Proposition​:

Let it be resolved that:

The age of criminal responsibility be lowered to 12 years old.

Necessity​:

Good Evening Ladies & Gentlemen!

The topic of our debate is that “Let it be resolved that the age of criminal responsibility be
lowered to 12 years old”. The age of criminal responsibility is defined as the age at which a
person is deemed fit for criminal liability for their actions. At present, our minimum age of
criminal responsibility is at 15 years old. The Philippine government has apparently undermined
the severity of juvenile delinquency problem in society. This neglect has contributed to the
upsurge of juvenile-related crimes that has caused enormous questions on the socio-political,
economic as well as security programs of the government. Therefore, we, the affirmative team
believe that there’s a need to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old.

Today as your first speaker I will be talking to you about the following:

1. The State of Juvenile Delinquency in the Philippines: A WAKE-UP CALL

2. Urgent Need to amend the present Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act in compliance with
the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child

My first point is the state of juvenile delinquency as a wake-up call.

It was in 2006, wherein lawmakers actually got the age of criminal responsibility raised from 9
years of age to 15, arguing in part that putting 9-year-olds in the system was just wrong. But it
was a mistake. Ever since the law was implemented, syndicates have been exploiting the
provisions by using minors in the commission of crimes.
Based on PNP records:
(​https://www.academia.edu/14197384/The_State_of_Juvenile_Delinquency_in_the_Philippines
_and_the_Urgent_Need_for_Legal_Reforms​):

1. 1,350 children or 61.36% of the total committed the crime of vagrancy

2. 3,400,000 juveniles were involved in drug trafficking and abuse
3. 1,850 juveniles or 20.54% of the total committed sex-related crimes
 4. 4,845 common crimes being committed by juveniles

There is apparent disinformation to mislead the public in order to tend toward the retention of
the present 15 years of age.
Lowering the threshold to 12 years of age simply means that the government and the state can
intervene in conflict situations involving its young citizens with the end view of providing them
guidance and a chance at reformation.
My second point is the urgent need to amend the Juvenile Justice & Welfare Act in
compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child.
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, which sets the minimum age at 15, needed to be
amended as it had not resulted in fewer crimes committed by minors, many of which were
already violent in nature.

This is the sad reality and one that we cannot afford to just accept or turn a blind eye to. Once
we settle on the less controversial age of 12, legislators could focus on the possible national
funding for rehabilitation centers called “Bahay Pag-asa” that would house children involved in
crimes, which the current law says should be put up and maintained by local governments.
Children in conflict with the law will not be held in jails or with adult detainees or hardened
criminals but in a Bahay Pag-asa.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Child (UNCRC), wherein the Philippines is one
of the signatories, had already recommended that the minimum age of criminal responsibility
should be at 12 years old and above. Several countries had already amended their minimum
age of criminal responsibility, and many more are considering to lower at 12 years old.
Countries like Brazil, Colombia & Peru had already made the 12 years old as their minimum age
of criminal responsibility and it was noted that it had significantly decreased their crime rates
upon its effectivity. Canada, by far, has been implementing such age wherein only an average
of 143 juvenile delinquents in a year.

As a conclusion, lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old is necessary for the
promotion and protection of the physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual and social well-being of the
children and for the attainment of government objectives as a whole, as proven by verified
studies made by the United Nations and as applied by other countries. YOUTH IS EASILY
DECEIVED BUT THERE IS HOPE.

PETER JAY S. GENISTON

Beneficiality​:
Practicability:

● Lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not violate any International Obligations
because there was no specific age limit for the minimum criminal responsibility.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art 40 par 3 provides:

“States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws,

procedures, authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children
alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law,
and, in particular:

1.The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be

presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;

2.Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such

children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human
rights and legal safeguards are fully respected.”

Under this obligation our state should set a minimum age below which children are presumed to
be incapable penal offenses, and develop separate justice systems for children that focus on
their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and whenever appropriate and desirable
without resorting to judicial proceedings.

● Lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not violate any local statute nor it
violates the rights of the parents in rearing their children .

