An Overview on the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines

One of the most controversial issues the Philippines is facing today is the
continued rise in criminality specifically committed by citizens belonging to the age of
minority. Concerns have been raised as to the seemingly changing behavior of the
children of today, this has even ignited some legislative will as to the application of laws
concerning this matter.
The Philippine Laws provides for the handling and treatment of juvenile related
cases such as: Republic Act No. 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act” which
defines the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System as a system dealing with children at risk
and children in conflict with the law, which provides child-appropriate proceedings,
including programs and services for prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration
and aftercare to ensure their normal growth and development; and Republic Act No.
10630, an act strengthening the juvenile justice system in the Philippines, amending for
the purpose republic act no. 9344 and appropriating funds therefor.
In the aforementioned laws, instead of using the word “juvenile”, it made use of
the word “child”. As defined in R.A. No. 9344, “Child” is a person under the age of
eighteen (18) years. “Child at Risk” refers to a child who is vulnerable to and at the risk
of committing criminal offences because of personal, family and social circumstances
like those living in a community with a high level of criminality or drug abuse and being
abandoned or neglected. On the other hand, “Child in Conflict with the Law” or CICL
was defined as a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an
offence under Philippine laws.
Special laws or the amended Revised Penal Code may punish an act committed or
omitted by a child which is referred to as an “Offense”. “Status Offences” are offences
which only apply to a child and not to adults under Republic Act 10630. If committed by
a child, these shall not be considered as offences and shall not be punished. Examples of
status offences include curfew violations, truancy, parental disobedience and the like.
During the term of former President Ferdinand Marcos, Sr., and before R.A. No.
9344 was enacted, children at risk and CICL were given the same treatment much like
adult offenders under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Said law abolished the
juvenile and domestic relations courts.
R.A. No. 9344 although enacted in 2006 aims to deal with these children without
resorting to judicial proceedings as an offshoot of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The State shall provide, along with the community,
assistance to these child offenders instead of punishing juvenile offenders and treating
them as criminals for the purpose of preventing the, from committing offenses in the
future.
The concept of “restorative justice” as opposed to retributive justice has also been
introduced by R.A. No. 9344. It espouses resolving conflicts with the maximum
involvement of the victim, the offender and the community. It primarily aims to achieve
reparation for the victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended and the community,
and enhancement of public safety. It also ensures that the child’s rights will not be
infringed when he/she admits to the offence. Cases prior to the enactment benefited in the
retroactivity of the said law favoring the accused, thus in Ortega vs. People:

“Petitioner argues that, while it is true that the factual findings of the CA
are conclusive on this Court, we are not prevented from overturning such
findings if the CA had manifestly overlooked certain facts of substance and value
which if considered might affect the result of the case…xxx… On the other hand,
respondent People of the Philippines through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) contends that: the arguments raised by the petitioner are mere reiterations
of his disquisitions before the CA; the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, did not rely on
the testimonies of both doctors since despite the absence of abrasions, rape is
consummated even with the slightest penetration of the lips of the female organ;
what is relevant in this case is the reliable testimony of AAA that petitioner raped
her in August and December of 1996; even in the absence of force, rape was
committed considering AAA's age at that time; as such, AAA did not have any ill
motive in accusing petitioner; and it is established that the crime of rape could be
committed even in the presence of other people nearby. Moreover, the OSG relies
on the doctrine that the evaluation made by a trial court is accorded the highest
respect as it had the opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness
and to determine whether said witness was telling the truth or not. Lastly, the
OSG claims that petitioner acted with discernment when he committed the said
crime, as manifested in his covert acts.”

“However, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006, was enacted into law on April 28, 2006 and it took effect on
May 20, 2006. The law establishes a comprehensive system to manage children in
conflict with the law (CICL) and children at risk with child-appropriate
procedures and comprehensive programs and services such as prevention,
intervention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-integration and after-care programs
geared towards their development. In order to ensure its implementation, the law,
particularly Section 8 thereof, has created the Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Council (JJWC) and vested it with certain duties and functions such as the
formulation of policies and strategies to prevent juvenile delinquency and to
enhance the administration of juvenile justice as well as the treatment and
rehabilitation of the CICL. The law also provides for the immediate dismissal of
cases of CICL, specifically Sections 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68 of R.A. No. 9344's
Transitory Provisions.

