Motion 3:
Resolved that, the Philippines enact a law that lowers the criminal liability of children committing a
crime from 15 years old to 12 years old
Definition of Terms
Criminal Liability- legal responsibility for committing a crime, subject to appropriate penalties under the
law.
Children- individuals under the age of 18, but the focus here is on those between 12 and 15 years old.
Criminal offense- any act deemed illegal by the law of the land, which can range from theft to more
serious crimes such as murder or assault.
Parameters
Age Threshold
The key issue is lowering the age at which minors can be held criminally liable. Specifically, the
resolution proposes lowering the current age threshold from 15 years to 12 years. The question at hand
is whether 12-year-olds have the maturity and understanding of the consequences of their actions to be
held accountable in the criminal justice system.
Nature of Crimes
We will discuss whether certain types of crimes, particularly serious or violent offenses, are better
handled by treating young offenders as criminally responsible from a younger age. The resolution does
not necessarily apply to all crimes equally, so there may be differentiation in how this rule would be
applied depending on the offense.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment
The debate will involve the balance between rehabilitation and punishment. While the law might
impose legal consequences, the focus will also be on whether lowering the age of liability allows for
better opportunities for rehabilitation and reintegration for young offenders.
Impact on Youth Crime Rates
The debate may address the relationship between the lowering of the criminal liability age and the
potential reduction or increase in youth crime rates. Would lowering the age of liability reduce juvenile
crime, or could it have adverse effects on young people's behavior and future outcomes?
Social and Legal Implications
The debate also involves the broader social impact, including the rights of children, the role of the
family, and the ability of the justice system to provide appropriate interventions for minors. It raises
questions about the balance between protecting the rights of children and ensuring public safety.
AFFIRMATIVE: Lower the age of criminal liability to 12 years old.
1. Deterrence Against Juvenile Delinquency
Point: Lowering the age of criminal liability to 12 would discourage children from committing crimes as
they would know there are consequences.
Supporting Fact:
- Juvenile crime syndicates exploit children as young as 12 to commit theft, drug trafficking, and other
crimes because of their legal immunity under Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006).
- In 2023, PNP reports indicated an increase in children involved in crimes such as theft and illegal
drugs.
2. Alignment with International Practices
Point: A lowered age aligns with international standards on juvenile justice.
Supporting Fact:
- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) allows countries to set their
minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) as low as 12 years old.
- Countries such as the United States (some states at 12) and England (10 years) enforce this policy
while ensuring rehabilitation programs.
3. Rehabilitation and Early Intervention
Point: Holding children accountable at an earlier age allows for intervention and rehabilitation before
criminal tendencies worsen.
Supporting Fact:
- The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) reported in 2021 that proper juvenile
intervention programs could reduce repeat offenses by 30%.
- Countries like Singapore implement rehabilitation-centered juvenile systems for offenders as young as
7 years old.
4. Addressing Syndicate Exploitation
Point: Crime syndicates use children as scapegoats due to their lack of liability under the current law.
Supporting Fact:
- Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde noted in 2018 that minors are often caught carrying drugs for
syndicates, who exploit their exemption from criminal charges under RA 9344.
- Data from 2018 Senate hearings revealed that minors involved in syndicate operations were as young
as 10 years old.
NEGATIVE: Retain the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15 years old.
1. Child Development and Cognitive Capacity
Point: Children below 15 lack full cognitive maturity to understand the consequences of their actions.
Supporting Fact:
- The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) emphasized in 2019 that cognitive and emotional development
continues until the age of 18.
- Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2020 found that the brain's prefrontal
cortex, responsible for decision-making, is underdeveloped in children aged 12-14.
2. Violation of Child Rights
Point : Lowering the age of liability undermines the rights of the child as protected under Philippine and
international law.
Supporting Fact:
- Republic Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act)
protects children under 15 from criminal prosecution.
- UNICEF Philippines, in 2019, strongly opposed lowering the MACR, citing the violation of the UNCRC
principles.
3. Ineffectiveness in Reducing Crime
Point: Lowering criminal liability does not address the root causes of juvenile delinquency, such as
poverty and lack of education.
Supporting Fact:
- The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 2022 highlighted that most children in conflict with the
law (CICL) come from impoverished communities.
- A 2021 study by the University of the Philippines found that poverty-related issues drive 80% of CICL
cases, suggesting that addressing systemic problems is more effective.
4. Strain on the Juvenile Justice System
Point: Lowering the MACR would overwhelm an already struggling juvenile justice system.
Supporting Fact:
- In 2023, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) reported insufficient Bahay Pag-asa
rehabilitation centers in the Philippines, with only 64 operational centers across 81 provinces.
