Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Debaters:
Constantino, Joshua
March 6, 2017
Mendiola, Manila
Negative Position Paper (1F)
Let it be resolved that the minimum age of criminal responsibility be lowered to nine years
old
BACKGROUND
Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice System and Welfare Act of 2006, as
amended by Republic Act No. 10360, is a landmark piece of legislation that introduced novel
concepts, principles and procedures into our legal system and indubitably changed the face of
juvenile justice in the Philippines.1 R.A. No. 9344 established a comprehensive restorative
juvenile justice system and delinquency prevention program under the Department of Justice.
Under this new system, several government-run, center-based rehabilitation programs were
further strengthened, and community-based diversion programs were instituted for the
purpose of the social integration of children in conflict with the law. 2 The act also changed the
minimum age of criminal responsibility. It exempts children fifteen (15) years of age or under
from criminal liability but they are to be subjected to an intervention program. Meanwhile,
children above fifteen years but below eighteen (18) years of age are likewise exempted unless
However, since it has been implemented, the Juvenile Justice System and Welfare Act
has been under fire for its inefficiency. Various advocates and lawmakers claimed that the
system failed to address crimes involving the youth and curtail the increasing crime rates in the
1
Quimpo-Sale, A. W. (2016). Children in Conflict with the Law and Court Diversion Procedure: Restorative Justice
in Action. PHILJA Bulletin, XVIII(69), 3. Retrieved from
http://philja.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/files/pdf/PHILJA_Bulletin/Bul69.pdf
2
https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_85542.html
3
Republic Act No. 9344
Negative Position Paper (1F)
country. They assert that the current laws on juvenile justice pamper offenders from the youth,
knowing that they are under the law exempt from any liability, thus worsening the problem on
criminality. It is on this ground that they push forward for the amendment of the current laws
and propose that the minimum age of criminal responsibility be lowered to nine years old.
We strongly disagree.
We are of the opinion that lowering the age of criminal responsibility is neither
necessary, nor beneficial, and ultimately impractical for it offers a myopic solution to a much
bigger problem. The current Juvenile Justice System Act is adequate enough to deal with
children in conflict with the law and at the same time ensure that the rights of these children
are also protected. There is only a need for a proper and more effective implementation of the
I. NON-NECESSITY
According to Bobby Scott: giving a 10-year mandatory minimum for a second offense fist
fight is not going to reduce the chance that someone will be stabbed 16 times when you are not
funding any of the programs that are desperately needed to actually reduce juvenile crime.
It has been 12 years since RA 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act has been
enacted. It has been conceded that this law was passed because of the pressing circumstances.
It is the policy of the negative bench to retain the present minimum age of criminal
responsibility of above 15 years old to below 18 years of age who have acted with discernment.
Negative Position Paper (1F)
The Constitution provides that the State shall defend the right of children to assistance,
including proper care and nutrition and special protection [of children] from all forms of neglect,
abuse, cruelty, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to their development4 (Emphasis
supplied).
RA 9344 in connection to Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code provides that those
children above 15 and below 18 years old who only have acted with discernment are triable in
our courts of justice. It is absurd based on facts and recent studies to lower the age of criminal
Statistics
According to the data of Amnesty International and the UNICEF: 50,000 children in the
Philippines are arrested and detained since 19955, 28 children are arrested every day and 8 out
of 10 CILC will commit only one offense in their lifetime. First time offenders who is kept out of
adult jails is 8 times more likely to change and become productive. According to PNP Data, the
number of crimes committed by children comprises only 1.72% of the total reported crimes in
the Philippines.6
Why will the lowering of age not address the country's problem on crimes?