The said Transitory Provisions expressly provide:

Title VIII

Transitory Provisions

SECTION 64. Children in Conflict with the Law Fifteen (15) Years Old
and Below. -- Upon effectivity of this Act, cases of children fifteen (15) years old
and below at the time of the commission of the crime shall immediately be
dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local social welfare
and development officer. Such officer, upon thorough assessment of the child,
shall determine whether to release the child to the custody of his/her parents, or
refer the child to prevention programs, as provided under this Act. Those with
suspended sentences and undergoing rehabilitation at the youth rehabilitation
center shall likewise be released, unless it is contrary to the best interest of the
child.

SECTION 65. Children Detained Pending Trial. -- If the child is detained

pending trial, the Family Court shall also determine whether or not continued
detention is necessary and, if not, determine appropriate alternatives for
detention. If detention is necessary and he/she is detained with adults, the court
shall immediately order the transfer of the child to a youth detention home.

SECTION 66. Inventory of "Locked-up" and Detained Children in

Conflict with the Law. -- The PNP, the BJMP and the BUCOR are hereby
directed to submit to the JJWC, within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this
Act, an inventory of all children in conflict with the law under their custody.

SECTION 67. Children Who Reach the Age of Eighteen (18) Years
Pending Diversion and Court Proceedings. -- If a child reaches the age of
eighteen (18) years pending diversion and court proceedings, the appropriate
diversion authority in consultation with the local social welfare and development
officer or the Family Court in consultation with the Social Services and
Counseling Division (SSCD) of the Supreme Court, as the case may be, shall
determine the appropriate disposition. In case the appropriate court executes the
judgment of conviction, and unless the child in conflict with the law has already
availed of probation under Presidential Decree No. 603 or other similar laws, the
child may apply for probation if qualified under the provisions of the Probation
Law.

SECTION 68. Children Who Have Been Convicted and are Serving
Sentences. -- Persons who have been convicted and are serving sentence at the
time of the effectivity of this Act, and who were below the age of eighteen (18)
years at the time of the commission of the offense for which they were convicted
and are serving sentence, shall likewise benefit from the retroactive application
of this Act. They shall be entitled to appropriate dispositions provided under this
Act and their sentences shall be adjusted accordingly. They shall be immediately
released if they are so qualified under this Act or other applicable laws.

Ostensibly, the only issue that requires resolution in this case is whether
or not petitioner is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as found
by both the RTC and the CA. However, with the advent of R.A. No. 9344 while
petitioner's case is pending before this Court, a new issue arises, namely, whether
the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 9344 apply to petitioner's case, considering
that at the time he committed the alleged rape, he was merely 13 years old.

In sum, we are convinced that petitioner committed the crime of rape

against AAA.

However, for one who acts by virtue of any of the exempting

circumstances, although he commits a crime, by the complete absence of any of
the conditions which constitute free will or voluntariness of the act, no criminal
liability arises. Therefore, while there is a crime committed, no criminal liability
attaches. Thus, in Guevarra v. Almodovar, we held:

[I]t is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment of the
exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete
absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as the
second element of dolus, Albert has stated:

"The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power,

necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an
illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . . . the infant (has) no intelligence, the
law exempts (him) from criminal liability."
It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below
are not capable of performing a criminal act.

In its Comment dated April 24, 2008, the OSG posited that petitioner is no
longer covered by the provisions of Section 64 of R.A. No. 9344 since as early as
1999, petitioner was convicted by the RTC and the conviction was affirmed by the
CA in 2001. R.A. No. 9344 was passed into law in 2006, and with the petitioner
now approximately 25 years old, he no longer qualifies as a child as defined by
R.A. No. 9344. Moreover, the OSG claimed that the retroactive effect of Section
64 of R.A. No. 9344 is applicable only if the child-accused is still below 18 years
old as explained under Sections 67 and 68 thereof. The OSG also asserted that
petitioner may avail himself of the provisions of Section 38 of R.A. No. 9344
 providing for automatic suspension of sentence if finally found guilty. Lastly, the
OSG argued that while it is a recognized principle that laws favorable to the
accused may be given retroactive application, such principle does not apply if the
law itself provides for conditions for its application.

We are not persuaded.

Section 6 of R.A. No. 9344 clearly and explicitly provides:

SECTION 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. -- A child fifteen
(15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be
exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an
intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.

