NECESSITY SPEECH

BY: AFOS

Ladies and gentlemen, to our honorable adjudicators, to

our esteemed moderator, and most specially to our noble

opponents, a pleasant and exciting afternoon to all of you.

The topic raised today is to resolve whether or not House

Bill number 002 or An Act Amending Republic Act No.

9334 As Amended By Republic Act No. 10630, And

Reverting The Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility

From Fifteen Years Old To Nine Years Old should be

passed. We on the affirmative side strongly believe that it is

about time that we fix and amend our aging and out of date

judicial system; and the passage of this bill will pave the

way for such ever needed innovation.

The passage of this bill is necessary to address the fact

that the youth are being used as a tool by syndicates and

other heartless criminals to perpetrate crime. This bill is

actually intended to protect them rather than prosecute

because what the said act intends to put to justice are the

principals by inducement and not the minors who are forced

to act as principals by direct participation.

 According to a study conducted by the Council for

Welfare of Children, it was reported that more than 52,000

Filipino children from 1995 to 2000 were in conflict with

the law. Data from social-welfare said that, from 2001 to

2010 this number dramatically increased close to almost

64,000. This numbers are alarming and WE NEED TO DO

SOMETHING ABOUT IT. If we not, then just imagine the

extent and rise of these figures after six years.

A broader look at the problem of child crime gives us a

better understanding of the situation. Further studies

conducted in the United Kingdom as documented by the

Daily Mail UK, a well known and respected news group in

which they provided figures from 34 of the 45 forces in the

United Kingdom collated under the Freedom of Information

Act showed that 5,665 crimes were committed by children

under 8 in the last four years. Alarmingly, crimes reached a

four-year high in 2014, with 1,713 recorded in consistency

with the data gathered here in the Philippines. Offenses

included fire-raising, possession of drugs, violence and

causing racially or religiously aggravated public fear. This

also comes in the wake of revelations that a total of 154

children, aged 12 and under, were arrested for sex crimes,

including rape and sexual assault. At this rate, England and

Whales peg the criminal liability at age 10.

 Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot just sit idle and let our

youth rot and get eaten by the current rotten system on

juvinile justice.

Many have contested against this bill and are often

misled and have become the victims of false, irrational, and

twisted information that blinded their capability to

comprehend and appreciate change.

The critics of House Bill 002 will often fallaciously argue

that the said act is against the welfare of the youth because

it incarcerates them and allegedly violates their right to

liberty. This is a shallow and maleducated argument and is

mostly used to maliciously mislead unsuspecting people and

trick them into heeding to mediocrity and senselessness.

Ladies and gentlemen, ignorance is always afraid of change.

Criminal liability does not necessarily mean imprisoning

youth defenders, on the contrary juvinile delinquents or

minors who found guilty of committing a crime, in

accordance with House Bill 002 and pre-existing laws, will

still be subject to the custody of DSWD or any licensed non-

government agency. The offender will still undergo an

extensive rehabilitation program. In fact, the above-

mentioned bill does not repeal the provisions of the pre-

existing law which mandates that children in conflict with

the law are not to be treated like an adult crime offender as

decided in the case of Tubianosa and in Niel Llave Vs

People of the Philippines G.R No. 166040. Ergo, lowering

the criminal liability of the youth in the Philippines does not

prohibit their exercise of rights but rather asserts and

strengthens it. In fact, Section 6 of HB002 provides that, A

CHILD UNDER 9 YEARS OF AGE AT THE TIME OF THE

COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE SHALL BE EXEMPT

FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY. HOWEVER, SUCH CHILD

SHALL BE SUBJECT TO AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM

UNDER SECTION 20 OF THIS ACT.

A CHILD SHALL BE DEEMED NINE (9) YEARS OF AGE

ON THE DAY OF THE NINTH ANNIVERSARY OF

HIS/HER BIRTHDATE.

A CHILD NINE (9) YEARS OF AGE AND ABOVE BUT

BELOW EIGHTEEN (18) YEARS SHALL LIKEWISE BE

EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY AND SUBJECTED

TO AN INTERVENTION PROGRAM UNLESS HE/SHE IS

DETERMINED TO HAVE ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT, IN

WHICH CASE HE/SHE SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO

APPROPRIATE PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH

THIS ACT.
 This specific provision further reiterates that HB002 is

actually pro-youth and caters to the ever changing needs of

youth offenders contrary to the twisted logic of its

adversaries.

In conclusion, I would like to knock at your hearts and to

the hearts of my opponents to help you understand that

change is not always a bad thing. Let us not be afraid to face

our problems and find a feasible solution them by accepting

fact and innovation rather than to try and twist the truth to

suit our faulty emotions. Ladies and gentlemen, choose

innovation over mediocrity, choose wisdom over emotion,

choose fact over opinion, and let us all accept the necessity

of change. Thank you.

Questions For Interpolation

1.) According to HB002, are persons under 18 years of

age exempt from criminal liability?

2.) If they are exempted, will they be punished?

3.) If they are exempted and are not punished, then does

that violate any of the rights you mentioned in your

speech?

4.) In HB002, in relation to persons under 18, what is

penlized? Dolo or culpa?

5.) In the crimes which are committed through dolo,

what are the three elements? (Freedom, Intelligence,

intent)

6.) If these three are present, then there is a crime am I

correct?

7.) should crimes be punished?

7.) According to HB002 with relation to minors, can a

crime be committed by means of culpa?

8.) No, because discernment is a requisite am I correct?

9.)Are you aware that according to a collaborative study

of Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International

Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings

Institution, that human beings gain the capability to

discern between right and wrong at the age of 9-12

years old?

10.) So in this stage they are already capable of

intelligence?

15.) So if there is already freedom, intelligence, or

intent, according to your answer earlier, a crime is

consumated?

11.) And according to you earlier, crimes should be

punished?

12.
13.) Are you aware of the three theories of penology?

(Classical, positivist, mixed eccentric)

classical - puts more emphasis on the felonious act

Positivist - puts more emphasis on the offender

14.) What theory does our penal laws adhere to? ( mixed

15.) So do you agree with me when I say that when a

crime is consumated, our judicial system should

condemn or punish the act in accordance with the

classical theory of penology?

16.) So what is punished according to this bill, is the

crime and not the minors, do you agree?

17.) Will an adult criminal be treated the same as a

minor offender if HB002 will be passed?

18.) Are you aware of the case of LLave vs people of the

philippines?