FINDING ANSWERS
By FORMER SENATOR ATTY. JOEY D. LINA
Atty. Joey D. Lina
Former Senator
The legislative push to lower to 12 the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR) has been generating stiff opposition from all over for a variety of reasons.
Among the reasons are: It is anti-poor as most children in conflict with the law are from impoverished families where parents are usually unemployed; it would not deter adults from exploiting kids to commit crimes for them; and, as shown in a Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey, an overwhelming majority of Filipinos, around 75 percent, want to retain the MACR at 15 years old.
In my latest DZMM teleradyo program Sagot Ko ‘Yan (8 to 9 a.m. Sundays), I had an insightful discussion with Sen. Risa Hontiveros, chairperson of the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality, who vehemently disagrees with the recent move of congressmen to pass on third and final reading House Bill 8858 lowering the MACR to 12 years old.
She said children who get involved in crimes at such a young age ought to be protected and given a second chance to reform and be rehabilitated. She expressed fears that with the acute lack of facilities for youth care or the so-called Bahay Pagasa, the young offenders would end up in detention centers such as police precincts and made to suffer alongside adult criminals.
With our dysfunctional justice and penal system, there is no assurance that a safe environment to rehabilitate youth offenders could be provided all over the country. And it would not be surprising if prevailing conditions inflict psychological harm on young children, instead of paving the way for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Sen. Hontiveros also said that offenses involving children comprise a measly 1.75 percent of the total crimes committed all over the country. Her statement affirms a published report that, according to data of the Philippine National Police, “the percentage of crimes committed by children between 2002 and 2015 was a measly 2 percent, of which 92 percent were non-serious.”
If indeed only a “measly 2 percent” of total crimes occurring in the Philippines can be attributed to children, it becomes obvious that youth offenders could be called the “exception.” which then begs the question: Why make a general rule out of an exception?
Such a question even becomes more relevant in light of a UNICEF statement last month that “there is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase in crime rates committed in the Philippines.”
House Bill 8858, known as An Act Expanding the Scope of the Reformation and Rehabilitation of Children in Conflict with the Law and Strengthening the Social Reintegration Programs, Amending for the purpose Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006) as amended, provides that children 12 years and above but below 18 years old who are in conflict with the law shall be exempted from liability and be subjected to intervention programs, unless the minor acted with discernment.
But with the intervention program similar to the one provided by the law at present, one may also ask: Why is there a need to still lower the MACR from the age of 15 as provided in the current Juvenile and Welfare Act of 2006, as amended in 2012?
“Scientific studies show that brain function reaches maturity only at around 16 years old, affecting children’s reasoning and impulse control,” the UNICEF said as it warned that lowering the MACR “is an act of violence against children.”
“Children in conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty and exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not further penalized,” the UNICEF said.
Filipino children ought to be protected indeed, in line with Article 2, Section 13, of the Constitution which provides: “The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.” Could lowering further the MACR be unconstitutional?
Also, would it adversely affect our country’s international obligations to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of which the Philippines is a state party and supposedly bound by its letter and spirit to promote and protect children’s rights?
“To brand children as criminals removes the responsibility and accountability from adults who have failed them. Children in conflict with the law are victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty; and because they are not able to access a caring, nurturing, and protective environment,” the UNICEF said.
And it surely is abominable – how some adults, including parents, drive children into a life of crime.
So horrible an evil it is that Christ’s warning about it is retold nearly verbatim in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Whoever causes the little ones to sin, “it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the deep sea.”
E-mail: [email protected]