Presidential Decree 603 or THE CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE, Art 3 par 10
provides:

“Every child has the right to the care, assistance, and protection of the State, particularly
when his parents or guardians fail or are unable to provide him with his fundamental
needs for growth, development, and improvement.”

The State is only rescuing the children and protecting their rights. Based on the statistics reported
by the Philippine National Police, ABOUT 60 percent of juvenile crimes fall under crimes
against property. It only implies that there was a failure on the parents or guardians to provide
the children with their fundamental needs for growth, development, and improvement. Needless
to say, the youth offenders are not apprehended, instead they are rescued from circumstances
which affect or will affect their survival and normal development and over which they have no
control.

● Lastly, the rehabilitative and reformative aspect can be successfully implemented with
the appropriation of of Php 400M for the construction of Bahay Pag-asa rehabilitation
centers in provinces or cities with high increase of children in conflict with the law to be
determined and identified by DSWD and the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council. The
LGU shall make aa counterpart share of 20M per rehab center.

=======================

Copy and paste your research below, always include the link of your source.

===========

https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/justice-for-children-briefing-4-v6-web_0
.pdf

ABOUT 60 percent of juvenile crimes fall under crimes against property. These include theft,
robbery, malicious mischief and estafa, statistics by the PNP from 2012 to 2015 revealed.

On the other hand, crimes against persons—which include rape, attempted rape, acts of
lasciviousness, physical injuries, murder, attempted murder, seduction, grave threats, abduction
and homicide—constitute 36 percent of the crimes committed by children covering the same
period.

In addition, 4 percent of the juvenile crimes from 2012 to 2015 involved violations against
special laws, such as Republic Act (RA) 9165 (prohibited drugs), Presidential Decree 1866
(illegal possession of firearms) and Presidential Decree 1602 (illegal gambling).
The prevalence of juvenile delinquency is primarily due to poverty, according to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) considering that theft is the common offense committed by children.

Weak justice system

ONE weakness of the existing law to protect children in conflict with the law is the rehabilitative
and reformative aspects, which remain wanting, Palabay said.

“Not all rehabilitative and reformative aspect of the juvenile justice law are implemented,” she
said, citing that those in the custody of the DSWD do not get adequate therapy and
psychosocial support.

DSWD facilities for children in conflict with the law, she added, need to be established while
existing ones need improvement.

Children in conflict with the law, she said, often end up behind bars like common criminals even
inside facilities run by the DSWD or LGUs.

https://businessmirror.com.ph/2016/10/26/juvenile-criminals-waiting-for-that-second-chance/

Write up for Debate on Logic

Proposition: ​Let it be resolved that the age of criminal responsibility be lowered to 12 years old.

Necessity –

Pursuant to Article 40 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (The
Convention), the State recognizes the right of every child alleged as, accused of, adjudged, or
recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the
promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, ​taking into account the child's age and
desirability of promoting his/her reintegration. ​Whenever appropriate and desirable​, the State
shall adopt measures for dealing with such children without resorting to judicial proceedings,
providing that human rights and legal safeguards are fully respected. It shall ensure that children
are dealt with ​in a manner appropriate to their well-being by providing for, among others, a
variety of disposition measures such as care, guidance and supervision orders, counseling,
probation, foster care, education and vocational training programs and other alternatives to
institutional care. ​(https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx)

The Convention is the most widely ratified human rights convention. The Convention deals with
the child-specific needs and rights. To this date, 196 countries have ratified the Convention,
including every member of the United Nations except the United States.
(http://indicators.ohchr.org/)

The Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international treaty adopted by the United
Nations on November 20, 1989, establishing global standards to ensure the protection, survival,
and development of all children, without discrimination. Countries that ratify the treaty pledge to
protect children from economic and sexual exploitation, violence, and other forms of abuse and
to advance the rights of children to education, health care, and a decent standard of living. The
convention also addresses children’s rights to a name and nationality, to be heard, to be fairly
treated when accused of offenses, when deprived of parental care, and other rights.

