POSITION PAPER OF THE PHILIPPINE PEDIATRIC SOCIETY ON HOUSE BILL 002

OR “THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT”

Introduction
(Presentation of the Issue, problem, controversy, the arguable point of the position paper, p.105 LEAPP)

The House Bill no. 002 seeks to amend specifically Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9344 or The Juvenile
Justice Welfare Act, as amended by Republic Act no. 10630, by reverting the minimum age of criminal
responsibility (MACR) from 15 years old to 9 years old, provided that the child acted with discernment.
In the exploratory note of the said House Bill, it states that the raising of MACR to 15 years old has
resulted to “pampering of youthful offenders who commit crimes knowing they can get away with it.”
Furthermore, it presupposes that children above 9 years old are considered to be “fully informed
because all forms and manner of knowledge are available through the internet and digital media
therefore they should be taught that they are responsible for what they say and do.”

A child under the age of criminal responsibility lacks the capacity to commit a crime. This means they are
immune from criminal prosecution – they cannot be formally charged by authorities with an offense nor
be subjected to any criminal law procedures or measures. The significance of the minimum age of
criminal responsibility is that it recognizes that a child has attained the emotional, mental and
intellectual maturity to be held responsible for their actions. Hence, bearing in mind the mental,
emotional and intellectual maturity of children and adolescents, the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC) which was ratified by the Philippine government in July 1990, has
recommended States parties to set their minimum age of criminal responsibility not lower than 12 years
and has encouraged increasing it at a higher level. This means setting an MACR below 12 years old is
considered not to be internationally acceptable.

Claim
(your position that states your opinion,preference,understanding,preference and standpoint, p.105 LEAPP)

Therefore, we at the Philippine Pediatric Society STRONGLY OPPOSE lowering of the minimum age of
criminal responsibility to 9 years old. We stand by maintaining the MACR at 15 years old, as amended by
RA No. 10630, and the strengthening of our juvenile justice system by strict implementation of the
existing laws and supporting stakeholders in improving our facilities for children in conflict with the law.
Arguments
(serves as evidences to prove and support the claim or position, page 106, LEAPP)

With this we present Neurodevelopmental and Psychosocial developmental facts that support this
position:

1. Neuroscience research has proven that the brain does not fully develop until age 25. The prefrontal
cortex of the frontal lobe which is responsible for executive functions such as decision making, planning
and impulse control of the brain undergoes dramatic development only during the adolescent years.
While the developing and immature limbic system at this period helps to process emotions, emotions
are often left un-tempered and unregulated because of the underdeveloped frontal lobe. As such,
decision-making and judgment are often compromised. This means that even if children have adequate
intelligence for their age, their judgment can lead to faulty decisions as they may still often act in
accordance with their impulse and/or emotions rather than reasoned judgment. Therefore, children do
not yet have the wherewithal to independently regulate and control their own thoughts and emotions,
especially in highly complex, stressful, and nuanced situations. In relation to this, discernment when it
comes to matters between right and wrong is not solely based on whether a child has greater access to
information through media or internet. 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, who still have limited life experiences and therefore limited worldview to learn
and apply what they are taught.

2. As drawn from theories of cognitive and moral development, children’s discernment of right and
wrong matures not only through education but also through the stages of their brain development. A
younger child, for example, would not be able to fully anticipate all the possible consequences of their
actions for themselves and society as a whole. An older child of 16 years, is able to consider rules based
on intention and outcome thus can make informed decisions especially when properly guided. This older
comprehension of morality is able to take into account other groups of people and society as a whole.
These stages are reached incrementally and it is impossible to conclude that an individual will have
reached a certain level of cognition by a particular age. These stages of development highlight that while
children may appear to identify right and wrong behavior, they lack an appreciation for why rules exist
and the implications of these rules in the society. Younger children, therefore, need protection from the
law and should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.

3. Progress toward completion of cognitive and moral developmental stages can be detoured or delayed
by cultural, intellectual and social disadvantage. Children in conflict with the law typically have risk
factors such as poverty, mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to crime and violence,
homelessness, child abuse and neglect. It is unreasonable to hold a child criminally responsible for
actions made when a child is exposed in an impoverished and brutal environment. It is therefore
unreasonable to expect a developing child to already discern right from wrong when he or she grew up
in an environment and household where what is right may not be that different from what is wrong.
Therefore, to hold a child criminally responsible for such is to put the entire community’s problems on
the child’s shoulders. Furthermore, research has identified how hardships early in life such as
experiences of child abuse and neglect can inhibit the development, result in intense and cumulative
harm, and have long term impacts on health and social outcomes. In these settings, a child’s ability to
develop important emotional, social and cognitive skills that are necessary for criminal responsibility is
diminished, leading the child to be behind his or her peers in a broad range of competencies.