4
Article XV, Section 2 (3), 1987 Constitution
5
Children in Jail in the Philippines (n.d). Retrieved March 5, 2017 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_in_jail_in_the_Philippines
6
Jail is no place for a Child (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2017 from
https://www.unicef.org/philippines/children/jj_1.html
Negative Position Paper (1F)
According to the position paper of the Philippine Psychological Association on the House
Bill No. 60527, scientific evidence shows that although children may have discernment on what
is right and wrong (which may be a factor in mitigating their criminal liability), it is their
7
Position Paper of the Philippine Psychological Association on the HB 6052 (n.d.). Retrieved March 5, 2017 from
https://www.pap.org.ph/includes/view/default/uploads/pap_position_paper_on_juvenile_justice_law_110812.pd
f
Negative Position Paper (1F)
young person, already victimized into criminal justice would push them to
The Philippine Action for Youth Offenders (PAYO) conducted a Study on Age of
between the ages of 7 and 18, most of whom were street children. The study, which followed
up on a similar study conducted with school children, concluded that out-of-school youth have
a lower ability to make positive choices in life and were generally at a very low level of
discernment. At the age of 18, the out-of-school children tested were at a level of discernment
comparable to a seven year old. This dispelled the common myth that street children "grow up
faster" than school-going children, and if fact demonstrated that the contrary was true. While
street children had development "street smarts", their moral reasoning and cognitive
The prevailing circumstances in the Philippines compounds the problem rather than
resolves it: There is no need to lower the age of criminal responsibility because it is not feasible
8
Study on Age of Discernment of Out-of-School Children. Philippine Action for Youth Offenders. Retrieved March
5, 2017 from http://www.crin.org/en/docs/PAYO%20stand%20on%20Senate%20Resolution%20280.pdf
Negative Position Paper (1F)
The Philippines is a third-world country where the lowest brackets of the social system
receive little to no education and are susceptible to external control and manipulation. Thus,
(supported by articles on child development) children often grow up without mental and moral
support as that of an average child. We can expect based on studies that these children are not
● The case of Ortega vs. People (G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008) shows a case where
children only follow orders of adults when it comes to perpetration of crimes. Despite
the ruling, which takes a paragraph from R.A. No. 9344, the children described in the
law are mere foot soldiers or couriers, but are not the ones who initiated the criminal
act by themselves.
Discernment is an important qualifier on whether or not a child is considered criminally
liable. For this, judicial or official examination must be done in order to know if discernment
In cases such as Anciro vs. People (G.R. No. 107819, December 17, 1993) and Madali vs.
People (G.R. No. 180380, August 4, 2009), the courts looked into evidence and
investigations with which to determine discernment of the accused.
Why is the enforcement of laws the better solution than lowering the age of criminal
responsibility?
First of all RA 9344 and RA 10630 are not yet fully implemented. It must be given a
chance to be executed by the local government units to test its effectiveness. RA 10630
Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) member. However, the non-government
Negative Position Paper (1F)
organizations (NGOs) providing services for the CICL observed that the multi-disciplinary team,
Enforcement of laws is better than lowering the age of criminal responsibility because a
youth entering the Juvenile Justice System has the opportunity to receive intervention
assistance from the state. In the care of the state, a youth may receive drug rehabilitation
assistance, counseling, and educational opportunities. The success of the Juvenile Justice
System is measured by how well it prepares youth to re-enter the community without
committing further crimes. Optimally, all juvenile detention facilities would catch youths up on
their education, provide them with job training, give them the experience of living in a safe,
stable environment, and provide them with assistance to break harmful habits.
The best interests of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions
concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of
law, administrative authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the principle of First Call
for Children as enunciated in the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. Every
effort shall be exerted to promote the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a
II. NON-BENEFICIALITY
Lord Scarman, Gillick once said, “The law must be sensitive to human development and
social change.”
Negative Position Paper (1F)
A warning was once publicized by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) that
lowering the age of criminal responsibility is a “great child violation.”9 As elucidated, reverting
to the former minimum age of criminal liability would conflict with international standards;
which follows a desecration of the principle of pacta sunt servanda. Philippines, as a signatory
to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) of 1989, ratified with the
definition of a child as a person below the age of 18. As a state party to the convention, the
Philippines is thus obligated to increase the degree of protection for individuals under 18
years.10 Let this side oppose the policy into two-fold impression, legal impression and
psychological impression.
The passage of Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA) of
2006, as amended by RA No. 10630, is a great leap forward in the improvement of the legal and
judicial protection of children. RA 9344 has introduced several reforms in the manner by which
children in conflict with the law are handled. It establishes a comprehensive system for the
administration of juvenile justice, including the rehabilitation of children in conflict with the
law, their reintegration into their respective communities and the prevention of juvenile
dealing with children in conflict with the law. Moreover, a national council on juvenile justice
and welfare was created to ensure the effective implementation of the new law.11 With regard
9
Dana Sioson, UNICEF says lowering criminal liability to age 9 ‘very unfair to a child’, Asian Journal (14
February 2017) Retrieved from <http://asianjournal.com/news/unicef-says-lowering-criminal-liability-to-age-9-
%E2%80%AFvery-unfair-to-a-child/> (18 February 2017).
10
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability: What to Be Considered?,
(22 July 2016) Retrieved from <http://cmfr-phil.org/in-context/lowering-the-age-of-criminal-liability-what-to-be-
considered/> (18 February 2017).
11
Florenda S. Frivaldo, CHILDREN IN CONF LICT WITH THE LAW: THE CASE OF STREET CHILDREN IN
THE PHILIPPINES. International Journal of Development Research, 6 (02), pp. 6801-6807, (2016), Retrieved from
<http://www.journalijdr.com/sites/default/files/4774.pdf> (18 February 2017).
