Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
Position Paper by Veronica Dumanop
The Justice on Committee of the House of Representatives approved House bill No.002,
which seeks to amend Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act (JIWA) of
2006, as amended by Republic Act No. 10630, lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility (MACR) from 15 years old to 9 years old. The bill would mandate that children 9
years old and above who will commit serious crime will be subjected to mandatory confinement.
As a concern student, I strongly believe that this bill is a very improvident solution
because children are not responsible for their misconduct. And instead of going after the
children, it should be the adults who must be seriously held accountable for the crimes and for
using and taking advantage of the children who are clearly the victims in such circumstances
thus I strongly disapproved in lowering the age of criminal responsibility.
Lowering the age of criminal liability is an improvident solution because it violates
Republic Act No. 7610 or known as Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation
and Discrimination Act. It was stated in section 3 of Article 1, that putting children to jail is
already considered as child abuse for it debases the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being. And according to BTS National Network incarcerating children obviously
contradicts the best interest of the child, taking away the child’s rights to maximum survival,
development and protection. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund
(UNICEF), said that 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 and they also said children should be given a chance to reform and
rehabilitate.
Furthermore, I believe that children should not be treated like adults because they are not
yet fully-developed person and they have a limited knowledge in identifying the difference
between good and bad. Psychological Association of the Philippines (2016) stated that children
and adolescents differ significantly from adults in decision-making, propensity to engage in risky
behavior, impulse control, identity development, and overall maturity. And according to
Laurence Steinberg, a Professor of Psychology, logical reasoning mature by the time people
reaches the age of 16, added to this, brain underdevelopment and socio-emotional changes
among children influence their decision-making and susceptibility to perform risky activities. In
addition to this, Liane Pena Alampay, a Developmental Psychologist noted that children and
teenagers do not yet have the cognitive capacity to make reasoned decisions, to control their
emotions, and to consider with forethought the consequences of their actions the same way most
adults can. And this is the reason why children do whatever they want even if it is not good
because it is their nature that is why it is responsibility of the parents to guide these children. So
putting an immature 9 year old child who is still struggling in identifying what is good and bad to
jail is an unlawful act. And instead of tackling the fruits, why not uplift the roots?
The problem of children in committing crimes will not be solved by putting in restrictive
environment like Bahay Pag-asa or even to jails. In accordance to this, BTS National Network
mentioned that if we imprison children, they will be labeled as criminals from young age by our
society and we are robbing also their chance in our society. And for my own view, the harsh
condition in obstruct jail should not be experienced by a child because the children will more
likely expose to adult criminals and may contribute in making the children more likely to
become hardened offenders. And as cited in PhilStar Global, Hontiveros said that instead of
thinking about at what age children should be considered as criminals, the government should
focus in improving programs that would ensure they would stay out of conflict with the law.
Our policy makers must uphold what is stated in the Constitution, and that is to recognize
the vital role of the youth in nation building and promote and protect their physical, moral,
spiritual, intellectual and social well-being. And the House Bill No. 002 is a clear contradiction
to this. So as a concern student I will stand for “No to the lowering of Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility.”
