Kapalong College of Agriculture, Sciences and Technology

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY: DISCERNING THE

PHILIPPINE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Course

Ethics

Nicolas C. Aranda, Jr.

Instructor

Leader:
Kerstin Kate E. Podunas
Members:
Shane Bangcaya
Rhea Jean Pabilar
Lovelyn Cantero
Janah Claire Pineda
Ramer Diaz
Gracezel Vicada
Anne Shirly Democrito
Daisy Mae Busaco
Neresa Pejoto

December 2022
 INTRODUCTION

Children are recognized as assets of a nation who hold the future, because they
are expected to be the ones who will lead and rule the country for future generations,
which is why the future of the nation lies in the hands of the children. But due to our
society’s indifference in all spheres, some of these future stake holders have had
committed destructive actions which caused disturbance and chaos in the society.

Juvenile delinquency is one of the most controversial problems around the world.
Juvenile as stated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is anyone under the age
of 18 regardless of how each individual state defines a juvenile. In addition, a person who
fails to obey the law is referred to as a delinquent. Hence, an individual who violates the
law or performs an illegal action while under the age of 18 is considered to be a juvenile
delinquent.1

In the Philippines, the Juvenile Justice System is defined by Republic Act No. 9344
or the “Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act”. Which described Juvenile Justice and Welfare
System as a system dealing with children at risk and children in conflict with the law.
"Child at Risk" refers to a child who, due to personal, family, and social situations, is weak
and at risk of committing criminal offenses. On the other hand, a child who is suspected
to have committed an offense under Philippine law, accused of doing so, or found to have
done so is referred to as a "Child in Conflict with the Law" (CICL). Furthermore, under
R.A No. 9344 is a law concerning that children under 15 years of age cannot be held
criminally liable, while children between 15 and 18 need to undergo intervention and
rehabilitation after committing a delinquency.

Section 6 of R.A. 9344 as amended by R.A No. 10630 in Section 3, The Minimum
Age of Criminal Liability, stated that a child who was fifteen (15) years old or younger at
the time of the offense is not subject to criminal prosecution. However, in accordance with
Section 20 of this Act, the child shall be put through an intervention program. And a child
is deemed only to be fifteen (15) years of age on the day of the fifteenth anniversary of

1
Blanco, J. (2022). What is Juvenile Delinquency, Theories and Facts.
his/her birthdate. Moreover, a child who is older than fifteen (15) but younger than
eighteen (18) years old shall also be exempted from criminal liability and subject to an
intervention program, unless such child has acted with discernment, in which case such
child shall be subjected to the appropriate proceedings in accordance with this Act.2

Juvenile criminals typically enter the juvenile justice system rather than the adult
criminal system and are subject to less harsh punishments than adult offenders. Because
of this, even though many of the crimes committed by juveniles are the same as or similar
to those committed by adults, juveniles are subject to different laws and legal processes
than adults who are accused of committing such crimes.3

BODY

Juvenile Justice System as Ethical and Moral Approach

Recent studies show that juvenile delinquency is a multi-determined phenomenon,

with the main contributing variables being the young person's interactions with those in
his immediate family or household, his surroundings, and the growth of a healthy self-
concept.4

Catholic sees Juvenile Justice System as an ethical approach. The fundamental

ideas of Catholic Social Teaching offer a third perspective on how society should handle
young offenders, one that combines the best elements of the two prevalent paradigms for
juvenile justice. Society at large (and subsequently the processes within states' different
juvenile justice systems) must adopt a revitalized feeling of responsibility for adolescent
offenders in accordance with the objectives of the Progressive reformers and the principle
of solidarity. Further, the Religion speaks loudly and clearly about the shared duty to care
for a country's troubled youth; it is likely that juvenile justice systems in the states will

2
LawPhil (2006). Republic Act No. 9344 An Act Establishing A Comprehensive Juvenile Justice And Welfare System,
Creating The Juvenile Justice And Welfare Council Under The Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor
and for Other Purposes.
3
LaMance, K. (2002). Juvenile Crime Issues.
4
UNODC (2018). Ethical Perspective: Moral Failure in Decision-Making.
change to reflect greater compassion for young offenders, refocusing punitive efforts on
the ultimate goals of reintegration and rehabilitation as their primary objectives.5

In support with the Catholism’s view, understanding the different dimensions of

social bonding possibilities that contributed to juvenile delinquency behaviour is a key
concept in the social learning theory. It aids in explaining criminal conduct and the
motivation behind acts of violence against the community. It also emphasizes how crime
and victimization can be decreased by regulating and changing the process or the
environment that allows social learning to take place if it is assumed that delinquent
behaviour is transmitted through social learning.

