I often hear people complain about the fact that children are exempt from criminal liability. They say kids are not necessarily innocent and even if they are, they will most likely be used by criminal syndicates to commit crimes knowing they would not incur any responsibility.

To be honest, this sentiment is understandable, obviously not far-fetched, and may have some merits. But whether or not it is actually valid can only be answered by examining what studies say or reveal.

As the law stands, a child 15 years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal liability. If he is above 15 but below 18, he shall likewise be exempt unless he acts with discernment. This means at the time he committed the offense, he fully understood the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of his wrongful act. This is not easy to prove because there is no presumption of discernment under the law. In fact, the prosecution has the burden of evidence to establish the same.

Contrary to what most people think, these provisions actually make sense. Based on recent studies, a child’s ability to comprehend the repercussions of his actions only becomes fully developed when he gets to be in his 20s. More importantly, he tends to commit mere petty crimes considering the limitations imposed on his mental faculty and even physical abilities. In addition, there is no significant increase in crimes committed when the law increased the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

From 1995–2005, an average of 10,515 children were arrested every year (DSWD report) by the police. When the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act was enacted in 2006, the number has increased but only slightly. Since there is no study yet on the direct correlation between the law and said increase, it is safe to say it is not that significant.

Aside from that, of the crimes committed since 2006, only 1.7 percent relates to those perpetrated by children, and of this number, a large portion refers to petty crimes. Based on structural gaps, a typical “child in conflict with the law” has low educational attainment. He is into drugs or alcohol abuse, belongs to a family of six, and is charged with property-related crimes such as theft. He typically comes from a poor, broken home that has no stable income and where domestic violence is common.

All these studies would show that the issue is not really about amending the law and lowering further the minimum age as defined. In fact, in many jurisdictions around the world, they have no problem with exempting 18-year-olds from criminal liability because they have effective law enforcement, an efficient judicial system, and comprehensive rehabilitation programs to reform juvenile delinquents.

So clearly, the answer is not to revise the law but to introduce institutional reforms. And then some.