- A 2019 report from the Senate revealed that many of these centers lack proper facilities and trained
personnel, leading to neglect and abuse of CICLs
~NECESSITY~
The issue of children committing crimes is a pressing concern that demands legal reform to address
loopholes in the current system.
Affirmative:
- Crime syndicates exploit the current MACR of 15 years old, using minors to execute criminal activities
with impunity. Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde reported in 2018 that minors are often involved in
drug trafficking and theft, knowing they cannot be held criminally liable. Lowering the MACR to 12 is
necessary to close this loophole and protect society.
- The United Nations permits countries to set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12,
recognizing this as a balanced standard. Aligning with this will enhance the Philippines' compliance with
global practices.
Negative:
- Lowering the MACR undermines the principles of juvenile justice under Republic Act 9344 and
Republic Act 7610, which aim to protect children in conflict with the law (CICL).
- According to the Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) in 2019, children under 15 are not developmentally
mature enough to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, making such a legal reform
unnecessary.
~BENEFICIALITY~
The benefits of lowering or retaining the MACR depend on whether it will lead to better societal
outcomes.
Affirmative:
Crime Reduction: Lowering the MACR would deter juvenile delinquency by ensuring accountability. In
countries like Singapore, stricter policies coupled with rehabilitation programs for young offenders have
been effective in reducing recidivism.
Child Protection: The reform will protect children from syndicates who exploit them, as legal
consequences would discourage their involvement in crime.
Rehabilitation: Early intervention at age 12 ensures that children in conflict with the law receive
structured rehabilitation, preventing them from becoming repeat offenders.
Negative:
Violation of Rights: UNICEF Philippines strongly opposed lowering the MACR in 2019, arguing that it is
not beneficial to treat children as adults in the justice system, as it risks stigmatization and permanent
psychological harm.
Addressing Root Causes: Poverty and lack of education drive 80% of CICL cases (2021 UP Study). The
current law, which focuses on intervention and community-based rehabilitation, is more beneficial in
addressing these systemic issues.
Systemic Burden: The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) in 2023 reported that the lack of
operational Bahay Pag-asa centers means lowering the MACR will further strain the juvenile justice
system, harming both CICLs and the system itself.
~PRACTICALITY~
Practical implementation is crucial to determine the feasibility of lowering or maintaining the MACR.
Affirmative:
Feasibility of Implementation: The Philippine government already has laws such as RA 9344, which
mandates rehabilitation programs for CICLs. Lowering the MACR would work within this framework,
focusing on enhancing existing programs rather than overhauling the system.
International Standards: Countries like England (10 years) and some U.S. states (12 years) have
successfully implemented laws holding young offenders accountable while ensuring access to
rehabilitation programs. The Philippines can adapt similar models.
Negative:
Resource Constraints: The lack of adequate Bahay Pag-asa facilities, as reported in 2023, highlights the
impracticality of implementing the proposed change. Without proper facilities and funding, children may
be detained in adult facilities, violating their rights.
Risk of Abuse: Lowering the MACR risks CICLs being misclassified as adult offenders in the absence of
proper age verification mechanisms. This is impractical in a country where legal and administrative
processes are often slow and error-prone
SUPPORTING FACTS (AFFIRMATIVE & NEGATIVE)
Affirmative (Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability to 12 Years Old)
1. Increased Involvement of Minors in Crime:
- In 2018, PNP data showed that over 11,000 children were involved in crimes, including theft, robbery,
and drug-related activities, often exploited by syndicates. Lowering the MACR addresses this
exploitation by imposing liability on minors.
2. International Standards:
- The United Nations permits a minimum age of criminal responsibility as low as 12 years, aligning with
practices in countries like **Singapore (7 years)** and **England (10 years)** while maintaining
provisions for rehabilitation.
3. Deterrence Effect:
- Crime syndicates exploit the current MACR of 15 years by using children to commit crimes with no
accountability. Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde highlighted that syndicates recruit minors because of
their exemption from criminal liability.
4. Rehabilitation Programs:
- RA 9344 already mandates intervention and rehabilitation programs. Lowering the MACR would
integrate younger offenders into these programs earlier, preventing them from becoming repeat
offenders.
5. Public Safety:
- Studies from countries with lower MACRs, such as **South Korea (14 years)**, have shown that
addressing juvenile crime early reduces repeat offenses and ensures safer communities.
Negative (Maintaining the Age of Criminal Liability at 15 Years Old)
1. Developmental Science:
- The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) stated in 2019 that children under 15 lack full cognitive and
emotional maturity to understand the consequences of their actions, making criminal liability at 12
inappropriate.
