Parents must not be allowed to escape responsibility for criminal offenses their children knowingly commit.
Partido Reporma presidential aspirant Sen. Panfilo “Ping” Lacson aired this view in a public discussion with youth leaders during the Sangguniang Kabataan “Tumindig Youth Empowerment Forum” held recently in Baguio City.
Lacson cited a precedent involving a teenager who was accused of committing multiple crimes in the United States.
During the forum an SK officer aired the belief that there is inadequacy in the laws related to juvenile justice, pointing out that the Department of Social Welfare and Development is having difficulty in reforming wayward minors who turn into a life of crime.
Lacson stressed the need to revisit Republic Act no. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 and update its provisions in order that the laws will adapt with the current times.
Lacson said he is aware of these issues and has advocated in the past to revisit Republic Act No. 9344, also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, to address some of its defects particularly in determining the “age of discernment” of children in conflict with the law.
“I think we need to revisit the law kasi na-test na ito—‘yung tinatawag na test of time—may mga isyu, may mga problemang na-e-encounter. Sabi mo nga, nag-commit ng crime, nga covered ng batas sa DSWD, tapos ni-re-release din. (I think we need to revisit the law because it already went through what we call the test of time and there were issues, problems encountered. Like you said, someone committed a crime, but since the law covers that the suspect be taken into the custody of DSWD, the offender is released eventually.),” Lacson explained.
Amendments to the aforesaid law were already made under Republic Act 10630, which was enacted during the third regular session of the 15th Congress. It transferred the Juvenile Justice Welfare Council from the purview of the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the DSWD.
In 2019, however, the application of Juvenile Justice Law sparked public outrage when members of the House of Representatives approved an amendment to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 years old against the backdrop of the government’s ‘war on drugs.’ Lacson at the time supported the measure but only up to a certain extent as he found earlier proposals to put nine-year-old suspects in prison too harsh. Nevertheless, he maintained that the law needs to be updated to resolve perennial public concerns over juvenile delinquency.
“I think we should revisit that law kasi may mga (because there are) defects. ‘Yung (The) age of discernment, masyadong malawak (is too broad) ... Dapat medyo i-constrict natin nang konti ‘yung definition (We should constrict the definition a little bit),” the veteran lawmaker said.
To this end, Lacson recommended that perhaps the parents of children in conflict with the law must also be held liable, if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt there was negligence on their part, which contributed to the criminal behavior of the child.
“I think dapat ding bigyan ng shared responsibility ‘yung parents, ano. Sa America, ‘di ba, have you heard about that minor who shot to death several persons? ‘Yung parents niya na-charge ng involuntary manslaughter. (I think a shared responsibility must be administered to the parents. In Americaq have you heard about that minor who shot several people to death? His parents were charged with involuntary manslaughter),” Lacson said.