operated centers. This is

because in for-profit management centers had lower costs or had worse facilities in order to gain

profit from the operation. However, when the detention centers were properly supported by

having adequate budget, the recidivism rate was significantly lower. This proves that the

condition of the juvenile detention centers is capable of either neglecting or rehabilitating the
children in conflict with the law. With this, it can be concluded that if the children were treated in

accordance with the law, the recidivism rate of the children might have gone down. Thus,

lowering the juvenile crime rate as well. If only the law was reinforced strongly in a way that all

the sections of the law were abided by the entire nation, many problems that the country has

regarding the matter could have been solved.

The solution to solving the different problems regarding juvenile delinquency is not by

lowering the MACR. Lowering the MACR may look like it is eradicating problems such as child

exploitation, but actually, it is just trying to solve the issues in a one-dimensional way. The target

of the government should not be the vulnerable children who are prone to exploitation, but it

should be the different criminal groups that hire these children for their convenience. Also, in the

country, there are not enough facilities that will rehabilitate the CICL. Increasing the number of

these children without proper detention centers will intensify the problem of high juvenile crime

rate as the children will not be given an opportunity to reflect on their actions. Lastly, as long as

the Republic Act 10630 is reinforced strongly, it is more than sufficient to control the juvenile

delinquencies. This is because it contains different sections that will guide and take care of the

CICL. The problem that the country should be concerned about is not how young the child has to

be in order to be sent to detention centers, but it is about how can it keep its children safe using

the law that has already been implemented.

References:

Atkinson-Sheppard, S. (2018). When crime is the best of many bad options. Retrieved from

https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/street-children-are-involved-organised-crime-bangladesh

Bayer, P., & Pozen, E. D. (2003). The effectiveness of juvenile correctional facilities: Public

versus private management. Retrieved from

https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/28484/1/dp 030863.pdf

Cabico, G.K. (2019, January 22). CHR calls for establishment of more Bahay Pag-asa centers.

Philstar. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/01/22/1887483/chr-

calls-establishment-more-bahay-pag-asa-centers

Cabico, G.K. (2019, January 22). Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council: Some Bahay Pag-asa

centers ‘worse than prisons’. Philstar. Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com

/headlines/2019/01/22/1887224/juvenile-justice-and-welfare-council-some-bahay-pag-

asa-centers-worse-prisons

Cevantes, F. M. (2019, February 13). P1-B ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ funds allotted in 2019 budget: Sotto.

Philippine News Agency. Retrieved from http://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1061807

Legaspi, A. (2019, January 31). Drilon proposes P2.5-B budget for Bahay Pag-asa construction,

operation. GMA News. Retrived from https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/

683443/drilon-proposes-p2-5-b-budget-for-bahay-pag-asa-construction-operation/story/

Number of Philippine provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays. (2015). Retrieved from

http://www.comelec.gov.ph/?r=2016NLE/Statistics/SumofProvCityMun

Philatlas. (n.d.). Cities. Retrieved from https://www.philatlas.com/cities.html

Philippines. Republic Act No. 10630 (as amended by Republic Act no. 9344): strengthening the

juvenile justice system in the Philippines. Quezon City, Philippines. Retrieved from

https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2013/ra_10630_2013.html

Roxas, P. A. (2019, January 21). Hous e panel swiftly okays lowering age of criminal liability.

Inquirer. Retrieved from https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1075284/house-panel-swiftly-

okays-lower-age-of-criminal-liability

UNICEF. (2010). Children development and psychology. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/

tdad/index_56375.html