Should Congress lower the age of criminal responsibility? Why or why not?

No. Congress should not lower the age of criminal responsibility for it would be contrary to
international law, violates the Constitutional mandate on children’s protection, and threatens
children’s well-being.

Contrary to international law

Article 40 (3) (a) of the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that
“States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures, authorities and
institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having
infringed the penal law, and, in particular, [t]he establishment of a minimum age below which
children shall be presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law.” 1

Moreover, according to the UN’s General Comment 10 on children's rights in juvenile justice, “a
minimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12 is not internationally acceptable, while
the age of 14 or 16 is highly commendable.” 2

The Philippines is a signatory to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Violates the Constitutional mandate on children’s protection

“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.” 3

It is the State’s solemn duty “to defend the right of children to assistance, including proper care
and nutrition, and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and
other conditions prejudicial to their development.” 4

These Constitutional provisions are the basis for enacting Republic Act (RA) No. 9344, which sets
the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15 years old. Moreover, it is also the basis in
enacting RA No. 7610, otherwise known as "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act."

Lawmakers should uphold the Constitution in crafting any legislation, setting the minimum age of
criminal responsibility. They should uphold the duty of the State to protect every child.

Threatens children’s well-being

1
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx last accessed on 04 June 2017
2
http://www.somalilandlaw.com/CRC.C.GC.10.pdf last accessed on 04 June 2017
3
Section 13, Article II, 1987 Constitution
4
Section 3 (2), Article XV, 1987 Constitution
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 9 years old will threaten the well-being of the most
vulnerable children.

Studies have shown that children “especially those aged 9 until middle adolescence (15) are
psychosocially immature because of still-developing cognitive abilities. They are vulnerable to
coercion and will find it more difficult to act in accordance with what they may discern or know
to be right versus wrong action.”5

Consequently, “exposure to the criminal justice system, where the child will be labeled a criminal
and where he or she is exposed to criminal models, will more likely establish the criminal identity
of the young person.”6

Conclusion

The fundamental principles of social protection of children as provided for by the Constitution and
by internationally accepted standards and principles must be upheld. Children should not be
prosecuted for mistakes that their young minds cannot yet discern. Instead, they should be given
access to proper rehabilitation facilities such as counselling, as well as prevention and intervention
programs. These concerns are addressed by RA No. 9344. Thus, the law needs to be implemented,
not amended.

5
Psychological Association of the Philippines’ Position Paper on House Bill 002 or the “Minimum Age of Criminal
Responsibility Act”, August 24, 2016
6
Id