Motion 3:

Resolved that, the Philippines enact a law that lowers the criminal liability of children committing a crime from 15
years old to 12 years old
Definition of Terms
Criminal Liability- legal responsibility for committing a crime, subject to appropriate penalties under the law.
Children- individuals under the age of 18, but the focus here is on those between 12 and 15 years old.
Criminal offense- any act deemed illegal by the law of the land, which can range from theft to more serious crimes such
as murder or assault.
Parameters
Age Threshold
The key issue is lowering the age at which minors can be held criminally liable. Specifically, the resolution proposes
lowering the current age threshold from 15 years to 12 years. The question at hand is whether 12-year-olds have the
maturity and understanding of the consequences of their actions to be held accountable in the criminal justice system.
Nature of Crimes
We will discuss whether certain types of crimes, particularly serious or violent offenses, are better handled by treating
young offenders as criminally responsible from a younger age. The resolution does not necessarily apply to all crimes
equally, so there may be differentiation in how this rule would be applied depending on the offense.
Rehabilitation vs. Punishment
The debate will involve the balance between rehabilitation and punishment. While the law might impose legal
consequences, the focus will also be on whether lowering the age of liability allows for better opportunities for
rehabilitation and reintegration for young offenders.
Impact on Youth Crime Rates
The debate may address the relationship between the lowering of the criminal liability age and the potential reduction or
increase in youth crime rates. Would lowering the age of liability reduce juvenile crime, or could it have adverse effects
on young people's behavior and future outcomes?
Social and Legal Implications
The debate also involves the broader social impact, including the rights of children, the role of the family, and the ability
of the justice system to provide appropriate interventions for minors. It raises questions about the balance between
protecting the rights of children and ensuring public safety.
AFFIRMATIVE: Lower the age of criminal liability to 12 years old.
1. Deterrence Against Juvenile Delinquency
Point: Lowering the age of criminal liability to 12 would discourage children from committing crimes as they would know
there are consequences.
Supporting Fact:
- Juvenile crime syndicates exploit children as young as 12 to commit theft, drug trafficking, and other crimes because of
their legal immunity under Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006).
- In 2023, PNP reports indicated an increase in children involved in crimes such as theft and illegal drugs.
2. Alignment with International Practices
Point: A lowered age aligns with international standards on juvenile justice.
Supporting Fact:
- The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) allows countries to set their minimum age of
criminal responsibility (MACR) as low as 12 years old.
- Countries such as the United States (some states at 12) and England (10 years) enforce this policy while ensuring
rehabilitation programs.
3. Rehabilitation and Early Intervention
Point: Holding children accountable at an earlier age allows for intervention and rehabilitation before criminal tendencies
worsen.
Supporting Fact:
- The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) reported in 2021 that proper juvenile intervention
programs could reduce repeat offenses by 30%.
- Countries like Singapore implement rehabilitation-centered juvenile systems for offenders as young as 7 years old.
4. Addressing Syndicate Exploitation
Point: Crime syndicates use children as scapegoats due to their lack of liability under the current law.
Supporting Fact:
- Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde noted in 2018 that minors are often caught carrying drugs for syndicates, who
exploit their exemption from criminal charges under RA 9344.
- Data from 2018 Senate hearings revealed that minors involved in syndicate operations were as young as 10 years old.
Constructive Speech
Constructive Speech for Necessity, Beneficiality, and Practicality
Good day, esteemed judges, moderators, and members of the house. I rise in support of the motion, Resolved that, the
Philippines enact a law that lowers the criminal liability of children committing a crime from 15 years old to 12 years
old. This proposition is not just a matter of legal adjustment; it is a call to refine our justice system to balance
accountability, rehabilitation, and public safety.

Necessity
1. Addressing Rising Youth Criminality
In recent years, reports have shown that individuals as young as 12 to 15 years old are being used by criminal
syndicates to commit crimes, knowing they cannot be held legally accountable. Lowering the age of criminal
liability closes this loophole, ensuring that these minors are no longer exploited by adult offenders.
2. Promoting Accountability at a Reasonable Age
By 12 years old, most children possess the cognitive ability to differentiate between right and wrong, as supported
by psychological and developmental studies. It is necessary to acknowledge that while they are minors, their
capacity to understand the consequences of their actions makes them partially accountable for criminal behavior.
3. Protecting Society and Victims
Serious crimes, such as murder, rape, and robbery, when committed by individuals aged 12 to 15, have lasting
impacts on victims and communities. It is essential to address these offenses with a justice system that holds
young offenders accountable while considering their unique developmental needs.

