Lamasan 1

LOWERING THE MINIMUM AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND

INEFFICIENT REHABILITATION PROGRAMS FOR CHILDREN IN CONFLICT

WITH THE LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES

Keisha Lorraine P. Lamasan

1 AB Psychology

Purposive Communication (MM)

ABSTRACT

Children in conflict with the law (CICL) often come from impoverished families and

communities where education is scarce to teach these young children about the consequences

of their actions. And CICL are placed in rehabilitation centres when they are arrested.

Rehabilitation centres are meant for these CICL to improve and better themselves. However,

according to Aldaba-Lim, rehabilitation centres in the Philippines do not have the correct and

exact rehabilitation programmes to help and aid these CICL to better themselves as citizens

of the country. More so, children as young as 12 years old experiencing these kinds of

emotional trauma will have less chance of being a better citizen because of how their

development were hindered. And if rehabilitation centres do not have the proper processes to

rehabilitate these children, they will be exposed to a different and difficult environment, this

may lead to them to have mental health problems like depression, anxiety, or trauma and

hinder their emotional and mental growth. Improving the rehabilitation programs for the

CICL is vital in helping them to be better citizens as well as improve their social and personal

relationships. These children are the future of their generation and holding them back for the

mistakes they did when they could not even identify what is right from wrong, will only

destroy the last chance these country has to be a better nation, and to quote Jose Rizal, “ang

kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan.”

Child in conflict with the law or CICL is defined as “a child who is alleged as,

accused of, or adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws” according to

the Republic Act No. 9344 of 2006. Commonly, CICL are those who come from

impoverished families and communities and were either uneducated or dropped-out of school

at an early age. In 2016, 1297 CICL were taken into account by the City and Municipal

Social Welfare and Development offices in a total of 15 regions in the Philippines and the

majority of these children (86%) are males (John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social

Issues, 2016). This number of CICL comprises a very small number of crimes committed,

however, it is still important to take into account the proper procedure in dealing with these

cases because of the sensitivity and development of young children.

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 emphasized that CICL should be

rehabilitated and helped in a way that they improve their actions and behaviour. After placing

them in rehabilitation centres, they will be returned to their families and be directly observed

by their own community based program for reform. Also, this law do not allow children

under the age of 18 be detained in jails with other adults. However, this law was challenged

when it did not seem effective in eradicating the increasing cases of CICL. In a report by

Sabangan (2011), Sen. Chiz Escudero wanted to lower the minimum age of criminal

responsibility with the argument that the rehabilitating CICL is not enough to decrease the

number of these cases and that lowering the age of criminal responsibility and detaining them

in jails with adults will solve this problem.

Lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility is a very recent issue nowadays.

Last January 28, 2019, the House of Representative approved the bill that lowers the

minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 (Cepeda, House lowers minimum age

of criminal responsibility to 12, 2019). With the rise of this bill that is obviously anti-children

and anti-poor, there are several reasons why this should not be a law. According to the
 Lamasan 3

Psychological Association of the Philippines (2017) the brains of children younger than 20

years old are still underdeveloped especially their pre-frontal cortex which is the one

responsible in making sound decisions for adults. PAP (2017) also emphasized that children

at this age can be easily influenced and obliged to do things they were not supposed to do

especially without proper guidance and education.

Several Developmental Psychology Theories give evidence to what the Philippine

Psychological Association claims. In Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, children

under the age of 12 are still in what they call the concrete operational stage. In this stage,

children are not able to understand abstract concepts yet making them easier to believe in

things that they see rather than concepts only adults with proper education can understand. In

Kohlberg’s theory on moral development, young children are in the pre conventional

morality level wherein they will continue to do things even if in society’s standard they are

wrong as long as they don’t get caught and reprimanded. The social environment that these

children grew up in is also critical in their decision making capabilities. At age 12, children

compare themselves to others, according to Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages of Development.

Children feel that they have to be able to do the things other children or other people do to

make themselves feel useful (Ciccarelli & White, 2017). In this mind set, children follow

what the people in their community or family do.

And as stated, CICL often come from poor families and communities. And in a study

by Alampay (2006), poverty influences a higher risk for a child to commit crimes through the

stresses that parents experience when they generate low income. Parents who experience

more stress tend to be more distant to their children and may cause a rift in their relationship.

Unhealthy parent-child relationship is one of the biggest factor why children are in conflict

with the law.

Incorporating the developmental psychology theories and the effect of poverty to

parents and children, children are at a higher risk to commit crimes when they are in poverty.

They also tend to imitate and follow what their parents do, without understanding the context

and consequences. According to Maru (2019), when CICL are labeled as criminals, they

would live to those words. These children would believe what the people around them are

saying about them and to them.