Review of the age of criminal responsibility on the 76 countries out of the 196 countries which
ratified the convention showed that 11 countries have age criminal responsibility which is at least
15 years of age including the Philippines while 65 countries have age of criminal responsibility
below age 15 years. Of this 65 countries, 32 have the age of criminal responsibility pegged at 7 –
12 years.

As such, lowering the age of criminal responsibility to age 12 years old is necessary to conform
with the current economic developments which exposes such child to such influence to commit
crimes. This has been already observed by some of the member countries in the The Convention,
thus making the age of criminal responsibility lower than 15 years of age.

Further, the our Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 provides that it is the policy of the
State to protect the best interests of the child through measures that will ensure the observance of
international standards of child protection, especially those to which the Philippines is a party.
Proceedings before any authority shall be conducted in the best interest of the child and in a
manner which allows the child to participate and to express himself/herself freely. The
participation of children in the program and policy formulation and implementation related to
juvenile justice and welfare shall be ensured by the concerned government agency.

Under Section 20 of this law, if it has been determined that the child taken into custody is fifteen
(15) years old or below, the authority which will have an initial contact with the child has the
duty to immediately release the child to the custody of his/her parents or guardian, or in the
absence thereof, the child's nearest relative. Said authority shall give notice to the local social
welfare and development officer who will determine the appropriate programs in consultation
with the child and to the person having custody over the child. If the parents, guardians or
nearest relatives cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody, the child may be released to
any of the following: a duly registered nongovernmental or religious organization; a barangay
official or a member of the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC); a local
social welfare and development officer; or when and where appropriate, the DSWD. If the child
referred to herein has been found by the Local Social Welfare and Development Office to be
abandoned, neglected or abused by his parents, or in the event that the parents will not comply
with the prevention program, the proper petition for involuntary commitment shall be filed by
the DSWD or the Local Social Welfare and Development Office pursuant to Presidential Decree
No. 603, otherwise, known as "The Child and Youth Welfare Code".

It is also provided in the law, that if after the initial investigation, the local social worker
conducting the same may do either of the following:

1. ​Proceed in accordance with Section 20 if the child is fifteen (15) years or below or above
fifteen (15) but below eighteen (18) years old, who acted without discernment; and

2. If the child is above fifteen (15) years old but below eighteen (18) and who acted with
​

discernment, proceed to diversion under the following chapter.

The determining factor is whether or not the child acted with discernment. The question now is
what age a child can act with discernment under our current economic environment as compared
to the situation existing when this law was passed.

Discernment means the capacity of the child at the time of the commission of the offense to
understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act.
The provision in the Revised Penal Code which was repealed by the said law provides that a
person over nine (9) years of age and under fifteen (15), unless he has acted with discernment, in
which case, such minor shall be proceeded against in accordance with the provisions of Art. 80
of this Code.

The Revised Penal Code took effect on December 8, 1930 which recognized that the capacity of
the child at the time of the commission of the offense to understand the difference between right
and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful act was over nine year of age and under fifteen.
At that time there were still no information technology and social media revolution to enable the
child easy access to information.
If at that time, it was already recognized that a child over nine years and under fifteen can
already understand the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of the wrongful
act, how much more now where a child just going to an internet copy and just for one peso
access all the information not know the difference between right and wrong and the
consequences of wrongful act.
It is now imperative to lower the age of criminal responsibility to correct the mistake of the R.A.
9344 has made by increasing it to 15 years where discernment of a child can be had even at the
age lower than 15 especially when access to information is easy.

Beneficiality –

Lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not be detrimental to the child but in contrast it
will be more beneficial.

Children are being used by syndicates and criminals to commit crimes because they cannot be
prosecuted. Now by lowering the age of criminal responsibility, syndicates and criminals cannot
use them anymore, thereby not this child will no longer be force to commit crimes.

Further, lowering the age of criminal responsibility will make these children to think twice of
doing the things which are considered crime in our country which the criminal syndicates will
inculcate in their minds brainwashing them that it is alright to commit such crimes because they
are immune from criminal prosecution.