Beneficiality
1. Balancing Accountability and Rehabilitation
Lowering the age of criminal liability does not mean subjecting children to harsh adult punishments. Instead, it
allows the justice system to intervene earlier, providing age-appropriate rehabilitation programs that prevent
reoffending and promote positive reintegration into society.
2. Deterrence of Youth Crime
This policy can serve as a deterrent to juvenile crime. Knowing that legal consequences apply as early as 12 years
old may discourage some minors from engaging in criminal acts, especially in communities where crime is
prevalent.
3. Strengthening Families and Communities
Holding minors accountable earlier places responsibility on families and communities to guide and nurture
children. It creates a shared sense of duty to address behavioral issues before they escalate into criminal activities.

Practicality
1. Enhanced Juvenile Justice System
The Philippines already has frameworks like the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, which can be adapted to
accommodate this adjustment. Rehabilitation centers and intervention programs can be strengthened to cater
specifically to offenders aged 12 to 15, ensuring that this is not purely punitive but rehabilitative.
2. Alignment with International Standards
Many countries, such as Singapore and the United Kingdom, have a minimum age of criminal liability set at 10 or
12 years old. Lowering the age in the Philippines aligns our laws with global practices, ensuring that we are not
overly lenient while maintaining a focus on children’s welfare.
3. Resource Optimization
Intervening at a younger age can prevent the escalation of minor offenders into hardened criminals, reducing the
long-term burden on the justice system. Early interventions are cost-effective and socially beneficial, addressing
issues before they worsen.

Conclusion
Lowering the age of criminal liability from 15 to 12 years old is a necessary, beneficial, and practical measure. It
addresses gaps in the current justice system, ensures that minors are accountable for serious offenses, and provides them
with rehabilitative opportunities. This is not about punishing children but creating a society where accountability, safety,
and justice coexist harmoniously.
Thank you.
Interpellation questions
Necessity
1. Understanding Accountability:
If children as young as 12 are deemed capable of understanding right from wrong, how do you account for the
varying maturity levels and developmental challenges among children of the same age?
2. Exploitation by Syndicates:
How does lowering the age of criminal liability prevent criminal syndicates from continuing to exploit minors
under 12 years old, who would still remain exempt from prosecution?
3. Alternatives to Lowering the Age:
Could strengthening the enforcement of existing laws, such as penalizing adults who exploit minors for crimes, be
a more effective solution than lowering the age of criminal liability?

Beneficiality
4. Rehabilitation vs. Criminalization:
You mentioned that the measure balances accountability and rehabilitation. However, how do you ensure that
young offenders placed in juvenile facilities do not suffer stigmatization or psychological harm, which may
worsen their behavior?
5. Deterrence Effect:
Is there concrete evidence that lowering the age of criminal liability deters crime, or could it instead lead to the
criminal justice system targeting vulnerable children without addressing the root causes of juvenile delinquency?
6. Impact on Families:
While this measure places responsibility on families, how do you address situations where poverty, neglect, or
abuse—factors often linked to juvenile delinquency—prevent families from effectively guiding their children?

Practicality
7. Juvenile Justice System Capacity:
Given the current state of juvenile rehabilitation centers in the Philippines, do we have the resources and
infrastructure to manage an influx of offenders aged 12 to 15 in a way that is rehabilitative and not punitive?
8. Global Practices:
While other countries have lower ages of criminal liability, do they also have stronger social welfare and juvenile
justice systems? How do we ensure the Philippines does not adopt the age threshold without the accompanying
support systems?
9. Long-term Implications:
Could criminalizing children at a younger age lead to lifelong labeling and a higher likelihood of reoffending,
counteracting the intended goal of early intervention?

