One of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez’s pet measures—a bill lowering the minimum age of criminal liability (MACR)—is running into a wall of opposition.
Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), child rights advocates, and even some of Alvarez’s colleagues are objecting to reducing the MACR from the current 15 to 9.
Adverse effects
They have pointed to a host of adverse effects: the negative impact on physical and mental wellbeing, stigmatization and the likelihood that young detainees would only grow up to be repeat offenders if they are subjected to the criminal justice system.
The Public Attorneys’ Office (PAO), however, is agreeable to lowering it to 12, the minimum “internationally acceptable” level.
At the House justice committee’s first hearing on the proposal last Wednesday, several groups read their position papers on the matter.
At least five House bills seek to revert the MACR—currently 15 years—back to the age of 9, which was enforced before the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006 (JJWA) led to an overhaul of the system for minor offenders.
These include House Bill No. 2, authored by Alvarez and Deputy Speaker Fredenil Castro, which was the first such measure filed during the 17th Congress.
“We want a holistic approach to the implementation of the laws protecting children. We want to protect them, not criminalize them,” Taguiwalo’s media officer Ina Silverio said in response to a question from the Inquirer.
CHR argued that juvenile crime would not be resolved by simply lowering the MACR, pointing to the lack of a thorough study showing the effectiveness of the threat of incarceration in deterring crimes.
More harm than good
On the contrary, numerous studies have shown that early incarceration will do more harm than good, CHR said in a position paper.
“[Their rationale is] syndicates use children [for criminal acts], and that is true,” Maria Regina Hechanova, president of the Psychological Association of the Philippines, told the Inquirer. “Then, why not go after the syndicates, the adults, not the children who do not know any better and are vulnerable?”
Loophole
Deputy Speaker Castro told the Inquirer that the JJWA of 2006 was a “very good law” and the juvenile justice system’s focus on rehabilitation and alternatives to outright conviction was “very good.”
He said that lawmakers only wanted to adjust the floor age of criminal liability to address a “loophole” that caused offenses among younger children to spike.
“In the meantime, criminals or even the kids themselves are using the age of criminal responsibility as a tool to escape responsibility,” he said, adding that lowering the age of criminal responsibility will “call greater responsibility” on everyone’s part.
Moves to lower the MACR are nothing new, as many representatives and senators have already made such a proposal even before the passage of Republic Act No. 10630 in 2012, the law strengthening the juvenile justice system.
When he was campaigning for President, Rodrigo Duterte blamed the JJWA of 2006 for emboldening younger children who would think they could get away with committing crimes.