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