Social and Legal Implications

10. Children’s Rights:
Does lowering the age of criminal liability conflict with international conventions, such as the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which emphasize rehabilitation over punitive measures for minors?
11. Public Safety vs. Child Welfare:
How do you balance the need for public safety with the potential harm of exposing children to the formal justice
system, which may fail to address their developmental needs?
12. Addressing Root Causes:
Instead of focusing on criminal liability, shouldn’t the government prioritize addressing systemic issues like
poverty, education, and community support to prevent youth from turning to crime in the first place?
REBUTTAL
Negative Side Rebuttal
Position: Opposing the lowering of the criminal liability age from 15 to 12 years old.
1. Cognitive Development and Maturity
 o Rebuttal: Children aged 12 are not yet fully capable of making sound judgments due to their developing
brains. Holding them criminally liable disregards the science of cognitive development.
o Fact: According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, the brain's prefrontal cortex (responsible for
decision-making and impulse control) does not fully mature until the mid-20s. Thus, children are more
prone to impulsive actions without considering long-term consequences.
2. Ineffective Deterrence
o Rebuttal: Lowering the age of criminal liability is unlikely to deter crime because most juvenile offenses
stem from circumstances such as poverty or lack of education, not deliberate intent.
o Fact: A study by UNICEF in 2020 showed that punitive measures against children do not significantly
reduce juvenile crime rates; instead, comprehensive education and support programs do.
3. Stigmatization and Increased Recidivism
o Rebuttal: Introducing minors to the criminal justice system increases the likelihood of reoffending, as
they become labeled as criminals and lack access to rehabilitation.
o Fact: Research by the Child Rights International Network (CRIN) shows that criminalizing children at
a younger age leads to stigmatization, making reintegration into society more difficult and increasing the
risk of repeat offenses.
4. Violation of Children's Rights
o Rebuttal: Lowering the age of criminal liability contradicts the Philippines' commitment to international
agreements like the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which emphasizes the need
to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment.
o Fact: The UNCRC encourages member states to set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 14 or
higher, ensuring a child-centered approach to justice.

Positive Side Rebuttal

Position: Supporting the lowering of the criminal liability age from 15 to 12 years old.
1. Accountability and Understanding
o Rebuttal: By the age of 12, children are capable of distinguishing right from wrong and should face
accountability for their actions. Not holding them liable diminishes the importance of teaching
responsibility.
o Fact: Studies by Harvard University demonstrate that children as young as 12 can understand basic
moral and ethical concepts, particularly regarding serious offenses.
2. Prevention of Exploitation by Syndicates
o Rebuttal: Criminal syndicates exploit minors under the current law, knowing they cannot be held liable.
Lowering the age would deter such exploitation and ensure accountability for serious crimes.
o Fact: Data from the Philippine National Police (PNP) indicate a rise in crimes committed by minors
under syndicate influence, highlighting the loophole in the current law.
3. Rehabilitation Opportunities
o Rebuttal: Lowering the age does not mean harsh punishment but earlier intervention through
rehabilitation programs tailored for younger offenders. This approach can address behavioral issues
before they escalate.
o Fact: The Philippines already has frameworks like the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, which
emphasizes diversion and rehabilitation, ensuring young offenders are not treated the same as adults.
4. Global Standards and Precedents
o Rebuttal: Many countries have a lower age of criminal liability and still prioritize rehabilitation. The
Philippines should align with these international standards to improve its juvenile justice system.
o Fact: Countries like Singapore (10 years old) and England and Wales (10 years old) successfully
implement a lower age of liability while maintaining robust support systems for young offenders.

Conclusion
Both sides present valid concerns, but the debate revolves around balancing accountability with the developmental and
rehabilitative needs of minors, while ensuring public safety and upholding children's rights. Each argument must consider
both the immediate and long-term implications of such a policy change.
References:
Negative Side References
1. Cognitive Development and Maturity
 o American Academy of Pediatrics: Studies on brain development show the prefrontal cortex, responsible
for decision-making and impulse control, matures fully in the mid-20s.
 Source: American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Brain Development in Adolescents
 Link: https://www.aap.org
2. Ineffective Deterrence
o UNICEF: Punitive measures against children have little impact on reducing crime and may exacerbate
delinquent behaviors.
 Source: UNICEF, Juvenile Justice Systems: An Analysis of Effectiveness
 Link: https://www.unicef.org
3. Stigmatization and Recidivism
o Child Rights International Network (CRIN): Criminalization of minors leads to labeling and higher
recidivism rates.
 Source: CRIN, Children’s Rights in the Criminal Justice System
 Link: https://home.crin.org
4. Violation of Children's Rights
o UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC): Encourages states to set the age of criminal
responsibility at 14 or higher.
 Source: UNCRC, General Comment No. 10
 Link: https://www.ohchr.org

