Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is against child rights: UNICEF

UNICEF is deeply concerned about ongoing efforts in Congress to lower the minimum age of criminal
responsibility in the Philippines below 15 years of age. The proposed lowering vary from 9 and 12 years,
and goes against the letter and spirit of child rights.

There is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase in crime rates committed
in the Philippines. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not deter adult offenders from abusing
children to commit crimes.

UNICEF supports the Philippine government, as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to ensure that children grow up in a safe environment protected from crime
and violence.

Sadly, lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against children. Children in
conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty and exploitation by
adult crime syndicates. Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be
protected, not further penalized. Instead they should be given a second chance to reform and to
rehabilitate.

Scientific studies show that brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old, affecting
children’s reasoning and impulse control. Proposals to lower the age of criminal responsibility argue that
children as young as 9 years old are criminally mature and are already capable of discernment. If this was
the case, then why is the legal age to enter marriage, legal contracts and employment in the Philippines at
18 years old? A 9-year old child has not yet even reached the age of puberty and their brains are not
developed to understand the consequences of actions.

The current proposal is to delay sentence up to a maximum age of 25 years. If a child is jailed at 9 years
old it means that they may have to waste away their life for 17 years under imprisonment until they can
get a sentence for the crime committed. There is no mechanism to protect these children from cohabiting
with hardened criminals and no guarantee that in detention they will be protected from violence and
exploitation in jail.

Detaining children will not teach them accountability for their actions. In order to maximize their
potential to contribute to nation-building, children must grow up in a caring, nurturing and protective
environment. This requires strong parenting support programs and access to health, education and social
services as well as to child-sensitive justice and social welfare systems.

The current Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law, which sets the minimum age of criminal responsibility at
15, already holds children in conflict with the law accountable for their actions. It provides them with
rehabilitation programs using the framework of restorative, not punitive justice.

Noteworthy efforts from the judiciary and the executive agencies like the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Council, Departments of Education and Social Welfare and Development deserve full support of
Congress, particularly on increasing life skills of adolescent learners; establishing an evidence-based
parenting program for babies all the way through adolescence; and decreasing use of detention and
increase use of diversion and community-based mechanisms to address delinquency. UNICEF calls on the
government and civil society to focus on strengthening the implementation of this law instead of
amending it.
Branding children as criminals removes accountability from adults who are responsible for safeguarding
them. If children who have been exploited by criminal syndicates are penalized instead of the adults who
abused them, we fail to uphold the rights and well-being of children. If we fail to understand the
underlying reasons how and why children commit crimes, we as adults, fail our children.

No to lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines

There are moves at the House of Representatives to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility
(MACR) in the Philippines from the current 15 to as young as 9 years old. Senate President Tito Sotto
also filed a bill lowering the MACR to 12 years old.

We appeal to the Philippine Congress to withdraw this proposed law that will treat children as young as 9
or 12 years old as adult criminals.

The Philippines already has a separate justice system for children, through the Juvenile Justice Law of
2006, that must be fully and effectively implemented. Lowering the minimum age of criminal
responsibility (MACR) is a shortsighted solution that will mostly affect the children of the poor.

The MACR is the lowest age by which a person can be charged in court and jailed. We must not ignore
scientific evidence that shows that criminalizing children does not solve the problem of children
committing crimes; it only encourages re-offending. The change we want to see most is the stronger
implementation of the Juvenile Justice Law.

Here are 5 more reasons why the MACR should NOT be lowered:
1. Children are not little adults.
Scientific research shows that “children and adolescents differ significantly from adults in decision-
making, propensity to engage in risky behavior, impulse control, identity development, and overall
maturity.” (Psychological Association of the Philippines, 2016)
Hence, a child should not be held to the same standards as adults. Too young to vote, get married, and
have a driver's license but not too young to be charged for a crime and be held in jails?
2. It will not result in lower crime rates.
According to the Philippine National Police, children commit only 1.72% of total crimes in the
Philippines. Most are petty crimes like theft, which is often linked to poverty.
3. Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility will not stop syndicates from using
children.
It will encourage syndicates to use children younger than 9 or 12 years old.
4. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 does not need to be amended. It needs to be fully
implemented.
The law already provides guidelines on how children who commit crimes should be handled. Contrary to
popular belief, children who commit serious offenses are held accountable. But instead of receiving harsh
punishments, the child is placed in a youth care facility or Bahay Pag-Asa to undergo intensive
intervention programs supervised by a multi-disciplinary team.
5. Jail is no place for a child.
Due to lack of youth care facilities, children will most likely end up in jails where they may be subjected
to violence and abuse. Detention should be the last resort, not the first and only option.
Do we criminalize and punish children just because we have failed our duty or responsibility to fully
implement the law?

Even the Department of Social Welfare and Development has recently released a statement saying:
"A lower age of criminal responsibility results in more children being detained, substantially higher cost
of public expenditure, and an even higher social cost of re-offending and graver offending, which simply
demonstrates that such measure is not cost-effective.”
We encourage the Philippine Congress and our duty-bearers in the government to:
1. Punish the crime syndicates who take advantage of children, not the children who need to be
rescued, supported, and rehabilitated.
2. Push for the full and effective implementation of the law so that both children who commit crimes
and their victims are assisted and supported.
3. Instead of lowering the MACR, support local government units in providing prevention,
intervention, and diversion programs for children.

Should we raise the age of criminal responsibility?

Children are not criminals. Children do not deserve to be robbed the chance for a better future. Children
are also victims.

Another thing, Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility doesn't decrease the crime rate for
only 1. 72% is being contributed by the children. Another thing, We don't have the functional facilities to
accommodate these CICL.

Why experts strongly oppose lowering the age of criminal responsibility

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.”
Armed with years spent treating and dealing with children, experts have said lowering the MACR goes
against science and evidence, which proves there are detrimental risks CICLs face at every moment they
come in contact with the juvenile justice system.
A review of position papers crafted by medical experts, economists, social workers, and childrens ’rights
group showed there were risks posed to children at 3 stages:
• Before a child may commit a crime.
• During a child’s stay in a youth detention center – known as Bahay Pag-Asa (House of Hope) – or
worse, a jail.
• After a child leaves a rehabilitation center or jail.
These risks, they said, outweigh the other supposed benefits of the proposed measures.
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.”

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.