ANDRINO, Oscar SPCH 71 April

27, 2017
KONG, Christian Argumentation and Debate
MAKINANO, Hazel
OMEGA, Mary Jun
SUAN, Christia Sandee
VELOSO, Cherry Mae

The group believes that the age of criminal responsibility should

not be lowered from 15 years old to 9 years old contrary to what House
Speaker Bebot Alvarez is proposing. We have three main arguments.
First, the developmental immaturity of children below 15 years old and
above 9 years old lessens their criminal culpability. Second, it
contravenes the 1987 Constitution and the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (UN CRC). Last, the proposed solution will
not address the problem of children committing crimes.

On the first argument, Neuroscience research has proven that

the brain does not fully develop until age 25. The prefrontal cortex of
the frontal lobe which is responsible for executive functions such as
decision making, planning and impulse control of the brain undergoes
dramatic development only during the adolescent years. Discernment
between right and wrong requires intellectual, emotional, and
psychological maturity which children who have limited life
experiences do not yet have. The stages of brain development highlight
that while children may appear to identify right and wrong behavior,
they lack an appreciation for why rules exist and the implications of
these rules in the society. The easy reach of information does not
automatically make a child mature enough to be able to fully
comprehend the consequences of his actions.

On the second argument, the lowering of the age of criminal

responsibility contravenes the Constitution and the UN CRC. Section
13 of the Declaration of Principles and State Policies of the
Constitution recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building
and promotes and protects their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
and social well-being. This is also in consonance with the UN CRC, to
which the Philippines is a signatory, in promoting the childs
reintegration and constructive role in society. The lowering of the age
of criminal responsibility is not in line with any of the said principles.
In fact, for psychiatrist Bernadette Arcenas, holding children as young
as nine responsible for crimes is reckless. She said this would leave
them psychologically and emotionally damaged. Children aged nine are
still learning to see the real world, Arcenas said. Moreover, the Unity of
Child Rights Advocates Against Inhumane Treatment and Neglect of
Children (Unchain Children) said that by lowering the minimum age of
criminal responsibility, the government is effectively abandoning its
responsibility to provide the youth with a decent future and depriving
juvenile offenders of an opportunity to reform.

On the third argument, the lawmakers of the proposed bill said

that the measure was meant to deter minors from being used as
accomplices, especially in drug-related cases. The lawmakers contend
that since children are being used by criminals because they know
children would not be held criminally liable in the absence of
discernment if their age is 15 and below. This does not seem and is
not reasonable. Why punish the children when in the first place, they
are being used by criminals? In this scenario, the children are victims.
This all the more proves our point that children should be protected
from the law. The lowering of the age of criminal responsibility does
not deter minors from being used as accomplices because since they
have a heightened vulnerability to coercive circumstances, they can
still be easily manipulated into doing crimes. Numerous organizations
instead proposes to direct efforts in improving the execution of the
existing juvenile justice system.

John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues cited the

2015 Evaluation of the Intervention and Rehabilitation Program in
Residential Facilities and Diversion Programs for Children in Conflict
with the Law in saying that there is a weak commitment of the Local
Government Units to the implementation of the Juvenile Justice
Welfare Act which significantly affected the delivery of the programs
for CICL. The said organization stands that what is needed is to
strengthen the institutions implementing the Juvenile Justice Welfare
Act and to provide the necessary resources to make these institutions
effective that instead of lowering the minimum age of criminal
responsibility, the implementation of the Justice Welfare Act should be
strengthen instead.
References:
Psychological Association of the Philippines, Position Paper on
the Amendment to the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (date)
Philippine Pediatric Society, Position Paper on House Bill 002
or the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility Act (date)
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2017/02/01/house-speaker-
avarez-lowering-minimum-age-of-criminal-responsibility.html
United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/877712/lowering-age-of-criminal-
liability-antikids-rights#ixzz4fLUhTy00
Children and the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility
(MACR): Why the MACR Should Not be Lowered
http://www.jjcicsi.org.ph/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/IQF-Vol-III-
No-2-MACR.pdf