Positive Side References

1. Accountability and Understanding
o Harvard University: Children as young as 12 understand basic ethical and moral concepts, particularly in
severe offenses.
 Source: Harvard University, Moral Development in Early Adolescence
 Link: https://www.harvard.edu
2. Prevention of Exploitation by Syndicates
o Philippine National Police (PNP): Data show an increase in crimes committed by minors under syndicate
influence.
 Source: Philippine National Police Reports on Juvenile Crime (2023)
 Link: https://www.pnp.gov.ph
3. Rehabilitation Opportunities
o Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (R.A. 9344): Philippine law prioritizing rehabilitation over punishment
for young offenders.
 Source: Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines, R.A. 9344: Juvenile Justice and
Welfare Act of 2006
 Link: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph
4. Global Standards and Precedents
o Singapore and UK Policies: Demonstrating the feasibility of a lower criminal liability age with strong
juvenile rehabilitation systems.
 Source: Ministry of Law (Singapore), Juvenile Justice in Singapore
 Link: https://www.mlaw.gov.sg
 Source: UK Government, Youth Justice System in England and Wales
 Link: https://www.gov.uk
NEGATIVE: Retain the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 15 years old.
1. Child Development and Cognitive Capacity
Point: Children below 15 lack full cognitive maturity to understand the consequences of their actions.
Supporting Fact:
- The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) emphasized in 2019 that cognitive and emotional development continues until
the age of 18.
- Studies by the American Psychological Association (APA) in 2020 found that the brain's prefrontal cortex, responsible
for decision-making, is underdeveloped in children aged 12-14.
2. Violation of Child Rights
Point : Lowering the age of liability undermines the rights of the child as protected under Philippine and international law.
Supporting Fact:
 - Republic Act 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) protects
children under 15 from criminal prosecution.
- UNICEF Philippines, in 2019, strongly opposed lowering the MACR, citing the violation of the UNCRC principles.
3. Ineffectiveness in Reducing Crime
Point: Lowering criminal liability does not address the root causes of juvenile delinquency, such as poverty and lack of
education.
Supporting Fact:
- The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) in 2022 highlighted that most children in conflict with the law (CICL) come
from impoverished communities.
- A 2021 study by the University of the Philippines found that poverty-related issues drive 80% of CICL cases,
suggesting that addressing systemic problems is more effective.

4. Strain on the Juvenile Justice System

Point: Lowering the MACR would overwhelm an already struggling juvenile justice system.
Supporting Fact:
- In 2023, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) reported insufficient Bahay Pag-asa rehabilitation centers in
the Philippines, with only 64 operational centers across 81 provinces.
- A 2019 report from the Senate revealed that many of these centers lack proper facilities and trained personnel, leading
to neglect and abuse of CICLs
NECESSITY
The issue of children committing crimes is a pressing concern that demands legal reform to address loopholes in the
current system.
Affirmative:
- Crime syndicates exploit the current MACR of 15 years old, using minors to execute criminal activities with impunity.
Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde reported in 2018 that minors are often involved in drug trafficking and theft, knowing
they cannot be held criminally liable. Lowering the MACR to 12 is necessary to close this loophole and protect society.
- The United Nations permits countries to set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 12, recognizing this as a
balanced standard. Aligning with this will enhance the Philippines' compliance with global practices.
Negative:
- Lowering the MACR undermines the principles of juvenile justice under Republic Act 9344 and Republic Act 7610,
which aim to protect children in conflict with the law (CICL).
- According to the Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) in 2019, children under 15 are not developmentally mature enough
to fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, making such a legal reform unnecessary.
CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH
Constructive Speech: Negative Side
"Retain the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility at 15 Years Old"
Good day, honorable adjudicators, esteemed opposition, and my fellow debaters. Today, we are called to protect one of
the most vulnerable sectors of society—our children. We stand firmly in opposition to lowering the minimum age of
criminal responsibility (MACR) from 15 to 12 years old. Why? Because it is not only unnecessary but also harmful.
Retaining the MACR at 15 is the only path that is necessary, beneficial, and practical for our nation and its children.