Accordingly, the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model's social learning theory

foundation strongly supports Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). The RNR paradigm
has had a significant impact on how offenders are treated and rehabilitated in practice.
According to this idea, effective therapy must take into account the offender's risk of
reoffending (R), address his or her unique criminogenic needs (N), and employ
techniques that work with that person's learning preferences (R). According to meta-
analyses, effective programs can reduce reoffending by up to 60% or, more realistically,
by about 20–30%.6

The Juvenile Forensic Psychology in the Justice System also affirms in the
morality of Juvenile Justice System. Psychologists believe that the juvenile justice system
was largely established on the premise that due to their particular developmental and
psychosocial needs, minors should have access to a different legal system than adults.
More particular, these forensic psychology experts stress the value of programs intended
to help young people in the juvenile justice system and juvenile court system. Additionally,
to better understand the unique needs and concerns of young people involved in the legal
system, forensic psychologists focus on three clinical issues: psychosocial maturity and

5
Pillari, TJ. (2012). Rethinking Juvenile Justice: Catholic Social Thought as a Vehicle for Reform.
6
Losel, F. (2015). Rehabilitation of The Offender.
developmental status, risk for future crime or violence, and the type and degree of the
juvenile's antisocial behaviour and character.7

Juvenile Justice System as Unethical and Immoral Approach

Kant’s Retributivism contradicts the Juvenile Justice System about its aim of
rehabilitation. The theory penalizes wrongdoers for the unlawful acts they commit, making
it a backward-looking theory. The main defence for retributive punishment is that the
offender deserves it and that the penalty must be appropriate for the crime they commit.
Retributivists adhere to the Lex Talon's "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a
life.” This implies that, regardless of status and state, retributivism believes that justice is
served by punishing the guilty and thus, the desert of an offender not only gives the state
the right to punish him but also the duty to do so.8

In relation to this, according to Iran's interpretation of the "eye for an eye" Islamic
concept of retribution, murder is punishable by death, and the country does not consider
the execution of juvenile perpetrators to be a violation of human rights. 9

In response to criticism from the United Nations (UN), a senior Iranian official told
Agence France-Presse (AFP) that the use of the death penalty is "not a symbol of
infringement of human rights," and that condemnation of the practice is "not fair." "When
we talk about under-18s, we're not talking about kids who are six or five," he continued,
"we're talking about our huge, 17-year-old males, where the court recognized their
maturity.” The international report, however, questions this age liability because females
as young as nine can be sentenced to death, whereas for boys the age is 15.10

More so, a utilitarian might also argue that the actions of offenders, even if they
are juveniles, produce a great deal of pain and suffering for their victims. Depending on
the severity of the crime, victims report a wide range of negative effects. There may be

7
Borum, R. (2014). Evaluation of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.
8
Andrew. (2012). Theories of Punishment: Theories of Punishment- Utilitarian VS. Retribution Theorists.
9
France24. (2021). Iran Says Executing Child Offenders Not a Rights Violation.
10
Amnesty.org.UK. (2019). Iran is Sentencing Children and Teenagers to Death.
emotional and psychological ramifications that leave victims feeling vulnerable,
frightened, and powerless.11

A perfect example of this is the Maguad Sibling Case. What happened to the two
siblings caused emotional distress and psychological disturbance toward the victim's
parents and other relatives. The offender admits her crime and hasn’t shown any remorse
up to this day. The siblings’ parents expressed their rage when they met the killers of their
two children, stating they couldn’t do anything. They didn’t feel justice was being served
because the law protected the minor who took away their children’s precious lives.12

CONCLUSION

Some groups have distinction about their ethical approach towards Juvenile
Justice System. A certain society deemed it ethical as it accepts the psychological theory
of factors concerning delinquencies, and another viewed it as unethical as it does not
serve abrupt justice towards the victim. The morality of Juvenile Justice System works as
how the distinction of the system’s ethics also does. One person would argue that the
system could give more harm to the public and the other would deem otherwise. Despite
of these differences, we strongly believe that Juvenile Justice System, especially in the
Philippines, is both ethical and moral.

