The tragic mass shooting at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City on 22 June has shocked the nation.

Two students, aged 14 and 15, allegedly opened fire on their schoolmates and teachers with a 9mm pistol and a .38-caliber revolver. Three students were killed and at least 20 others were injured, making the shooting one of the deadliest incidents of school violence in recent memory.

In the aftermath of such horror, public anger is inevitable. So too are renewed calls to revisit the country’s juvenile justice laws.

The incident has reignited proposals to amend Republic Act (RA) 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. Under the law, children aged 15 and under are exempt from criminal liability and will instead be subjected to intervention and rehabilitation programs. Those over 15 but under 18 may still be held criminally liable if it can be shown that they acted with discernment and fully understood the consequences of their actions.

Calls for the passage of Senate Bill No. 372, which seeks to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 10 years for minors accused of heinous crimes such as murder, rape and drug trafficking have once again gained traction. Malacañang has likewise expressed an openness to reviewing the law, including proposals to reduce the age threshold to 12.

The public’s demand for accountability is understandable. But outrage should not be mistaken for policy.

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility may satisfy a public desire for a stronger response, but it does little to address the conditions that allowed the tragedy to happen. The issue is not simply the age of the offenders but the systemic failures that allowed such an attack to occur.

Republic Act (RA) 9344 was enacted on the principle that children, by reason of their age and developmental maturity, should be treated differently from adult offenders. It reflects the State’s constitutional duty to protect children in conflict with the law and promote their rehabilitation.

Weakening these safeguards without clear evidence that harsher penalties deter juvenile crime risks undermining the law’s fundamental purpose.

The law does not excuse wrongdoing. Rather, it recognizes that children often act within environments shaped by family circumstances, social influences, trauma, neglect, or exposure to harmful behavior. The objective is accountability coupled with rehabilitation, not accountability divorced from it.

The more urgent conversation should focus on strengthening school security protocols, expanding access to mental health services, improving early intervention programs and ensuring greater parental accountability.

Schools must be equipped not only to educate but also to identify students in crisis before the warning signs escalate to violence.

Equally important is confronting the growing influence of violent online content and digital environments that increasingly shape young minds. Stronger age-verification measures, more effective parental controls and digital literacy programs and greater accountability for online platforms deserve far more attention than they currently receive.

This tragedy should also prompt serious questions about firearm access. Regardless of age, children do not simply acquire handguns without broader failures somewhere in the chain of responsibility.

The deaths of these students demand action. But effective action requires identifying the real causes of the problem rather than pursuing the most emotionally satisfying solution.

The measure of a justice system is not how severely it punishes after a tragedy. It is how effectively it prevents one from happening again.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from the incident, it is not that children should be treated more like adults. It is that adults — parents, schools, communities, institutions and government — must do far more to fulfill their responsibility to protect children before violence ever occurs.