NECESSITY
First, let us ask ourselves—why is it necessary to retain the MACR at 15?
Children under 15 lack the cognitive and emotional maturity to understand the full consequences of their actions.
According to the Philippine Pediatric Society and the American Psychological Association, the prefrontal cortex—the
part of the brain responsible for decision-making and impulse control—does not fully develop until late adolescence. Is it
fair to hold a child as young as 12 to the same standards of accountability as an adult? Absolutely not.
Moreover, this move blatantly disregards the protection guaranteed under Republic Act 7610 and the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, which emphasize rehabilitation, not punishment. We are legally and morally bound to protect
our children, not criminalize them prematurely.
BENEFICIALITY
Now, let us talk about what is truly beneficial—not just for children, but for society as a whole.
Retaining the MACR at 15 allows us to focus on rehabilitation over punishment. By prioritizing programs like those
offered by Bahay Pag-asa, we give young offenders a second chance—a chance to be educated, to grow, and to
reintegrate as productive members of society. Criminalizing them at a younger age only stigmatizes them, making
rehabilitation far more difficult.
And let us not forget the root causes of juvenile crime. A 2021 study by the University of the Philippines found that
80% of children in conflict with the law come from impoverished communities. Lowering the MACR will not solve
poverty, poor education, or lack of parental guidance. Addressing these systemic problems is the real solution.

PRACTICALITY
Lastly, lowering the MACR is simply impractical.
Our juvenile justice system is already overwhelmed. As of 2023, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC)
reported a shortage of operational Bahay Pag-asa centers—only 64 for 81 provinces. Many of these facilities lack proper
resources and trained personnel. Lowering the MACR would only flood an already struggling system, leading to neglect
and abuse of these children.
Additionally, this policy would do little to deter crime. Juvenile syndicates exploit minors not because of their age, but
because of systemic failures. We cannot punish our way out of this problem.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, retaining the MACR at 15 years old is not just a legal obligation; it is a moral imperative. It ensures the
necessary protection of children, provides the long-term benefits of rehabilitation, and avoids the impractical
consequences of a failing juvenile justice system.
Let us not fail our children by punishing them for crimes that they may not fully understand. Let us, instead, invest in their
growth, their education, and their future. Because protecting children is not just an act of law—it is an act of humanity.
Thank you.

Interpellation questions
On Child Development and Cognitive Capacity
1. You mentioned that the brain’s prefrontal cortex develops fully in late adolescence. However, isn’t it true that by
the age of 12, children are already aware of the difference between right and wrong in basic social contexts?
2. If a child is deemed capable of committing serious crimes like murder or robbery, wouldn’t it suggest that they
possess at least some level of understanding of their actions and their consequences?
3. If we argue that children under 15 lack cognitive maturity, does that mean they should face no consequences for
committing heinous crimes, even if their victims suffer irreparable harm?

On Violation of Child Rights

4. You referenced the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Are you aware that the same convention
emphasizes balancing child protection with accountability, especially in cases where crimes are severe?
5. How do you address the rights of the victims, especially in cases where a child offender has caused significant
harm or death? Don’t the victims also deserve justice?
6. If rehabilitation programs can still apply to children aged 12 and above, how does lowering the MACR violate
their rights when the focus is not solely on punishment but also on reform?

On Effectiveness in Reducing Crime

7. You argue that juvenile crime stems from poverty and lack of education. Does this mean you believe children
who commit serious crimes should not face accountability until poverty is resolved?
8. Are you aware that syndicates exploit the current MACR by using minors as scapegoats because they cannot be
held criminally liable? Wouldn’t lowering the MACR help prevent such exploitation?
9. Do you have evidence that retaining the MACR at 15 has successfully reduced juvenile crime in the Philippines
over the past decade?

On Strain to the Juvenile Justice System

 10. You mentioned that there are only 64 operational Bahay Pag-asa centers in the country. Wouldn’t this highlight
the need to improve infrastructure rather than use it as an excuse to avoid accountability for younger offenders?
11. If the MACR is retained at 15 but resources for rehabilitation are still inadequate, how does this ensure that
children in conflict with the law receive proper reform and reintegration into society?
12. Isn’t it possible to allocate more funding to the juvenile justice system to address its deficiencies while lowering
the MACR to hold young offenders accountable for serious crimes?

