MANILA, Philippines – Lawmakers in Congress are set on lowering the minimum
age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from 15 to 12 years old, a move that runs
squarely against the obligation to protect the welfare of children.
When the Philippines ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UN CRC) in 1990, it meant the country committed to place the best interests
of children as its primary concern when crafting policies that concern them. The UN
CRC is the most widely accepted human rights treaty in history, according to the
United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund (Unicef).
Despite this, lawmakers in the Senate and House of Representatives have pushed
for the hasty approval of a measure to lower the MACR, a pet measure of President
Rodrigo Duterte.
It’s a move that experts from several fields, including medicine, economics, human
rights, and education,have strongly opposed. Several groups have voiced grave
concern over doing so, saying it could expose more children to the gaps of the
juvenile justice system, which is already struggling to cope with children in conflict
with the law (CICL).
“Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against
children. Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes
need to be protected, not further penalized,” Unicef said. “They should be
given a second chance to reform and to rehabilitate.”
STILL LEARNING. Medical experts stress that children are still undergoing brain
development, which makes them less accountable for their actions. Photo by Rhadyz
Barcia/Rappler
Before a child may commit a crime, s/he is is already vulnerable
The first and foremost proof experts cite is backed by decades of
scientific research: children are still developing their decision-making
capacity and therefore do not know how to fully discern by themselves
yet.
According to the Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP), this means that
changes in areas of the brain, which are responsible for impulse control, decision-
making, regulating emotions, and evaluating risks and rewards are still taking place.
Unlike adults, children are less able to consider and understand the long-term
consequences of their actions.
“These abilities, which are involved in criminal behavior, do not fully
form until young adulthood, making young people especially vulnerable
to engaging in risky behaviors,” the PAP said.
This matters because it means that while children may know right from
wrong, they are unable to fully understand the consequences of their
actions. Lawmakers, including Senate justice committee chairperson
Richard Gordon, have argued that children should be held accountable
for offenses precisely because they can distinguish right from wrong.
“Discernment between right and wrong requires intellectual, emotional,
and psychological maturity. This is a tall order for children who are still
in the process of developing in all aspects,” the Philippine Pediatric
Society (PPS) said. “Younger children, therefore, need protection from
the law and should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.”
GUIDE CHILDREN. Children need the help of adults to lead and protect them. Photo by Maria
Tan/Rappler
The Child Neurology Society, Philippines and Philippine Society for
Developmental and Behavorial Pediatrics share the position of the PAP
and PPS as neuroscience research has proven that the brain does not
fully develop until the age of 25.
Because children are often unable to protect themselves, the state has
the obligation to protect them.
CICLs are at a disadvantage even before even committing a crime
Experts also stressed that many CICLs are disadvantaged before committing a
crime because they often come from poor, dysfunctional families. They are
also vulnerable to coercion.
According to the PAP, brain and moral development can be delayed by
cultural and social disadvantages such as poverty, exposure to crime and
violence, abuse, and neglect. These factors, which are beyond a child’s
control, make it unfair to cast a child as a criminal.
A situational analysis of CICLs completed by the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Council (JJWC) said that a majority of offenses where children were involved – theft
and physical injury – were often related to poverty. The JJWC is tasked with
overseeing the implementation of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act (JJWA).
The JJWC said CICLs were also often driven to commit crimes due to a failure to
resolve conflict among family members or to properly manage emotions.
(READ: Beyond juvenile delinquency: Why children break the law)
The PAP echoed this, saying it was “unreasonable” to hold a child
exposed to an “impoverished and brutal” environment criminally
responsible for his or her actions.
“A sledgehammer is being used to crack a nut…[proposals] are fixated on an outlier
in the system, but one which adversely affects mostly the poor,” they said.
As young people, children are also vulnerable to coercion because they
do not have full control over their freedom and decisions. This is where
adults and criminal gangs come in.
While the JJWC and social workers have admitted there are syndicates
using children for crimes, they said the adults should be punished, not
the children, who are mere victims.
When jailed with adults, children in regular detention centers may be
exposed to criminal networks. This could lead to an increased risk of
being used for criminal activities at a phase when they are supposed to
be rehabilitated.
“It compromises completion of formal education and opportunities to
obtain vocation skills; and, it exposes children to higher risk of
stigmatization as criminals and to neglect and social exclusion,” Pais
said.
Stigmatizing CICLs
Experts strongly oppose the proposal to lower the MACR because it limits prospects
for CICLs.
Even after being detained, the PAP said exposing a child to the criminal
justice system – or simply labeling a child a criminal – “will more likely
establish the criminal identity of the young person.”
Pais added that experiences from other countries coupled with research on
criminilogy have showed that introducing children to the juvenile justice system
earlier on does not deter crime.
“Lowering the age of criminal responsibility has the effect of
bringing more children into contact with the criminal justice
system, increasing the rate of incarceration and aggravating the
risk of recidivism,” Pais said.
JJWC policy and research officer Jackielou Bagadiong earlier denied that the
current law lets children get away with crimes they committed.
“The child still has this liability but we don't detain [him or her]
because given the current state of our jails, it wouldn't be possible,
it would harm our future generation if we do that,” Badiong said
during the child protection summit in 2018.
“Our jails in the Philippine setting [are] what we can call school(s)
of crime. If a child enters jail, one can be assured that when he or
she comes out, she will have had a network of criminals that can
assist him or her later on,” she added.
The House, after all, already approved its version of the controversial measure on
third and final reading last Monday, January 28. Meanwhile, Senate justice
committee chairperson Richard Gordon is set to sponsor the chamber's version of
the measure on Monday, February 4.
But while legislators have put much attention on the minimum age of
criminal responsibility, measures to care for children shift farther away
from the best interests of young people themselves. At the end of the
day, lawmakers should be asked if they have done their best to protect
children. – [Link]