A child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall
likewise be exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention
program, unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child
shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.

The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing
laws.
Likewise, Section 64 of the law categorically provides that cases of
children 15 years old and below, at the time of the commission of the crime, shall
immediately be dismissed and the child shall be referred to the appropriate local
social welfare and development officer (LSWDO). What is
controlling, therefore, with respect to the exemption from criminal
liability of the CICL, is not the CICL's age at the time of the promulgation of
judgment but the CICL's age at the time of the commission of the offense. In short,
by virtue of R.A. No. 9344, the age of criminal irresponsibility has been raised
from 9 to 15 years old.

Given this precise statutory declaration, it is imperative that this Court

accord retroactive application to the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 9344
pursuant to the well-entrenched principle in criminal law - favorabilia sunt
amplianda adiosa restrigenda. Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are
given retroactive effect. This principle is embodied in Article 22 of the Revised
Penal Code, which provides:
Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. -- Penal laws shall have a
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a
habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code,
although at the time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has been
pronounced and the convict is serving the same.
We also have extant jurisprudence that the principle has been given
expanded application in certain instances involving special laws. R.A. No. 9344
should be no exception.”[1]

The Philippines guarantees the protection of the best interests of the child in
accordance with the standards provided for by these international laws as a signatory to
the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice
(The Beijing Rules), the United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile
Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines), the United Nations Rules for the Protection of
Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty and the most importantly the Convention on the
Rights of the Child.
“In the Philippines, members of Congress had passed bills intended to make laws
more consistent with the Philippines’ advocacy on juvenile justice. As much as the
Philippines should be concerned with a juvenile justice system in harmony with
international policies, the dominant goal is to achieve a standard national policy on CICL
rather than an accurate reproduction of an international model on CICL.

