The ‘Low’ House

More and more Filipinos are getting convinced that we are just wasting our taxpayers’ money in the kind of Congress we now have, particularly the Lower House. This House is also known as the House of Representatives. But a lot of people believe that “Lower House” is the more appropriate name for it especially because of its record of performance which is really very “low”.

The “Lower House” was supposedly conceived so that the voice of the mass of our people including those in the low-lying and remote areas all over the land will be heard and represented specifically in the enactment of laws designed for the common good. But this is not the kind of “Lower” House of Congress we now have.

Our Lower House now can be more appropriately assessed and described by the kind of members presently composing it and by their performance or what they are now doing as lawmakers. Obviously, they are wasting too much time on trivial matters that do not promote the peoples’ welfare. And this is clearly shown by the kind of legislations they are presently proposing and considering. One of them is the proposed bill about the minimum age of criminal responsibility of a minor. Said bill will again reduce or lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 years as fixed by RA 9344 approved on April 28, 2006, amended by RA 10630 approved on Oct. 3, 2013.

For better comprehension and understanding about this age of criminal responsibility, some basic principles on criminal law must be explained and clarified. First of all criminal responsibility refers to the liability for crimes or felonies. And as defined by the Revised Penal Code, crimes are the acts or omissions defined and penalized by said Code itself and by other special laws. These crimes or felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by fault (culpa). There is deceit when the wrongful act is done with deliberate intent, and there is fault when they result from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight or lack of skill (Article 3, RPC).

Pursuant to the RPC which took effect on Jan. 1, 1932, and other laws on Juvenile Justice, a minor under nine years of age is exempt from criminal liability on the theory that said minor has no sufficient intelligence when he commits a felony and therefore not criminally liable. If the minor is between nine and 15 years of age, he may still be exempt from criminal liability if he did not act with discernment. Discernment means “mental capacity to understand the difference between what is right and what is wrong which may be determined from the very appearance, the very attitude, the very comportment and behavior of the minor before, during and after the commission of the act or even during the trial of the case itself. In such a case the court shall commit the minor to the care and custody of his/her family who shall be charged with his/her surveillance and education. If the minor has no family or is an orphan he shall be committed to the care and custody of a public or private benevolent or charitable institution under the supervision of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). If such minor between nine and 15 acted with discernment or over 15 but below 18 years of age, at the time of the commission of a grave or less grave offense, the court shall proceed to hear the case in a proper trial but instead of pronouncing judgment of conviction, shall suspend all further proceeding and shall commit such minor to a training institution established by law for delinquent children. His suspended sentence shall be enforced only if he is found incorrigible. But in enforcing the sentence his minority will likewise be considered as a mitigating circumstance.

Then on April 28, 2006, Congress approved Republic Act (RA) 9344 otherwise known as the  “Act Establishing a Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of Justice Appropriating Funds therefor and for Other Purposes.” Then on  Oct. 3, 2013,  RA 10630 was also approved amending said RA 9344. The main feature of these two RAs is the increase in the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 15 years of age. Obviously, these two laws have been enacted after a deliberate and careful study of existing conditions and past experiences about the then existing minimum age of nine years that exempts a minor from criminal responsibility. These two RAs are truly aimed at improving the juvenile justice in our country. The length of time alone between the RPC became effective in 1932 up to 2006 and 2013 which is about 70 years apparently show that said laws are reasonable and fair and will better promote justice in our country especially for the youthful offenders.

There are indeed no sufficient and scientific bases at all to again bring down the minimum age of criminal responsibility to nine years. The members of Lower House who approve such reduction (later changed to 12 years) should try to find other ways to get public attention and achieve popularity for political purposes.

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]