On Practicality
13. You argued that lowering the MACR would strain resources. But wouldn’t rehabilitating children earlier—when
they are more impressionable—be more effective and cost-efficient in the long run than addressing entrenched
criminal behavior at an older age?
14. If retaining the MACR at 15 fails to address the growing involvement of children in syndicate-related crimes,
wouldn’t this perpetuate a cycle of exploitation and criminal activity?
15. What alternative solutions can you propose that would directly address cases where children aged 12 to 14
commit severe crimes?
REBUTTAL
Negative Rebuttal (Retain MACR at 15 years old)
Rebuttal Against the Affirmative Side: Lowering MACR to 12 years old
1. On Cognitive Development
o Rebuttal: Lowering the MACR assumes children aged 12 are cognitively mature enough to understand
the full consequences of their actions. However, scientific evidence proves otherwise. Studies by the
American Psychological Association (APA) show that the brain’s prefrontal cortex, responsible for
decision-making, is underdeveloped in children under 15. Holding them criminally liable could lead to
unjust punishment.
o Supporting Fact: The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) has consistently stated that children under 15
lack the maturity to make informed decisions about complex moral and legal issues.
2. On Syndicate Exploitation
o Rebuttal: While syndicates exploit children under 15, lowering the MACR does not eliminate
exploitation. Syndicates will simply recruit even younger children or find other ways to circumvent the
law. Addressing poverty and education is a more effective deterrent.
o Supporting Fact: The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) reported in 2022 that syndicates exploit
children due to systemic poverty, not because of the MACR.
3. On Juvenile Rehabilitation
o Rebuttal: The lack of proper rehabilitation facilities like Bahay Pag-asa centers undermines the
affirmative argument. Lowering the MACR would overwhelm the system, causing further harm to
children in conflict with the law.
o Supporting Fact: As of 2023, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) confirmed that only
64 operational Bahay Pag-asa centers exist nationwide, far below the needed capacity.
4. On Crime Prevention
o Rebuttal: Lowering the MACR does not guarantee a reduction in juvenile crime. The root causes of
crime—poverty, lack of education, and family issues—remain unaddressed. Punishing children without
solving these issues is ineffective.
o Supporting Fact: A 2021 study by the University of the Philippines found that 80% of children in
conflict with the law come from impoverished communities.
References:
 American Psychological Association (2020)
 Philippine Pediatric Society (2019)
 Commission on Human Rights (2022)
 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (2023)
 University of the Philippines Study (2021)

Affirmative Rebuttal (Lower MACR to 12 years old)

Rebuttal Against the Negative Side: Retain MACR at 15 years old
1. On Accountability and Justice
 oRebuttal: Retaining the MACR at 15 shields children from accountability even when they commit
heinous crimes. By the age of 12, children have a basic understanding of right and wrong, and allowing
them to go unpunished sends the wrong message.
o Supporting Fact: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) allows member states to
set reasonable ages of criminal responsibility, provided rehabilitation remains the focus. Lowering the
MACR aligns with this principle.
2. On Syndicate Exploitation
o Rebuttal: Retaining the MACR at 15 enables syndicates to continue exploiting minors as scapegoats for
crimes. Lowering the MACR deters syndicates from using children, as they would face consequences.
o Supporting Fact: The Department of Justice (DOJ) stated in 2020 that syndicates deliberately exploit
the MACR loophole, encouraging criminal activities among minors.
3. On Public Safety
o Rebuttal: Retaining the MACR at 15 does not address public safety concerns. Allowing minors to escape
accountability for serious crimes undermines the rule of law and increases the risk of recidivism.
o Supporting Fact: The Philippine National Police (PNP) reported in 2021 that minors were involved in
5% of all crimes, including theft, robbery, and even homicide.
4. On Rehabilitation
o Rebuttal: Lowering the MACR does not mean abandoning rehabilitation. Instead, it ensures that children
aged 12-14 who commit crimes are placed in rehabilitation programs tailored to their needs, balancing
accountability with reform.
o Supporting Fact: Countries like Singapore and Japan, which have lower MACRs, focus on
rehabilitation alongside legal accountability and have low juvenile recidivism rates.
References:
 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
 Department of Justice (2020)
 Philippine National Police (2021)
 Comparative Studies on Juvenile Justice: Singapore and Japan (2020)
BENEFICIALITY~

The benefits of lowering or retaining the MACR depend on whether it will lead to better societal outcomes.
Affirmative:
Crime Reduction: Lowering the MACR would deter juvenile delinquency by ensuring accountability. In countries like
Singapore, stricter policies coupled with rehabilitation programs for young offenders have been effective in reducing
recidivism.
Child Protection: The reform will protect children from syndicates who exploit them, as legal consequences would
discourage their involvement in crime.
Rehabilitation: Early intervention at age 12 ensures that children in conflict with the law receive structured
rehabilitation, preventing them from becoming repeat offenders.

