On Monday, the House of Representatives’ Justice Committee approved the bill that lowers the minimum age of criminal liability from 15 years of age to nine. Proponents argued that the bill seeks to protect children from being used by ruthless and unscrupulous syndicates in the commission of crimes.

If this bill becomes law, however, will that be its main effect?

There are indeed problems involving the participation of minors in crimes perpetrated by syndicates, but lowering the minimum age of criminal liability from 15 years of age to nine is certainly not the solution. This measure will not stop syndicates from using children aged eight and younger. Children will still be abused, with the difference being that at age nine they can be prosecuted for their actions. It will do more harm than good to already disadvantaged children who I believe are also victims in that kind of situation.

Studies have shown that children used by syndicates are exploited and are essentially forced or manipulated into taking part in the commission of crimes — and, logically, this makes sense. The data available shows that majority of children who take part in crimes come from low-income families, have been exposed to violence, alcohol and even drugs and do not have the benefit of education. They are used by syndicates not because they wholeheartedly agree and like committing crimes but because children in that situation are vulnerable and can be used.

The reason why we set the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the first place is because from aggregated data (and not anecdotal evidence) we determine at what age a person has the capacity to fully understand the consequences of his or her actions and can therefore be held accountable for these actions. I doubt the children stealing on behalf of syndicates understand what they are doing the way most of us would; they are not thinking of the law or the people they are taking from, but rather what will happen to them if they do not do as they’re told.

Even if we set aside the personal circumstances of most children who engage in criminal activities, I do not think that the age of nine is the proper age for a child to be held responsible. Studies also show that at this age, children are just starting to develop their understanding of themselves and the world around them. Around this age, the child’s decision-making and mental faculties are not yet as developed as that of an 18-year-old adult, thereby hindering him or her from properly deciphering what is right and wrong. There may be exceptions to the rule, but laws affect everyone, not just the exceptions.

The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has urged states party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (which includes the Philippines) not to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, but has conceded that the age of 12 would be the absolute minimum. If the minimum age of criminal responsibility must be lowered — and I am not yet convinced it absolutely must — why not 12? Why nine?

I could plausibly believe that a 12-year-old — on the cusp of angry adolescence and with more exposure to the world — might be more capable of understanding his actions than a nine-year-old. I will also acknowledge that there are well-publicized examples of children below 15 years of age who have the benefit of privileged backgrounds yet behave cruelly and viciously towards others. They have no reason to break the law because the world works in their favor, and yet they do. They do not fit the profile of majority of children in conflict with the law.

But again, that is the point: these vicious, angry children whose stories go viral are the minority, not the majority. Most children who commit crimes are desperate, preyed on by adults and do not have access to or even knowledge of alternatives. We need to focus on the bigger, systemic problems that create these children. Again, to incarcerate children who were created by this system would be to victimize them twice.

When this story blew up over the course of the week, we were assured that children would not be mixed with adult offenders, but would be subjected to mandatory rehabilitation at government-run Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Centers such as the Bahay Pag-asa.

However, the conditions of some Bahay Pag-asa centers are not conducive to rehabilitation. This is according to no less than Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) Executive Director Tricia Oco, who shared information about the conditions of JJWC at a Senate panel hearing on 22 January. Per Oco, there are 58 Bahay Pag-asa centers nationwide that lack the basic facilities for rehabilitation due to budgetary constraints. She even disclosed that children having their rehabilitation in these centers are mostly told to keep quiet the entire day and do nothing, thereby causing more mental anxiety and resulting in self-harm due to boredom.

If we want to stop children from being abused by syndicates, why don’t we begin with the syndicates rather than the children? Why don’t we begin with prosecuting the adults who coerce children into criminal behavior? Our current laws are more than enough to do that, if implemented well. I hope my former colleagues in the House will consider this.

Ultimately, the children of today will be the future of this country. As a parent, I know how hard it can be to raise children, even when they thankfully do not commit crimes. Still, the only way forward is to raise children who will be able to carry the weight of this country when they grow up. We cannot do that when our solution to dealing with their misbehavior is to lock them up.