Juvenile law debate rekindled

Juvenile law debate rekindled | Daily Tribune

“There have been a series of incidents. There was a robbery. There was rape. Now there has been a school shooting. What are our fellow senators waiting for?” Padilla said.

Padilla has long advocated for reducing the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 10 years old, arguing that criminal groups and repeat offenders have exploited weaknesses in the current system.

But Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, principal author of RA 9344 and its subsequent amendments, maintained that the law already provides mechanisms to hold minors accountable and that the real problem lies in its implementation rather than the law itself.

In a statement following the Tacloban shooting, Pangilinan emphasized that minor suspects should not be automatically released.

“The suspects cannot be released simply because they are minors. They must go through the process prescribed by law,” he said.

He noted that parents may be held liable if negligence is established. The Department of Social Welfare and Development is required to provide support to victims and their families, he added.

His statement reflected a position Pangilinan has repeatedly defended in the Senate: that RA 9344 does not exempt minors from accountability.

Under the law, children aged 15 and under are exempt from criminal liability but are required to undergo intervention programs designed to address behavioral issues and prevent repeat offenses.

Children over the age of 15 but under 18 may still be prosecuted if authorities determine they acted with discernment, meaning they understood the consequences of their actions.

Legal experts say this distinction is often overlooked in public discussions.

In a previous Senate interpellation, Pangilinan rejected claims that minors who commit crimes cannot be punished.

“It is not true that minors cannot be punished simply because they are underage,” he said. “The two individuals involved in the Maguad killings were punished and are now in detention.”

Pangilinan also argued that releasing minors accused of serious crimes would itself violate the law.

The law firm Respicio and Co. on its website likewise argued that RA 9344 is not a “get-out-of-jail-free card” but a rehabilitation framework rooted in modern neuroscience and international child-protection standards.

According to the firm, the law recognizes that adolescents generally lack the same level of impulse control and judgment as adults. It also noted that diversion and intervention programs have been shown to reduce repeat offending more effectively than incarceration.

The firm also emphasized that the law imposes mandatory intervention measures and does not erase civil liability, meaning parents may still be held responsible for damages caused by their children.

DAILY TRIBUNE columnist and legal counsel Atty. Nilo Divina similarly explained that children over 15 but under 18 who act with discernment may still be prosecuted, convicted, and subjected to appropriate sanctions.

Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rosal Hubilla v. People, Divina noted that imprisonment remains legally available in certain cases. However, detention is considered a measure of last resort and must be imposed only for the shortest appropriate period.

“Although a child in conflict with the law has to serve his sentence, this does not necessarily mean that he will be imprisoned in a regular penitentiary. He may serve the sentence in an agricultural camp or other training facilities to be established, maintained, supervised and controlled by the Bureau of Corrections, in coordination with the Department of Social Welfare and Development, in a manner consistent with the offender child’s best interest. Such service of sentence will be in lieu of service in the regular penal institution,” Divina said.