It will benefit them in the sense that they will not commit such crimes knowing that they could
be disciplined and face the consequences. They cannot be brainwashed anymore by the criminal
syndicates knowing already that it would already be unlawful to do such thing.

Practicability –

The question now is whether lowering the age of criminal responsibility solve the problem?

The answer would be in affirmative. We must not make our law archaic. The law must look at
the current circumstances. Protecting the right of the child is not violated by lowering the age of
criminal responsibility, in fact, it is the most practical thing to do taking into account the
environment in which the children are surrounded nowadays. When children watch TV, movie
cinemas, or the internet, they will be able to see crimes being committed, illegal drugs being use
and such other similar things which they may think to be correct or due to the influence of some
criminal syndicate which exploit their immunity from such criminal responsibility, they may
commit such crimes even knowing that it is wrong.
Consequently, to curb the trend that criminals are using these children for committing crimes is
to eliminate the very source of their justification, that is, the children’s immunity from
prosecution. As such, the children will also not do such crimes knowing that they could be dealt
with by law severely.

It is noteworthy however, that lowering the age of criminal responsibility is not jailing them –
it’s protecting them from criminal syndicates and punishing neglectful parents because when you
deprive custody of the parents, that’s a punishment.

RESEARCH….
SALIENT FEATURES OF THE PROPOSED LAW
Children as young as twelve years old who commit serious crimes would be mandatorily
confined for rehabilitation and reform at "Bahay Pag-asa"—youth care facilities that, under the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, are built and run by the local goverment unit.

“Children aged 12 years old and above, but below 18 years old, are exempt from social liability,
unless the child acted with discernment.

If enacted, the bill will also subject children in conflict with the law to penalties two degrees
lower than that prescribed by law. In cases of imprisonment, the duration will be reduced to
two-thirds of the total period and only up to 12 years for those sentenced to life imprisonment.

The measure will also impose mandatory counseling or intervention programs for parents.
“Failure of such parents to undergo mandatory intervention, unless prevented by a lawful cause,
shall be a ground for imprisonment for at least thirty days but not more than six months,” section
7 of the bill stated.

Moreover, the bill will also penalize any person or syndicate exploiting children to commit a
crime with reclusion temporal, if the crime is punishable by imprisonment of six years or less, or
reclusion perpetua, if more than six years.”
https://www.bworldonline.com/house-revises-bill-on-age-for-criminal-liability/

The word "criminal" was also deleted from the approved bill. It is then replaced with "social" to
read "social responsibility.
https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/01/23/19/house-lowers-minimum-age-of-criminal-responsibility-
on-bills-2nd-reading
ARGUMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED LAW
1. Juvenile justice system doesn't say imprisonment automatically.., on further researches
my team have done, it aims to lower delinquency acts happening or to completely wipe it
out and for those violators there are assigned sanctions depending on their cases.

2. Being young is not a license to act against the law.

3. The measure will not imprison covered children, but will subject them to mandatory
confinement should they commit serious crimes such as rape, murder, parricide,
homicide, robbery with homicide, and violation of dangerous drugs, among others.

4. The measure would "provoke" institutions to do their jobs. It will call the attention and
provoke a more aggressive care of the parent to really care their children. The intention is
not to punish the child but to reform him, to make him a more useful and responsible
citizen of our country.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE PROPOSED LAW

1. On the implementation of the present law, the government failed to build enough Bahay
Pag-asa—only 58 have been built out of 114 planned. Some of the youth care facilities
were also below the standard set by law due to budget constraints.
-> Department of Social Welfare and Development will build, fund and run the
Bahay Pag-Asa facilities.
-> For his part, Senator Sherwin T. Gatchalian said, “I am sure we can find the
money to fund the construction and operation of the required 114 Bahay Pag-asa.
P2.04 billion is minuscule compared to the questionable P75 billion insertion for
DPWH (Department of Public Works and Highways) projects which was deleted
by the Senate in its version of the 2019 budget
https://www.bworldonline.com/house-revises-bill-on-age-for-criminal-liability/

2. If crime syndicates or adults use children in their illegal activities, clearly, the children
are victims. They should be rescued, not criminalized. Syndicates that victimize children
should be the ones arrested and penalized.