[1]
Ortega vs. People of the Philippines G. R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008
R.A. No. 9344, one bill passed into law, institutionalized the promotion of the
well-being of child and their families, involvement of parents and guardians, promotion
of diversion, avoiding deprivation of liberty and protecting the privacy rights of children.
R.A. No. 10630 further emphasized child-sensitive justice policies focused on the
best interest of the child. This principle has been first laid down in the Doha Declaration.
The main features of R.A. No. 9344 are the diversion and intervention programs.
During the diversion process, the responsibility and treatment of CICL will be
determined on the basis of his/her social, cultural, economic, psychological or
educational background without resorting to formal court proceedings. If the CICL is
found to be responsible for an offence, he/she will be required to undergo diversion
programs without resorting to formal court proceedings. During the intervention
programs on the other hand, they will undergo a series of activities to address issues that
caused them to commit an offence. These may take the form of counselling, skills
training, and education. The bigger the role these diversion and intervention programs
play in child behavior development, the more acceptance and social legitimacy these
programs are likely to enjoy in resolving problems with CICL.”[2]
In terms of the treatment of CICLs, if it has been determined that the child taken
into custody is 15 years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with
the child, in coordination with the Local Social Welfare Development Officer (LSWDO),
has the duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian,
or in the absence thereof, to the child’s nearest relative. If they cannot be located or they
refuse to take custody of the child, the CICL may be released to any of the following: a
duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization, a barangay official or a
member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC), LSWDO, or the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
Authorities which have initial contact with the child refer to law enforcement
officers or private citizens apprehending or taking custody of the CICL.
If the LSWDO determines that the child is abandoned, neglected or abused by his
parents, and the best interest of the child requires that he/she be placed in a youth care
facility or “Bahay Pag-asa”, the child’s parents or guardians shall execute a written
authorization for the voluntary commitment of the child. But if there are no parents or
guardians, or they will not execute it, the LSWDO or the DSWD shall file the proper
petition for involuntary commitment. Only those who are at least 12 years old can be
committed to a youth care facility.
The social worker using the discernment assessment tools developed by the
DSWD will come up with an initial assessment which is without prejudice to the
preparation of a more comprehensive case study report. The local social worker can
either release or commit the child to a youth care facility if he/she is 15 years or below or
above 15 but below 18 years old but who acted without discernment. However, if the
child is above 15 years old but below 18 and who acted with discernment, diversion
should be implemented.
If the imposable penalty for the crime is not more than six years’ imprisonment,
mediation, family conferencing and conciliation, or other indigenous modes of conflict
resolution in consonance with restorative justice shall be facilitated by the law
enforcement officer or Punong Barangay with the assistance of the LSWDO or members
of the BCPC. Both the child and his/her family shall be present in these activities.
In victimless crimes where the imposable penalty is not more than six years’
imprisonment, the LSDO shall develop an appropriate diversion and rehabilitation
program, in coordination with the BCPC. Again, involvement of the child and his/her
parents or guardians is a must.
Where the imposable penalty for the crime committed exceeds six years’
imprisonment, diversion measures will only be decided by the courts.
 The diversion program shall cover socio-cultural and psychological services for
the child which may include: reparation of the damage caused, counselling, participation
in available community-based programs, or in education, vocation and life skills
programs.
[2]
Overview of Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare, Jeza Mae Sarah C. Sanchez
At the level of the appropriate court, in addition to the programs cited, diversion
programs can also include reprimand, fine or institutional care and custody.
A diversion program will depend on the individual characteristics and the peculiar
circumstances of the CICL. Some of these factors are: the child’s feelings of remorse; the
ability of the parents or the guardians to supervise, the victim’s view; and, the availability
of community-based programs for rehabilitation and reintegration of the child.
In case of failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract of
diversion as certified by the LSWDO the offended party can institute the appropriate
legal action. Also, if no diversion took place because the imposable penalty exceeds six
years, or the child or his/her parents does not consent to diversion, the case shall be filed
according to the regular processes.
Where a child is detained, the court shall order the release of the minor on bail or
release on recognizance to his/her parents and other suitable person. The court has also
the option to transfer the minor to a youth care facility. In no case shall the court order
the detention of a child in a jail pending trial or hearing of his/her case.
When at the time of the commission of the offence, the child is under 18 years old
and subsequently he is found guilty of the offence charged, the court shall place the CICL
under suspended sentence without need of application. Suspension of sentence shall still
be applied even if he/she is more than 18 years old at the time of the pronouncement of
his/her guilt.
The court shall impose the appropriate disposition measures in consideration of
the various circumstances of the CICL. Upon recommendation of the social worker who
has custody of the child, the court shall dismiss the case if it finds that the objectives of
the disposition measures have been fulfilled.
After conviction and upon order of the court to serve his/her sentence, a CICL
