read before opening mouth

January 25th, 12:25am January 24th, 9:18pm Concept News CentralAll the news that matters

Critics opposing the lowering of the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) are getting it all wrong. There is no imprisonment involved in the bill passed by a House panel this week as feared by Vice President Leni Robredo and Sen. Risa Hontiveros.

The move has also been heavily criticized by the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council which oversees implementation of a 2006 reform law that places the nation in the vanguard of Asian progress on juvenile justice issues. Supporters of the law contend the efforts are a knee-jerk reaction to a rising crime rate.

On the other hand, Child Rights Network slammed the proposed bill, saying they are shocked and dismayed upon learning legislators have chosen to lower the age of criminal responsibility to nine years old.

Robredo even went to town expressing concern over the proposed measure and to show her naivete asked: “Can you imagine a nine-year-old imprisoned for crime?” She should have read the bill first before reacting that way.

Hontiveros, on the other hand, said: “This really makes me wonder why they would pass that bill. Why are they going after children?”

If only they have read the bill first before opening their mouths, they would have found out that the bill is not really after children and will not put them in jail but in reformative institutions. This, according to Justice Committee Chairman Salvador Leachon, is meant “to correct their ways and bring them back to the community.”

“They are not branded as criminals but children in conflict with law. Reformative institutions do not punish individuals but instead help children get integrated back to the community after committing criminal acts,” Leachon said.

In short, the House bill puts emphasis on reforming or amending the juvenile system in the country.

The proposed measure was brought about by the alarming increase in the number of criminal syndicates using minors to carry out criminal acts. It is high time, we believe, for Congress to pass this bill to protect our children from being used by ruthless and unscrupulous criminal syndicates as a means of evading prosecution and punishment.

The reform is not selective but rather comprehensive. It is not a measure meant to address the problems and gaps in the criminal justice system but part of a bigger platform of reforming the justice system.

That is why, according to Leachon, the bill will be named as An Act Expanding the Scope of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare System and Strengthening the Social Reintegration Programs for Children in Conflict with the Law, amending for the purpose Republic Act (RA) 9344.

The proposed measure will amend Section 6 of RA 9344, which will change the minimum age of responsibility of children in conflict with the law from 15 to nine.

As we went to press yesterday, reports came that the House had approved on second reading the proposed measure but with the MACR – which they had renamed MASR or minimum age of social responsibility — pegged at 12 years old.

No matter what age it would be in the final version of the law — the Senate is coming up with its own version soon — the fact remains that syndicates, particularly those in the drug trade, have used our youngsters, including school children, in their nefarious activities.

Under the proposed measure, a child under nine who commits an offense will be subjected to an intervention program but those who are nine years old and above but below 18 will be exempt from criminal liability and subjected to an intervention program unless they acted with discernment.

“I just want to clarify that first, there will be no imprisonment that will happen here. Second, I would like to tell the people that they (children) will not be included in ordinary jails or ordinary inmates,” Leachon explained.

So where is the imprisonment and going after children that Robredo and Hontiveros are talking about?

Contrary to claims by certain quarters, particularly child rights groups, the measure passed by the House is not anti-poor nor anti-children but only aims to protect them from the syndicates.

In other words, the new version of the bill is not a brash, unfounded and misguided move that is inimical to children’s rights as claimed by rights groups.

One of the most contentious issues in juvenile justice policy is determining the MACR. There is a large variation around the world on what the appropriate age is and even within nations differences exist depending upon the nature of the crime and the jurisdiction.

Whatever the final outcome of the deliberations going on in both houses of Congress, only one thing is clear: Let us spare our children from the grasp of unscrupulous criminals. It would be a bigger crime if we would allow them to fall into the hands of these ruthless manipulators.

The proposed measure, if it eventually passed into law, should deter them from doing so.