Negative Position Paper (1F)
to this, the commitment of the government in safeguarding the welfare of the youth is far from
appalling. Records reveal that only 1.72% of the total reported crimes in the Philippines
comprise the children. Culled from the facts, despite the apparent drawbacks and limitations of
the implementation of RA 9344, most of which relates to lack of participation of the community
and the parents themselves, and less to the drawbacks of the provisions, statistics shows that
right after the implementation of RA 9344 in 2006, the trend of volume of CICL dramatically,
and consistently decreased since then, showing that it is indeed beneficial and effective in
crime prevention, but more effective measures and general participation still has to be
bolstered. If a new policy would be adopted, the assurance of efficient implementation can be
disputed by the plain reason that an existing legislation for almost a decade is regarded as
faulty. The adoption of the same could amount to waste of public funds since it merely
proposes the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility but the programs involved would be
the same. Therefore, it will only result to the increase in the number of youth liable to crimes
We now deal with the psychological aspect of this issue. What is often missing from
discussions of juvenile crime today is recognition that children and adolescents are not just
little adults, nor is the world in which they live the world of adults. Physical, emotional, and
cognitive development continue throughout adolescence. Although young people can approach
decisions in a manner similar to adults under some circumstances, many decisions that children
and adolescents make are under precisely the conditions that are hardest for adults—
Negative Position Paper (1F)
unfamiliar tasks, choices with uncertain outcomes, and ambiguous situations.12 Subjecting
children that are 9 years of age to criminal responsibility would indiscriminately discount the
natural formation of a youthful mind. In a recent paper by Aizer and Doyle, studies show that
those incarcerated as a juvenile are 39% less likely to graduate from high school and are 41%
more likely to have entered adult prison by age of 25 compared with other public school
Piaget in his work, “The Moral Judgement of the Child” established a theory of not only
the cognitive, but also the moral development of a child's mind, précising that they cannot
undertake certain tasks until they are psychologically mature enough to do so.14 Psychologist
Kohlberg expanded on Piaget's position, and their theories make it plain that by ten, children
are not capable of making moral decisions similar to that of an adult, as they have not fully
learned to do so. The theories suggest that there are two stages of moral reasoning named the
heteronomous stage and the autonomous stage. At the heteronomous stage, the child is
egocentric and believes the world revolves around them, and they will act depending on the
severity of the outcome. This stage continues past the age of ten. Subsequently, when they are
in the autonomous stage, intentions are more important than the consequences of action and
should be the basis for judging behaviour, and it is then that a child should be held accountable
for his or her actions, not before.15 Thus, lowering the age of criminal responsibility would only
12
Joan McCord, Cathy Spatz Widom & Nancy A. Crowell, Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice, (National Academy
Press, 2001), 186, DOI: 10/17226/9747
13
Anna Aizer & Joseph J. Doyle, Jr. (2013). What is the long term impact of incarceration of juveniles?, Retrieved
from <http://voxeu.org/article/what-long-term-impact-incarcerating-juveniles> (18 February 2017).
14
Trans by Gabian Piaget, The Moral Judgement of a Child, (Penguin, 1977).
15
Higgins Kohlberg, Power: Lawrence Kohlberg's approach to moral education, (Columbia University Press,
1991).
Negative Position Paper (1F)
to put so much pressure unto the child compelling him to be aware of himself at an early age as
Detention is not always the solution. Criminality is not the problem. The most
contemporaneous view would be that lowering the age of criminal liability is depriving and
disadvantageous to the poor. Given the current state of the justice system in the country, the
proposed bill risks victimizing the poor, among whom most offending minors come from,
primarily because of need. The means of these families barely cover their needs, let alone hiring
a lawyer, as circumstance may require. While poverty is not an excuse to commit crime, there
ought to be a clear distinction between making the children responsible for their acts and
criminalizing them. We must accept the fact that the problem of children in conflict with the
law is actually deeply rooted in the social ills of the country. Our government remained
complacent to the reverberating needs of the poor like adequate social services particularly
free and accessible education. To put it simply, address first these social ills if the sole purpose
the bill is to deter crimes, come up with more holistic and nuanced solutions rather than
simply lowering the age of criminal liability.16 Take note that young people are liable to
outcomes, and make judgments based on incorrect or incomplete information all because of
lack of experience which increases their vulnerability.17 Hence, the adoption of the proposed
III. IMPRACTICABILITY
16
Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility, Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability: What to Be Considered?,
(22 July 2016) Retrieved from <http://cmfr-phil.org/in-context/lowering-the-age-of-criminal-liability-what-to-be-
considered/> (18 February 2017).