Alongside with the Philippine legislature, we firmly believe that the children in
conflict with the law should be treated as individuals with problems who need help and
need to be provided with appropriate assistance and service. Philippine legislature based
its decision to establish the system from medical and psycho-social research conducted
on Filipino Children. The research conducted to Filipino children can testify that at age 15
and below, children’s brain have not psychologically matured. They have an unstable
emotion and their social judgement is not yet fully developed. Furthermore, it has shown
that around these ages the children are within the stage of adolescence- the transition

11
Dodson et al. (2014). Juvenile Justice Ethical Issues: How Should We Treat Juveniles.
12
Sumangil, F. (2021). Adopted ‘Survivor’ Admits to Siblings’ Killing
age which is being characterized by curiousity, buy-outs and identity crisis. And these
circumstances expose them to risky delinquent behaviour.

In connection to that, we can say that the approach of Juvenile delinquencies of

the Philippine legislature is moral since the implementation of R.A. 9344. Reports show
that 50,000 children in the Philippines have been arrested and detained since 1995.
Torture, rape, and other forms of cruel and inhumane treatment were a part of everyday
life for those children while they were incarcerated, stealing the rights of the children to
be protected and honed as future leaders of the nation. Fortunately, since the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Law (R.A. 9344) was enacted in 2006, there have been
improvements, and some children are referred to welfare homes bypassing the jail. 13

Furthermore, Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines does not embolden

children to commit more crimes from being not jailed. R.A. 9344 in fact institutionalizes a
systematic approach to prevent children from being in conflict with the law. The system
is made for the promotion of the well-being of child and their families, involvement of
parents and guardians, promotion of diversion, avoiding deprivation of liberty and
protecting the privacy rights of the children. More so, children who are found to have
committed offences will undergo intervention, diversion, or rehabilitation and integration
programs.

The system does not necessarily mean that those children who have done wrong
are cleared of liability, they do not go free from the crime they have committed. However,
researches and studies will be imposed carefully to the children in conflict with the law.
The treatment will depend first on the age of 15 years old below and in between 18 years
old, second in the act of discernment; and third on the penalty imposed on the offense
committed.

13
CNNInternational. (2005). Children in Prison.
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Blanco, J. (2022). What is Juvenile Delinquency, Theories and Facts.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-juvenile-delinquency-definition-
theoriesfacts.html?fbclid=IwAR2Xf3wuUVQ4h4rDzKsOlQfOMtXN93HOvynjSPo7
1bhJ6T9EAHD7cVIJBdc

LawPhil (2006). Republic Act No. 9344 An Act Establishing A Comprehensive Juvenile
Justice And Welfare System, Creating The Juvenile Justice And Welfare Council
Under The Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other
Purposes. https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2006/ra_9344_2006.html

LaMance, K. (2002). Juvenile Crime Issues https://www.legalmatch.com/law-

library/article/juveniles.html

UNODC (2018). Ethical Perspective: Moral Failure in Decision-Making.

https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/organized-crime/module-6/key-issues/ethical-
perspective.html

Pillari, TJ. (2012) Rethinking Juvenile Justice: Catholic Social Thought as a Vehicle for
Reform.https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=
ndjlepp

Losel, F. (2015) Rehabilitation of The Offender

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/social-learning-theory

Borum, R. (2014). Evaluation of Youth in the Juvenile Justice System.

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1393&context=mhlp_f
acpub

Andrew. (2012). Theories of Punishment: Theories of Punishment- Utilitarian VS.

Retribution Theorists http://www.miblaw.com/lawschool/theories-of-punishment-
utilitarian-vs-retribution-theorists/

France24. (2021). Iran Says Executing Child Offenders Not a Rights Violation
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210630-iran-says-executing-child-
offenders-not-a-rights-violation

Amnesty.org.UK. (2019). Iran is Sentencing Children and Teenagers to Death.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/iran-juvenile-offenders-death-row-execution

Dodson et al. (2014). Juvenile Justice Ethical Issues: How Should We Treat Juveniles.
https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315721538-29/juvenile-
justice-ethical-issues-treat-juveniles-kimberly-dodson-john-whitehead
Sumangil, F. (2021). Adopted ‘Survivor’ Admits to Siblings’ Killing
https://www.manilatimes.net/2021/12/20/news/regions/adopted-survivor-admits-
to-siblings-killing/1826595
CNNInternational. (2005). Children in Prison.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/10/i_ins.01.html