Private schools back lowering age of criminal responsibility

MANILA, Philippines – An association of private schools backed yesterday a bill lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 years to nine as a deterrent to the use of young people in the commission of crimes.

But the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) rejected the proposal, saying such a move would violate children’s rights.  

“Lowering the age of criminal liability to nine years old from 15 is reasonable,” Eleazardo Kasilag, head of the Federation of Associations of Private Schools and Administrators (FAPSA), said. 

“Our teenagers now, 13 to 15 years old, have become smokers, drug users and bullies,” Kasilag said, adding the weight of criminal offense must not be based on age.

Kasilag said even the parents of young people who committed crimes must be brought to justice.

Under Republic Act 9344 or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare (JJW) Act” of 2006, the minimum age of criminal responsibility was raised from nine to 15 years old.

Incoming Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro have filed House Bill 2, which seeks to revert the minimum age of criminal responsibility to nine as stated in the Revised Penal Code.

In backing the proposed measure, Kasilag said school administrators were now receiving complaints of bullying involving children six to seven years old. 

He blamed the change in children’s behavior to the advent of computers, the influence of “violent” soap operas and even programs with “for adult only” themes seen on television. 

“These have influenced our Filipino kids right there in their homes and these are observable even in schools,” he said. 

Alvarez and Castro expressed the belief the time was right for the age of criminal responsibility to be lowered to nine years old considering the youth could easily access information through technology. 

For  PLCPD executive director Romeo Dongeto, however, “punishing children for actions whose consequences they do not fully comprehend or that they were coerced to do will not solve criminality.”

“If the problem is exploitation of children to commit criminal acts, then this is the wrong solution and will only create more problems,” Dongeto said. 

“Scientific evidence shows that children’s brains are not yet fully developed affecting their decision-making capacity and discernment, which may lead to risky behavior and bad choices,” he said. 

Dongeto stressed that lowering the age of criminal liability would also go against the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, which recognizes children’s rights and mandates states to consider the best interest of a child in crafting policies and programs. 

“No less than President Duterte, in his inaugural speech, said that his administration will uphold our international commitments. Congress should follow his example and abide by UNCRC. But above this, protecting children is our moral obligation,” he said. 

Instead, Dongeto urged the government to strengthen programs for children in conflict with the law (CICL), underscoring the need for diversion or rehabilitative services.

“Punishing CICL deprives them of the chance to rebuild their lives and improve their character. Instead of punishing children, we should ensure that they grow up in an environment free of violence and where their rights to development and protection are respected and fulfilled so that they become productive and law-abiding citizens in the future,” he said.