3. The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child released a draft that said
countries should not lower the existing liability threshold if it is already above 14 years
 old.
“In the original General Comment No. 10 (issued in 2007), the committee considered 12
years as the absolute minimum age. However, the committee finds that this age indication
is still low. States parties are encouraged to increase their minimum age to at least 14
years of age,” read the draft document.
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/02/10/1892421/senate-fails-pass-bill-age-crimi
nal-responsibility

● Lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not violate any International Obligations
because there was no specific age requirement for the minimum criminal responsibility.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Art 40 par 3 simply
provides:

States Parties shall seek to promote the establishment of laws, procedures,

authorities and institutions specifically applicable to children alleged as,
accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, and, in
particular:

1.The establishment of a minimum age below which children shall be

presumed not to have the capacity to infringe the penal law;

2.Whenever appropriate and desirable, measures for dealing with such

children without resorting to judicial proceedings, providing that human
rights and legal safeguards are fully respected.

Under this obligation our state should develop separate justice systems for children that foucus
on their rehabilitation and reintegration into society, and set a minimum age below which
children are presumed to be incapable penal offenses.

OLD Speech

In 2006, lawmakers actually got the age of criminal responsibility raised from 9 years of age to
15, arguing in part that putting 9-year-olds in the system was just wrong. But it was a mistake.
Ever since the law was implemented, syndicates have been exploiting the provisions by using
minors in the commission of crimes.
Based on PNP records, more than 12,000 children were arrested for different crimes and there
were 5-year-olds among the 12,136 children who were taken into custody. The total number
included around 4,000 arrested for alleged theft and robbery, 1,700 for rape and 1,000 for drug
offenses.

There is apparent disinformation to mislead the public in order to tend toward the retention of
the present 15 years of age.
Lowering the threshold to 12 years of age simply means that the government and the state can
intervene in conflict situations involving its young citizens with the end view of providing them
guidance and a chance at reformation.

Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility or now what the House members would call
“age of social responsibility” will not put minors in jail. It will snatch them from the clutches of
syndicates that prey on children. Its aim is to rehabilitate and reform children in conflict with the
law and not to punish them, to protect them from being used by criminal syndicates and to help
them reintegrate into society. It will deter the criminals from using the minors.
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, which sets the minimum age at 15, needed to be
amended as it had not resulted in fewer crimes committed by minors, many of which were
violent in nature.

This is the sad reality and one that we cannot afford to just accept or turn a blind eye to. Once
we settle on the less controversial age of 12, legislators could focus on the possible national
funding for rehabilitation centers called “Bahay Pag-asa” that would house children involved in
crimes, which the current law says should be put up and maintained by local governments.
Children in conflict with the law will not be held in jails or with adult detainees or hardened
criminals but in a Bahay Pag-asa.
The bill is pro-poor as children in poor families do not have access to quality education and are
being exposed to violence in their own family and communities and that the government,
through the principle of parens patriae, is stepping in to provide them with education and
training.

If some parents will fail to attend to the needs of their children, then the government, in
implementing the law, would be able to intercede and rehabilitate the youth in an effort to
provide them a better future and mold them into responsible members of society. We need to
snatch our young with force from the snare of criminal syndicates. We need to seize them from
entrapment in the dens of felony and transgression. We need to grab them from the arms of
lawlessness and delinquency. Only if we are able to reclaim, seize and grab them now from the
paws of gangs and syndicates can we ever hope to rehabilitate our young offenders and
prevent them from falling into the abyss of crime.
The measure also seeks to deploy more truant officers or social welfare workers to check on
children, especially those from poor families, who have been missing school for certain number
of days. While protecting and raising children is the primary responsibility of parents, all sectors
of society must help in that regard.