The solution to the growing problem in crime must target the root cause. The problem of children in
conflict with the law is a manifestation or a consequence of a dysfunctional society. The moral
decadence in our society has reached such a level that calls for concern. A child offending must be seen
as a product of a deteriorating values system and lack of role models in a family unit. They are not the
problem to be solved but a resource to harness. The lowering of the MACR undermines all evidences
regarding a child’s moral, intellectual and emotional development.

The Philippine Pediatric Society reiterates its opposition to bring down the minimum age of criminal
responsibility to 9 years old, and proposes to direct efforts in improving the juvenile justice system by
mobilizing local government units to mandate provisions that support existing structures at the
community level such as the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) and the Children’s
Justice Committee (CJC); For the police to adopt structural changes in their organization that will
guarantee effective handling of cases of CICL wherein focus is in catching adults that make use of
children to commit crimes more than punishing the children; and upgrading detention facilities and
rehabilitation centers to more humane conditions, including minimizing abuse or practices that impede
a child’s development and training personnel that will offer multi-disciplinary approach to rehabilitation
programs.

Although improving the legislative framework of the juvenile justice system is imperative, prevention
offers long-term solutions. Alleviating conditions that serve as foundation to delinquent behaviour such
as disintegration of the family unit, lack of education and poverty proves to be a protective strategy to
prevent children offending. Therefore, it is equally important to focus on improving social systems by
advocating family stability and providing opportunities for quality education that provides social and
academic growth that ensure successful development of children.

Take note: It is also important to present important viewpoints or counterarguments in order to make
the position paper sound unbiased. This should further strengthen the position. The opposing
viewpoints and arguments are intended to be disproven and refuted to weaken the opponent’s
position and to reinforce the author’s position or claim. (p, 106, LEAPP)

For additional guidelines you may refer to pages 109-111 of your LEAPP book
References:

Alampay, L.P. (2006). Risk factors and causal processes in juvenile delinquency: Research and
implications for prevention. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 39(1),195-228.

Bradley, L 2003, ‘The Age of Criminal Responsibility Revisited’, Deakin Law Review, 8 (1), Deakin
University, Victoria, pp. 86-29. Available at: http://138.25.65.22/au/journals/
DeakinLawRw/2003/4.html

Breaking rules: Children in conflict with the law and the juvenile justice process: The experience in the
Philippines. (2004). Quezon City, Philippines: Save the Children UK

Crofts, T 2003, ‘Doli Incapax: Why Children Deserve its Protection’, Murdoch University Electronic
Journal of Law, 10 (3). Available at: https://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/ v10n3/crofts103.html

Jesuit Social Services and Effective Change Pty Ltd 2013, Thinking Outside: Alternatives to remand for
children, Jesuit Social Services, Richmond. Available at: http:// www.jss.org.au/files/Docs/policy-and-
advocacy/ publications/Thinking_Outside_Research_Report_-Final_ amend_15052013.pdf

Mathews, B 2001, Australian Laws Ascribing Criminal Responsibility to Children: The Implications of an
Internal Critique, Postmodern Insights, and a Deconstructive Exploration, PhD thesis, Queensland
University of Technology, Brisbane. Available at: http://eprints.qut.edu.
au/15805/1/Benjamin_Mathews_Thesis.pdf

Snow, P & Powell, M 2012, ‘Youth (in)justice: Oral language competence in early life and risk for
engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence’, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no.
355, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra. Available at: http://www.aic.gov.au/
media_library/publications/tandi_pdf/tandi435.pdf

UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC), CRC General Comment No. 10 (2007): Children’s Rights
in Juvenile Justice, 25 April 2007, CRC/C/GC/10 Paragraph 32

Weinberger, D, Elvevåg, B & Giedd, J N 2005, The Adolescent Brain: A Work in Progress, The Campaign
to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, Washington. Available at: http://web.calstatela.
edu/faculty/dherz/Teenagebrain.workinprogress.pd