2. Violation of Child Rights:
- UNICEF Philippines and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) strongly opposed lowering the
MACR, arguing it contradicts the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which
emphasizes protection and rehabilitation, not punishment.
3. Poverty and Root Causes:
- A 2021 study by the University of the Philippines found that 80% of CICLs come from impoverished
communities. Addressing poverty and lack of education is more effective than punitive measures.
4. Systemic Challenges:
- The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) reported in 2023 that only 64 Bahay Pag-asa centers
exist nationwide, many of which lack resources. Lowering the MACR would overwhelm an already
inadequate system.
5. Risk of Abuse in Detention:
- A 2019 Senate investigation revealed cases of abuse and neglect in facilities handling CICLs. Lowering
the MACR would expose younger children to similar risks without proper safeguards in place.
INTERPELLATION QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS/SUPPORTING FACTS
For the Affirmative Side
1. Question: If syndicates are exploiting minors under the current minimum age of responsibility
(MACR), how will lowering the age to 12 prevent this?
Answer: Lowering the MACR ensures accountability, making it less attractive for syndicates to exploit
children. Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde (2018) highlighted that syndicates use children because they
cannot be held liable under RA 9344.
2. Question:How does lowering the MACR align with international standards?
Answer:The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) allows the minimum age of criminal
responsibility to be set as low as 12, as practiced in countries like Singapore (7 years)and England (10
years).
3. Question:Is it fair to hold a 12-year-old criminally liable when they are still developing?
Answer: Yes, but the focus remains on rehabilitation. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC)
supports intervention programs to guide children in conflict with the law, ensuring accountability
without harsh penalties (RA 9344).
4. Question: How does lowering the MACR deter crimes?
Answer:It reduces the incentive for syndicates to use children in illegal activities. The 2018 PNP report
found minors were involved in over 11,000 cases of theft and drug crimes due to their immunity from
prosecution.
5. Question:Does this reform mean imprisoning 12-year-olds?
Answer: No. Children in conflict with the law will be placed in rehabilitation facilities, not adult prisons,
as mandated under RA 9344.
6. Question: How will the government ensure proper rehabilitation for children?
Answer: By enhancing Bahay Pag-asa centers, as required under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
Rehabilitation-focused countries like South Korea (14 years) show the benefits of early intervention.
7. Question:Aren’t interventions already available under the current MACR?
Answer: Yes, but they are less effective because they exclude children aged 12-14. Early intervention is
critical, as supported by the DSWD’s 2021 report on rehabilitation reducing repeat offenses by 30%.
8. Question:Are there successful examples of countries with lower MACRs?
Answer:Yes, Singapore and England have lower MACRs paired with strong rehabilitation systems,
proving that accountability and support can coexist effectively.
9. Question: What happens to children if the MACR remains at 15?
Answer: They will continue to be exploited by syndicates. The 2018 Senate hearing revealed
syndicates often manipulate minors under 15 to commit crimes.
10. Question: How does this reform address public safety?
Answer: Lowering the MACR reduces juvenile crime rates by holding offenders accountable and
rehabilitating them early, as seen in countries with stricter juvenile justice systems, such as South Korea.
For the Negative Side
1. Question: How does lowering the MACR impact child rights?
Answer: It violates the UNCRC principles by treating children as adults in the justice system. UNICEF
Philippines opposed this move in 2019, citing the importance of rehabilitation over punishment.
2. Question: Are 12-year-olds capable of understanding their actions?
Answer: No. The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) in 2019 stated that children under 15 lack cognitive
maturity to fully grasp the consequences of their actions.
3. Question: How does poverty influence juvenile crime?
Answer: Most children in conflict with the law (CICL) come from impoverished communities. A 2021
UP study found that 80% of CICL cases were driven by poverty-related issues like hunger and lack of
education.
4. Question: Are there enough facilities to support more CICLs under this reform?
Answer: No. As of 2023, the JJWC reported that only 64 Bahay Pag-asa centers exist, many of which
lack funding and proper facilities, making the system unprepared for this change.
5. Question: How will lowering the MACR affect rehabilitation efforts?
Answer: It risks overburdening the system. A 2019 Senate report highlighted poor conditions in
juvenile centers, with many failing to provide proper care for current CICLs.
6. Question: Does punishing minors reduce crime rates?
Answer: No. Studies show that punitive measures are less effective than addressing root causes. In
2021, CHR emphasized the need for community-based interventions rather than lowering the MACR.