Negative:
Violation of Rights: UNICEF Philippines strongly opposed lowering the MACR in 2019, arguing that it is not
beneficial to treat children as adults in the justice system, as it risks stigmatization and permanent psychological harm.
Addressing Root Causes: Poverty and lack of education drive 80% of CICL cases (2021 UP Study). The current law,
which focuses on intervention and community-based rehabilitation, is more beneficial in addressing these systemic issues.
Systemic Burden: The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) in 2023 reported that the lack of operational Bahay
Pag-asa centers means lowering the MACR will further strain the juvenile justice system, harming both CICLs and the
system itself.

~PRACTICALITY~
Practical implementation is crucial to determine the feasibility of lowering or maintaining the MACR.
Affirmative:
Feasibility of Implementation: The Philippine government already has laws such as RA 9344, which mandates
rehabilitation programs for CICLs. Lowering the MACR would work within this framework, focusing on enhancing
existing programs rather than overhauling the system.
International Standards: Countries like England (10 years) and some U.S. states (12 years) have successfully
implemented laws holding young offenders accountable while ensuring access to rehabilitation programs. The Philippines
can adapt similar models.
Negative:
Resource Constraints: The lack of adequate Bahay Pag-asa facilities, as reported in 2023, highlights the impracticality
of implementing the proposed change. Without proper facilities and funding, children may be detained in adult facilities,
violating their rights.
Risk of Abuse: Lowering the MACR risks CICLs being misclassified as adult offenders in the absence of proper age
verification mechanisms. This is impractical in a country where legal and administrative processes are often slow and
error-prone
SUPPORTING FACTS (AFFIRMATIVE & NEGATIVE)
Affirmative (Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability to 12 Years Old)
1. Increased Involvement of Minors in Crime:
- In 2018, PNP data showed that over 11,000 children were involved in crimes, including theft, robbery, and drug-
related activities, often exploited by syndicates. Lowering the MACR addresses this exploitation by imposing liability on
minors.

2. International Standards:
- The United Nations permits a minimum age of criminal responsibility as low as 12 years, aligning with practices in
countries like **Singapore (7 years)** and **England (10 years)** while maintaining provisions for rehabilitation.

3. Deterrence Effect:
- Crime syndicates exploit the current MACR of 15 years by using children to commit crimes with no accountability.
Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde highlighted that syndicates recruit minors because of their exemption from criminal
liability.

4. Rehabilitation Programs:
- RA 9344 already mandates intervention and rehabilitation programs. Lowering the MACR would integrate younger
offenders into these programs earlier, preventing them from becoming repeat offenders.

5. Public Safety:
- Studies from countries with lower MACRs, such as **South Korea (14 years)**, have shown that addressing juvenile
crime early reduces repeat offenses and ensures safer communities.

Negative (Maintaining the Age of Criminal Liability at 15 Years Old)

1. Developmental Science:
- The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) stated in 2019 that children under 15 lack full cognitive and emotional maturity
to understand the consequences of their actions, making criminal liability at 12 inappropriate.
2. Violation of Child Rights:
- UNICEF Philippines and the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) strongly opposed lowering the MACR, arguing it
contradicts the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which emphasizes protection and
rehabilitation, not punishment.
3. Poverty and Root Causes:
- A 2021 study by the University of the Philippines found that 80% of CICLs come from impoverished communities.
Addressing poverty and lack of education is more effective than punitive measures.
4. Systemic Challenges:
- The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) reported in 2023 that only 64 Bahay Pag-asa centers exist
nationwide, many of which lack resources. Lowering the MACR would overwhelm an already inadequate system.

5. Risk of Abuse in Detention:

- A 2019 Senate investigation revealed cases of abuse and neglect in facilities handling CICLs. Lowering the MACR
would expose younger children to similar risks without proper safeguards in place.