may in lieu of confinement in a regular penal institution, serve in an agricultural camp
and other training facilities that may be supervised by the Bureau of Correction, in
coordination with the DSWD.
Family Courts have exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving children in
conflict with the law. Jurisdiction is vested with Regional Trial Courts in places where
there are no family courts.
Republic Act No. 10630 or the Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System
provided for the establishment of an Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center
for children (IJISC) under the minimum age of criminal responsibility in “Bahay Pag-
asa”.
The “Bahay Pag-asa” is a 24-hour child-care institution funded and managed by
local government units (LGU) and licensed and/or accredited non-government
organizations. Children in conflict with the law who are 15 to 18 years old shall be
housed in these temporary shelters while awaiting trial and the judgement to be rendered
by the courts.
The law also clarified procedures for children below the minimum age if criminal
responsibility, including those who commit serious offences. It provides that any child
aged 12 to 15 who commits a serious offence punishable by more than 12 years’
imprisonment should be deemed a neglected child under the Child and Youth Welfare
Code. As a neglected child, the minor should be placed in the IJISC. The same is true
with a child who was previously subjected to a community-based intervention program.
He shall also be deemed a neglected child and as such shall undergo an intensive
intervention program supervised by the LSWDO. The child will undergo appropriate
intervention programs through the written authorization for voluntary commitment of the
child as executed by the parents or guardians or through a petition in the court for the
involuntary confinement filed by the LSWDO or DSWD.
 The “Bahay Pag-asa” will be managed by a multi-disciplinary team composed of
a social worker, a psychologist/mental health professional, a medical doctor, an
educational guidance counsellor, and a member of the Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC). They will come up with individualized intervention plan
for the child and his/her family.
Based on the recommendation of the multi-disciplinary team of the IJISC, the
LSWDO or the DSWD, the court may require the parents of the CICL to undergo
counselling or any other intervention that would advance the best interest of the child.
One of the disposition measures that can be availed of by a CICL under
suspended sentence is Community-based Rehabilitation wherein he/she shall be released
to parents, guardians, relatives or any other responsible person in the community. The
LSWDO shall supervise the CICL in coordination with his/her parents/guardian.
Examples of these programs are: competency and life skills development; socio-cultural
and recreational activities; community volunteer projects; leadership training; spiritual
enrichment; and, family welfare services.
A child under the minimum age of criminal responsibility shall also be subjected
to a community-based intervention program supervised by the LSWDO.
If the best interest of the child requires, the CICL shall be referred to a youth care
facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ managed by LGUs or licensed and/or accredited NGOs
monitored by the DSWD.
As mentioned previously, a CICL who was previously subjected to a community-
based intervention program can be deemed a neglected child. As such, he/she shall
undergo an intensive intervention program supervised by the LSWDO.
Aftercare support services shall be made to prevent re-offending. These will be
given for a period of at least six months. These services could include life skills
development, livelihood programs and membership to existing youth organizations. The
aftercare support services shall be provided by the LSWDO.
However, licensed and accredited non-government organizations may also be
tapped. As with the previous programs, it will require active participation of both the
child and his/her parents or guardians.
The ultimate objective of providing the children in conflict with the law with
interventions that will improve their social functioning is for them to be eventually
reintegrated to their families and to their communities as well.
In its effort to articulate the Juvenile Justice System in laws, rules and guidelines,
the method of its proponents has always been experimented serving as a working
hypothesis which is continually being retested in the laboratories of youth detention
homes.
Throughout the history of its implementation, R.A. No. 9344 and its progeny have
been hailed as a medium of hope for CICL. During such times, the Juvenile Justice
System also faced criticism and difficulty.
As such, the Juvenile Justice System of the Philippines is at odds with itself as to
whether or not the present system warrants reconsideration. Today, the Philippines
should see this exigency.
Legislators have recently taken the Juvenile Justice System in another perspective
as some moves for amendments in the laws governing it. The House Bill No. 6052, titled
"An Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines," was approved in
the House of Representatives of the Philippine Congress. Referring to "youthful
offenders" and "children in conflict with the law," the bill seeks to lower the age of
criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 years of age, provided that criminal responsibility
attaches only when the minor "acted with discernment." As provided:
SEC. 6. Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A child [fifteen (15)]
TWELVE (12) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense
shall be exempt from criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to
an intervention program pursuant to Section 20 of this Act.
A child above [fifteen (15] TWELVE (12) years OLD but [below eighteen
(18)] AT LEAST FIFTEEN (15) years of age shall likewise be exempt from
 criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program, unless [he/she]
THE CHILD has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.
The exemption from criminal liability herein established does not include
exemption from civil liability, which shall be enforced in accordance with existing
laws.
WHEN A CHILD WHO IS ABOVE TWELVE (12) YEARS OLD BUT AT
LEAST FIFTEEN (15) YEARS OF AGE HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE
COURT TO HAVE ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT AT THE TIME OF THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE AND IS FOUND GUILTY OF THE
OFFENSE CHARGED, THE CHILD’S SENTENCE SHALL BE SUSPENDED
PURSUANT TO SEC. 3 THEREOF AND THE CHILD SHALL EITHER BE
COMMITTED TO A REFORMATORY INSTITUTION OR TO THE CUSTODY
OF THE DSWD OR ANY DULY LICENSED AGENCY: PROVIDED, THAT IF
THE CHILD BECOMES INCORRIGIBLE OR WILLFULLY FAILS TO COMPLY
WITH THE CONDITIONS OF COMMITMENT IN THE TRAINING OR
REFORMATORY INSTITUTION, THE CHILD SHALL BE RETURNED TO THE
COMMITTING COURT FOR THE PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
IMPOSING THE PROPER PENALTY UPON REACHING EIGHTEEN (18)
YEARS OLD.
IF THE OFFENSE CHARGED IS MURDER, PARRICIDE, HOMICIDE,
KIDNAPPING, RAPE, ROBBERY, DRUG TRAFFICKING OR OTHER
OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY MORE THAN TWELVE (12) YEARS, SUCH
CHILD IS PRESUMED TO HAVE ACTED WITH DISCERNMENT AND SHALL
BE CONSIDERED AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER AND SHALL BE DEALT
WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 603, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS “THE CHILD
AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE.”
A CHILD ABOVE FIFTEEN (15) YEARS OLD BUT UNDER EIGHTEEN
(18) YEARS OF AGE SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER
WHO SHALL BE DEALT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF PRESIDENTIAL
DECREE NO. 603.[3]
“Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III, a Duterte ally, has repeatedly and
openly said that the Senate will also prioritize the passage of the bill. In a Senate public
hearing on January 22, he even presented crime data involving children and used it to
support his arguments on lowering the age of criminal responsibility. But a closer look at
the data, which is attributed to the Philippine National Police (PNP), shows exactly the
opposite.
The bill initially proposed to lower the age to as low as nine years old, but
legislators increased it to 12 after facing a backlash from the public. PNP’s data shows
that there had been hundreds of cases involving children aged 11 and under since 2016.
But comparing the total for each year, the numbers have considerably and steadily gone
down in the past three years.
In 2018 alone, crimes involving nine to 11-year-olds decreased by 52 percent.
Comparing this to the 2016 figure, it shows that “children in conflict with law” (CICL)
have decreased by more than half at 56 percent. There were more CICL recorded by the
PNP belonging to age groups 12 to 15 and 16 to 17, reaching thousands compared to the
previous age groups’ hundreds. Still, the trend had been the same for the past three years.
Except for an uptick in 2017 (it increased by two percent from the previous year), CICL
aged 16 to 17 decreased by 30 percent in 2018 from the previous year and 29 percent
from 2016. Similarly, CICL aged 12 to 15 have decreased year-on-year by 40 percent in
2018 and two percent in 2017. It also declined by 42 percent from 2016 to 2018.
If there’s one thing in PNP’s dataset that could note an increase in CICL over the
last three years and probably help Sotto’s case, it could be found under the
“undetermined” section.
 The number of crimes recorded ballooned in 2018 to 1,035 cases from just 12 the
previous year and five in 2016. But then again, even though this means an 8,525-percent
year-on-year increase in 2018, the total number of cases under the undetermined category
remains minuscule at only 11 percent of the total. It should be noted, too, that majority of
the CICL cases recorded were done by children belonging in the age group of 16 to 17
years old, at 53 percent. This is followed by the age group of 12-15, at 32 percent.”[4]
[3]
House Bill No. 6052 Sec. 6
[4]
How Many Child Criminals Are There in the Philippines? Pauline Macaraeg Jan 29,
2019, www.esquiremag.ph/politics/news/
These legislative proposals were based on the idea that children nine (9) to twelve (12)
can already act with discernment as evidenced by apparent instances considering the
normal growth and development of children. Another basis would be that children are
now used by criminal adults as scapegoats for their crimes.
“A congressional committee approved a bill that would lower the age of criminal
responsibility. If the Senate makes good on its promise to pass this version, and it’s
signed into law by the president, this would no doubt worsen the plight of Filipino
children caught up in the justice system.
Proponents of the bill argue that children would be better protected from criminals
who are trying to exploit them. But the law’s impact would be punitive: children who
commit serious crimes such as murder, illegal detention, or “carnapping,” or violate the
country’s draconian drug laws can be sentenced to “mandatory confinement” of up to 12
years.
The national Commission on Human Rights denounced the bill, saying that
“punishing children for the crime and abuse of syndicates and other people is against the
state’s responsibility to look after the interests and welfare of children.” The Philippines
representative of the United Nations children’s organization, Unicef, cited neuroscientific
research that shows that the brain is still developing into the mid-20s, including the
ability to inhibit impulses, weigh consequences of decisions, prioritize, and strategize.
Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the Philippines has
ratified, the arrest, detention, or imprisonment of children should only be used as a last
resort, and rehabilitation is a priority. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
which monitors government compliance with the convention, states in its draft general
comment on juvenile justice that the age of criminal responsibility should be at least 14
years, and should under no circumstances be reduced below that.
Children in the Philippines have already been subjected to the extreme violence of
Duterte’s “drug war,” with the police and government agents killing dozens during anti-
drug operations as suspected drug users or for being pawns of drug dealers. The proposed
law will not only stigmatize children even more – it turns them into scapegoats in the
government’s abusive anti-crime campaign.”[5]
Nonetheless, the Juvenile Justice System of the Philippines is still under debate
and requires more studies before any adjustments.

Prepared and submitted by: JAKE ROGER B. COPRADE

[5]
Children in the Philippines as Crime Scapegoats, Carlos H. Conde Researcher, Asia
Division, www.hrw.org/news/