7. Question: How does the current MACR align with child development science?
Answer: It aligns with developmental milestones. The APA (2020) found that the brain's prefrontal
cortex, responsible for decision-making, develops significantly after age 15.
8. Question: Will lowering the MACR discourage syndicate exploitation?
Answer: No. Syndicates may still exploit children under 12. Addressing syndicate operations directly is a
more effective solution, as suggested by CHR in 2022.
9. Question: Are there examples of failures with lower MACRs in other countries?
Answer: Yes. Countries like the United States have faced criticism for harsh juvenile justice systems,
leading to high rates of recidivism and societal inequality (UNICEF report, 2020).
10. Question: What are the risks of detention for younger children?
Answer: Younger children may face abuse and neglect in detention. A 2019 Senate hearing revealed
multiple cases of CICLs being mistreated due to inadequate resources and oversight in juvenile facilities
CASES & LAWSUITS WITH SUPPORTING FACTS
Affirmative (Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability to 12 Years Old)
1. People of the Philippines v. Ryan Mercado (2004)
Facts: A 13-year-old boy was manipulated by a syndicate to act as a courier for illegal drugs. Under the
pre-RA 9344 law, the minor was prosecuted but received reduced sentencing.
Relevance:This case highlights how children are exploited by syndicates due to their vulnerability.
Lowering the MACR would discourage syndicates from using children for criminal activities.
2. Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency (2018)
Facts: During hearings, the PNP presented evidence that children under 15 were increasingly involved
in drug trafficking and robbery, often manipulated by adults to avoid prosecution.
Relevance: These hearings emphasized the need for reforms to hold minors accountable and prevent
their exploitation in organized crimes.
3. RA 9344 Challenges (2010)
Facts: Law enforcement agencies petitioned for amendments to RA 9344, arguing it limited their
ability to combat juvenile delinquency, especially when minors were used by crime syndicates.
Relevance: The petition showcased the operational challenges of addressing juvenile crimes under the
existing MACR of 15 years.
4. People v. Gutierrez (2015)
Facts: A 14-year-old was apprehended for theft and was released due to the immunity provided by RA
9344. The victim challenged the law, claiming it denied justice to victims of crimes by minors.
Relevance: This case underscores the need for accountability, even for minors, to uphold justice for
victims.
5. Senate Bill No. 2198 (2019)
Facts: This bill proposed lowering the MACR from 15 to 12 years old to curb syndicate exploitation and
ensure accountability for crimes committed by minors.
Relevance: The proposal reflects legislative acknowledgment of the necessity to adjust the MACR to
address societal issues effectively.
Negative (Maintaining the Age of Criminal Liability at 15 Years Old)
1. People of the Philippines v. Agustin Fernandez (2007)
Facts: A 14-year-old was convicted of theft under the pre-RA 9344 legal framework. Psychologists
testified that the child lacked full comprehension of their actions, leading to public criticism of the law.
Relevance: This case prompted discussions on the necessity of RA 9344, emphasizing the importance
of focusing on rehabilitation instead of punishment for minors.
2. Child Rights Advocates v. Republic of the Philippines (2019)
Facts: UNICEF Philippines and local NGOs filed a complaint opposing Senate Bill No. 2198, arguing it
violated international child rights standards under the UNCRC.
Relevance: This case reflects the global and local opposition to lowering the MACR, highlighting its
potential harm to children’s rights.
3. People v. Salonga (2011)
Facts: A 12-year-old involved in a gang robbery was caught but not detained due to RA 9344. The
courts ruled for community-based intervention, which successfully rehabilitated the minor.
Relevance: This case shows the effectiveness of the current juvenile justice system in rehabilitating
young offenders without lowering the MACR.
4. CHR v. Philippine Congress (2019)
Facts: The Commission on Human Rights filed a position paper against the proposed MACR reduction,
arguing it was unconstitutional and failed to consider developmental science.
Relevance: This case strengthens the argument that lowering the MACR contradicts the constitutional
protection of children’s rights.
5. Senate Investigation on Bahay Pag-asa Facilities (2023)
Facts: A Senate inquiry revealed that Bahay Pag-asa centers were underfunded and overcrowded,
leading to abuse and neglect of children in conflict with the law.
Relevance: This investigation demonstrates the systemic challenges of the juvenile justice system,
highlighting the impracticality of lowering the MACR without addressing existing issues.
https://legalresearchph.com/2021/02/02/the-subject-of-crime-a-legal-perspective-on-the-minimum-
age-of-criminal-responsibility/#:~:text=The%20House%20of%20Representatives%20approved%20a
%20final%20reading%20of%20House,undergo%20diversion%20activities%20or%20programs
