Like many other grandparents, I am gratified to witness our lawmakers’ heightened awareness on the vital issues underpinning the ghastly killing and wounding of students in Tacloban last week. For the third straight day, this paper bannered a related story, this time about an apparent copycat case in Tolosa, 24 kilometers from Tacloban.

Senator Bam Aquino called Interior and Local Governments Secretary Jonvic Remulla about an eight- year-old child’s social media posts warning that she would initiate either a mass stabbing or a mass shooting in a public high school. Three hours later, the local police had traced her whereabouts. The child was debriefed by government social workers who also talked to her parents.

Indeed, close monitoring and continuing vigilance are essential. As an offshoot of the Tacloban shooting, parents and grandparents have leveled up their vigilance. This disturbing incident has demonstrated that minors could easily gain access to deadly weapons, without their parents or guardians knowing.

Are they simply “misguided” or have they become “wayward” kids?

The difference between these two terms goes beyond semantics. A misguided person “makes a poor decision based on bad information or faulty judgment”; a wayward act stems from “a rebellious or stubborn choice to intentionally go against rules, authority, or accepted standards.”

A thorough review of two relevant laws of the land is imperative: first, Republic Act No. 9344, the Juvenile Justice Act of 2006; and second, Republic Act No. 10627, the Anti-Bullying Act of 2013.

In our column last Thursday, we narrated the case of an Ateneo de Manila student who was expelled after his bullying of fellow students sparked a massive outcry. This occurred in 2018; the erring student was expelled from the school.

Senator Panfilo ‘Ping’ Lacson is seeking the revision and fine-tuning of the two major laws of the land pertaining to juvenile delinquents and bullies. He cites the celebrated case in Liverpool, England of 10-year-old Patrick Bulger who was abducted and murdered by two 10-year-old boys in 1993, or decades between existing laws were enacted.

A focal point of attention in the ongoing public debate is this: Should the minimum age be lowered from 15 to ten years old?

In the most recent Tacloban case, only the 15-year-old was accused of the murder of three persons. His partner, who is 14 years old, could not yet be charged. Instead, the latter has been referred to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) for counseling and guidance.

Ascertaining the appropriate age for determining liability is imperative. Our legislators should consider how to strengthen the legal framework for shielding and protecting our children from being influenced and eventually misguided by dysfunctional social media networks. In this aspect, the United Nations’ World Health Organization (WHO) declared last May 29, 2026: “Banning children from social media is not the answer…platforms must be made safe by design.”

Platform accountability through systemic safety has emerged as the top action priority. The European Union has enacted a Digital Services Act. This law requires tech companies to automatically disable addictive features such as indefinite scrolling and autoplay for minors and implement high privacy and security settings.

A key feature of European regulation that should be emulated is conducting verification to ensure that minimum age thresholds are observed in restricting access to mature, violent, or extremist content.

Emerging legislation mandates platforms to conduct third-party annual safety audits and provide vetted researchers with access to data that would enable scientists to determine how the use of algorithmic feeds affect youth behavior.

The UN has adopted the norms of the UNICEF Child Online Protection Network that were co-designed with youth and health professionals whose work complements parent-led initiatives. Moreover, the WHO actively works to prevent online violence against children through “psycho-social support and educational programs designed to help children recognize online manipulation and aggression, counteracting extremist or violent predispositions at the source.”

Clearly, banning children from social media is not the answer. Unified action by concerned stakeholders such as parents, schools, communities and government agencies is imperative. The recent Tacloban killing spree should have convinced them that lip service and half-hearted measures would not suffice.

From here on, kids’ use of digital gadgets that provide them access to potentially harmful images and messages should be judiciously regulated. Only through heightened vigilance could the possible recurrence of the shocking and disdainful killings be precluded.

Comments may be sent to [email protected]