In another case, one study was conducted about the situation and experiences of CICL

in Metro Manila, Davao, and Cebu reached into one of their conclusions that having parents

of these children explain the consequences of their behaviour instead of punishing them, lead

to these children not committing the crimes they previously did (Etemadi, Ye, Bermudez,

Ancheta-Templa, & AKAP-AHRC, 2004). This study also concluded that several social

influences also affect the decision making of these children, like peer pressure, public

attitudes, domestic violence. This evidence only strengthens how developmental theorists

especially Erikson, claim how the environment greatly affects the development of children.

The passing of the bill that lowers the minimum age of criminal responsibility will

cause more harm than good. The bill would place these children in a Juvenile Intervention

and Support Center called Bahay Pag-asa but more often than not, these Bahay Pag-asas do

not have the means to properly rehabilitate these children (Cepeda, Highlights of House bill

lowering the criminal liability age to 12, 2019). In connection to the developmental

psychology theories presented, when these children are exposed to an environment that

cannot rehabilitate or reform them, they will be stuck in whatever situation they are in. These

children will just be placed in a building or centre together with other children, who in the

eyes of society, are criminals. The discrimination, generalization, and distance is inevitable.

This would only cause these children to stick with whatever they know and just prove what

the society is telling them they are. The identity of these children would not be as powerful
 Lamasan 5

and insistent as those children who were given the chance to live in an environment away

from the harsh reality of life. Their identity would be those criminals, their parents,

neighbors, and the government accuse them to be.

Another argument of politicians who want to lower the minimum age of criminal

responsibility is that rehabilitation programs and reforms do not work. However, Sanidad-

Leones (2006) emphasized the measures that the government has for the rehabilitation and

reintegration of the CICL. When CICL are apprehended, they will be released to their parents

or nearest living relative or legal guardian. However, if none of these are available or if the

children were neglected or abused, these children will be brought to the proper authorities

like DSWD, the barangay council, the Local Social Welfare Development officer, or even the

church. And if the child, through the discernment tool of the DSWD, acted with discernment,

the child will be brought to a rehabilitation centre and a diversion process or intervention will

be given (Sanchez, n.d.).

In the paper, Sanidad-Leones (2006) wrote that the intervention and rehabilitation

program has a two-part system, namely: centre-based and community based services for the

children. For the centre-based system, children were placed in a facility together with other

CICL wherein they are provided with psychological, medical, and legal services. In this

centre, social workers help the children in improving themselves by giving educational,

spiritual, and functional services. Psychologists and psychiatrists provide counselling for the

children, especially those who experienced trauma. In this system, CICL only stay at the

centre for a short period of time. After the process of rehabilitating is done, they reintegrate

these children back to their families and communities and this is where the community-based

system comes in. The staffs and social workers of the facilities, provide the families and

communities of these children, some data and information that will help better the situation
 Lamasan 6

and improve their behavioural development. But in the end, this system is flawed in a lot of

ways.

Aldaba-Lim pointed out that when CICL are reintegrated to their homes and

communities, they still have the same environment as before they were rehabilitated. More

often than not, these children were already left alone or alienated by their own families. The

community-based system will not work properly in this case as the community they will

return to, is not as accepting and helpful as expected. But even before these children will be

reintegrated to their community, they should rehabilitated and helped in the best way possible

in the centre itself. But Philippine government and the Local Government Units seem to

make this impossible in some ways.

The Bahay Pag-asa or the rehabilitation centres that the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act

mandate all the Local Government Units to have are scarce throughout the country. Revita

(2017) pointed that there should be 114 of these rehabilitation centres nationwide, but only 35

are operational. And the more unfortunate part, only three of these centres are run by the

provincial government and the others are run and funded by NGOs and are in urbanized

cities. The Local Government Unit that are supposed to spearhead these Bahay Pag-asa seem

to lack in giving the proper support. And the National government also do not give enough

budget and funding for the building of these rehabilitation centres. However, not enough

rehabilitation centres is not the only reason why these diversion and intervention programs of

the government

When there are rehabilitation centres available in certain provinces or cities, these

centres do not have enough facilities and people that are actually needed to implement the

proper intervention and diversion process for CICL. In Caloocan City, their bahay pag-asa or

what they call Yakap-Bata Holding center is too small for the 34 CICL that they house.
 Lamasan 7

However, this issue is not limited to this centre. Almost all of the limited number of bahay

pag-asa or house of hope in the Philippines are too small and are not maintained well for the

children to actually stay in (Elemia, 2017). This situation is one of the most concrete reason

why rehabilitation programs for CICL in the Philippines do not work.

Children in cramped classrooms do not learn as much as children in well ventilated

and clean classrooms. How can children who wants to be better people actually be better and

improve themselves when the place they sleep, eat in, and educated for rehabilitation are

similar to what correctional facilities for adult criminals have and experience? The

environment of these children is one of the crucial factors to help them improve their

psychological, emotional, and social conditions. Lack of basic necessities and facilities and

resources like bed, food, and water can also affect the intervention that social workers do.

Elemia (2017) also pointed out that some of these centres do not have enough staff or do not

actually have proper social workers who can implement the rehabilitation process.