17
Joan McCord, Cathy Spatz Widom & Nancy A. Crowell, Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice, (National Academy
Press, 2001), 186, DOI: 10/17226/9747
Negative Position Paper (1F)
The proposal of lowering the age of criminal responsibility to nine years old is NOT
Second, reverting to the former minimum age of criminal liability would conflict with
Third, the policy violates the constitutional mandate of the government that its duty is
to defend the right of children from abuse, exploitation, and other conditions prejudicial to
The lowering of age of criminal responsibility is not feasible because we already have a
working and complete law to regulate juvenile delinquency. RA 9344, or the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act of 2006, is a complete law capable of regulating children who deviate from the
public peace. It consists of an intervention program19 determined by the social worker for those
children who are exempted from any criminal liability, which means that the state still has a
hand in ensuring that these children are guided to the right path. For those ages fifteen to
eighteen who acted with discernment, RA 9344 allows for a diversion program20 without
ensure that the approach towards the child in conflict with the law is rehabilitative and
punitive. Thus, the law being complete, the proper solution to address the problem of rising
18
Section 3(2), Article XV, 1987 Constitution
19
Section 20, RA 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
20
Section 23, RA 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
Negative Position Paper (1F)
criminality is the proper enforcement of RA 9344. Contrary to belief, our current law still
Additionally, the implementation of a new law will entail unnecessarily large expenses.
Currently, our prison cells are congested and it is impossible to allocate cells exclusively for the
use of children. Also, according to Sen. Ralph Recto, the annual average per inmate spending
now runs at P73,910.00, and the BJMP and BuCor’s combined food budget for 135,000 inmates
amounts to more or less P2.5 billion. With cells built for 18,881 prisoners now housing 93,961,
BJMP said its facilities are 397 percent over capacity while BuCor reports a 158 percent
overcapacity rate at present, Recto said 21. We cannot afford to spend more on children’s
The lowering of the age of criminal responsibility will also be unconstitutional, based on
the equal protection clause. In the case of People v. Cayat, the Supreme Court has laid down
Children who are nine years old cannot be clumped together with adult criminals and be
treated alike, because there are a lot of substantial distinctions between a child and an adult. A
child’s reception to its environment is very important, that is why it is paramount for the state
to place the child in a surrounding conducive to his development, unlike adults, where the value
21
http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2016/0830_recto1.asp, retrieved 3/3/2017.
22
People vs. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12
Negative Position Paper (1F)
formation is already finished and his character is already rigid. Being labeled as a criminal will
create a more impactful emotional scar that will traumatize the child, rendering him
unproductive and immobile. The approach to a child differs than that of an adult, because a
child requires more tender care for them to understand things. Therefore, children and adults
must not be treated in the same way, regardless of the acts of the former.
Reverting to the former minimum age of criminal liability would conflict with
international agreements and conventions. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC) of 1989, where one of the countries who first signed the agreement is the
Philippines, defines a child as a person below the age of 1823. As a state party to the said
convention, the Philippines is required to increase the age of criminal responsibility for
compliance. Additionally, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration
of Juvenile Justice, known as the “Beijing Rules,” Rule 4.1 states that:
“In those legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal
responsibility for juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low
an age level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual
maturity.24
This rule admits the fact that the significance of the minimum age of criminal
responsibility is that it recognizes that a child has attained the emotional, mental and
Lastly, the Constitution itself mandates the state to the following duty:
23
Article 1, United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989
24
Rule 4.1, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing
Rules") of 1985
Negative Position Paper (1F)
By lowering the age of criminal responsibility to nine years old, the state violates this
constitutional duty. Apprehending children and placing them to state custody for punishment
will subject them to conditions which might affect their physical, emotional, and mental
faculties for their development. It will subject them into greater harm and may cause them to
children are treated as fugitives will make a negative impact in terms of how they view
mistakes.
Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, one of the important tasks of the government is
to act as the guardian of the rights of the people. One of the most imperative duty of the
government is to make sure that the child’s interest is best catered. In the case of Cabanas v.
Pilapil, the Supreme Court ruled that the State may weigh in the balance of the interest of the
preservation of the family, versus the interest of the child, to come up to a conclusion that it
It is the paramount duty of the state as the Parens Patriae to consider the child as its
paramount interest. It has to make sure that every child lives a deserving life full of hope. In
choosing what’s best for the child, apprehending them and treating them as criminals for
mistakes they may have done is not the best interest for the child.
25
Section 3(2), Article XV, 1987 Constitution
26
Cabanas v. Pilapil, G.R. No. L-25843, [July 25, 1974], 157 PHIL 97-102