Sometimes, these staffs abuse the children or do not give them the proper care that they need.

In these situations where children who were brought in for rehabilitation only experience

more trauma and poverty than they did when they were free, and some politicians actually

wanted to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility? When they do that, more

children will be apprehended and the situation in these centres will only worsen. No solution

was provided, more problems will actually arise from these.

One way to actually address the problem regarding the CICL is not to lower the

minimum age of criminal responsibility instead, the government should focus on improving

the rehabilitation programmes for the youth offenders in the Philippines. These CICL should

be given another chance to change themselves and be a better, fully fledged citizen of the

country. The program that the DSWD, LGUs, and the national government should have is to

focus and give emphasis on psychological counselling and therapy which will help these
 Lamasan 8

children understand what went wrong and how they can change their behaviour. The program

should also provide counselling and guidance sessions to parents or legal guardians of the

children to arm them with the correct and scientifically-backed ways on how to deal with and

take care of their children.

Another issue that the government should focus on is to actually allot enough budget

to the rehabilitation and intervention programs for the CICL. All these programs and

processes will just be put to waste if there is no enough money to actually keep the program

on going. The children who were and will be placed in these centres need the money for their

basic necessities as well as for the medical, legal, and psychological services that they need to

be able to improve themselves. Improving these children’s whole well-being is vital in having

a successful rehabilitation program. These programs can only be considered to actually

rehabilitate CICL if it can actually help improve the development of the children’s

psychological, social, and over all well-being.

Improving these rehabilitation programs for CICL will give them bigger opportunities

and chances to be better citizens of the country. Better rehabilitation programs that focuses on

the children’s psychological and social needs will enable them to be a fully functioning

person and a socially aware and responsible citizen. This step will give the CICL another

chance to redeem themselves and contribute great things to the improvement of the country.

Rizal once said, “ang kabataan ang pag-asa ng bayan”, and if the generation before these

children would not give them the chance they need to change, what more hope does the

country have?
 Lamasan 9

REFERENCES

(2006, April 28). Retrieved from Republic Act No. 9344 Sec. 4-e:

https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2006/04/28/republic-act-no-9344-s-2006/

Alampay, L. P. (2006). Risk Factors and Causal Processes in Juvenile Delinquency:

Researcha and Implications for Prevention. Philippine Journal of Psychology, Vol 39

No 1, pp. 195-228.

Aldaba-Lim, E. (n.d.). Care of the Juvenile Offenders in the Philippines. International

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 239-243.

Cepeda, M. (2019, January 24). Highlights of House bill lowering the criminal liability age to

12. Rappler, pp. https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/221818-highlights-house-bill-

lowering-minimum-age-criminal-responsibility.

Cepeda, M. (2019, January 28). House lowers minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12.

Rappler, pp. https://www.rappler.com/nation/222073-house-3rd-reading-lowering-

minimum-age-criminal-responsibility.

Ciccarelli, S. K., & White, J. N. (2017). Development Across the Life Span. In S. K.

Ciccarelli, & J. N. White, Psychology (pp. 350-392). Essex: Pearson.

Elemia, C. (2017, May 23). When "Houses of Hope fail CICL. Rappler, pp.

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/151500-bahay-pag-asa-children-

conflict-law-juvenile-justice.

Etemadi, F. U., Ye, C. L., Bermudez, C. ,., Ancheta-Templa, M. F., & (AKAP-AHRC), A.

P.-A. (2004). BREAKING RULES: CICL and the Juvenile Justice Process The

Experience in the Philippines. Quezon City: Save the Children UK.

John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues. (2016, September). Children and the

Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility and Why MACR should not be lowered.
 Lamasan 10

Retrieved from Intersect Quick Facts: http://jj.ateneo.net/publications/intersect-quick-

facts/

Maru, D. (2019, January 22). Lowering age of criminal liability imperils youth offenders'

future, explained. ABS-CBN News, pp. https://news.abs-

cbn.com/focus/01/22/19/lowering-age-of-criminal-liability-imperils-youth-offenders-

future-expert-says.

Philippines, P. A. (2017). On the Ammendment of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. On

the Ammendment of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, 1-3.

Revita, J. (2017, February 10). Only 35 centers in Philippine for children in conflict with law.

Sunstar, p. https://www.sunstar.com.ph/article/125513.

Sabangan, A. R. (2011, October 9). Children in Crime: Cracks in the Country's Juvenile

Justice. InterAksyon, The online news portal of TV5.

Sanchez, J. M. (n.d.). Overview of Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare. 164th

International Training Course Participant Papers, 140-144.

Sanidad-Leones, C. (2006). Effective Preventive Measure for Youth at Risk in the

Philippines; Topic 2: Role of the Community in the Integrated Crime PRevention

Approach (Multidisciplinary Approach) and Establishment of an Effective Multi-

Agency Cooperation and Collaboration System . Work Product of the 129th

International Senior Seminar, 156-157.