INTERPELLATION QUESTIONS WITH ANSWERS/SUPPORTING FACTS

For the Affirmative Side
1. Question: If syndicates are exploiting minors under the current minimum age of responsibility (MACR), how
will lowering the age to 12 prevent this?
Answer: Lowering the MACR ensures accountability, making it less attractive for syndicates to exploit children.
Former PNP Chief Oscar Albayalde (2018) highlighted that syndicates use children because they cannot be held liable
under RA 9344.
2. Question:How does lowering the MACR align with international standards?
Answer:The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) allows the minimum age of criminal responsibility to
be set as low as 12, as practiced in countries like Singapore (7 years)and England (10 years).
3. Question:Is it fair to hold a 12-year-old criminally liable when they are still developing?
Answer: Yes, but the focus remains on rehabilitation. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) supports
intervention programs to guide children in conflict with the law, ensuring accountability without harsh penalties (RA
9344).
4. Question: How does lowering the MACR deter crimes?
Answer:It reduces the incentive for syndicates to use children in illegal activities. The 2018 PNP report found minors
were involved in over 11,000 cases of theft and drug crimes due to their immunity from prosecution.
5. Question:Does this reform mean imprisoning 12-year-olds?
Answer: No. Children in conflict with the law will be placed in rehabilitation facilities, not adult prisons, as mandated
under RA 9344.
6. Question: How will the government ensure proper rehabilitation for children?
Answer: By enhancing Bahay Pag-asa centers, as required under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. Rehabilitation-
focused countries like South Korea (14 years) show the benefits of early intervention.
7. Question:Aren’t interventions already available under the current MACR?
Answer: Yes, but they are less effective because they exclude children aged 12-14. Early intervention is critical, as
supported by the DSWD’s 2021 report on rehabilitation reducing repeat offenses by 30%.
8. Question:Are there successful examples of countries with lower MACRs?
Answer:Yes, Singapore and England have lower MACRs paired with strong rehabilitation systems, proving that
accountability and support can coexist effectively.
9. Question: What happens to children if the MACR remains at 15?
Answer: They will continue to be exploited by syndicates. The 2018 Senate hearing revealed syndicates often
manipulate minors under 15 to commit crimes.
10. Question: How does this reform address public safety?
Answer: Lowering the MACR reduces juvenile crime rates by holding offenders accountable and rehabilitating them
early, as seen in countries with stricter juvenile justice systems, such as South Korea.
For the Negative Side
1. Question: How does lowering the MACR impact child rights?
 Answer: It violates the UNCRC principles by treating children as adults in the justice system. UNICEF Philippines
opposed this move in 2019, citing the importance of rehabilitation over punishment.
2. Question: Are 12-year-olds capable of understanding their actions?
Answer: No. The Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) in 2019 stated that children under 15 lack cognitive maturity to
fully grasp the consequences of their actions.
3. Question: How does poverty influence juvenile crime?
Answer: Most children in conflict with the law (CICL) come from impoverished communities. A 2021 UP study found
that 80% of CICL cases were driven by poverty-related issues like hunger and lack of education.
4. Question: Are there enough facilities to support more CICLs under this reform?
Answer: No. As of 2023, the JJWC reported that only 64 Bahay Pag-asa centers exist, many of which lack funding and
proper facilities, making the system unprepared for this change.
5. Question: How will lowering the MACR affect rehabilitation efforts?
Answer: It risks overburdening the system. A 2019 Senate report highlighted poor conditions in juvenile centers, with
many failing to provide proper care for current CICLs.
6. Question: Does punishing minors reduce crime rates?
Answer: No. Studies show that punitive measures are less effective than addressing root causes. In 2021, CHR
emphasized the need for community-based interventions rather than lowering the MACR.
7. Question: How does the current MACR align with child development science?
Answer: It aligns with developmental milestones. The APA (2020) found that the brain's prefrontal cortex, responsible
for decision-making, develops significantly after age 15.
8. Question: Will lowering the MACR discourage syndicate exploitation?
Answer: No. Syndicates may still exploit children under 12. Addressing syndicate operations directly is a more effective
solution, as suggested by CHR in 2022.
9. Question: Are there examples of failures with lower MACRs in other countries?
Answer: Yes. Countries like the United States have faced criticism for harsh juvenile justice systems, leading to high
rates of recidivism and societal inequality (UNICEF report, 2020).
10. Question: What are the risks of detention for younger children?
Answer: Younger children may face abuse and neglect in detention. A 2019 Senate hearing revealed multiple cases of
CICLs being mistreated due to inadequate resources and oversight in juvenile facilities
CASES & LAWSUITS WITH SUPPORTING FACTS
Affirmative (Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability to 12 Years Old)
1. People of the Philippines v. Ryan Mercado (2004)
Facts: A 13-year-old boy was manipulated by a syndicate to act as a courier for illegal drugs. Under the pre-RA 9344
law, the minor was prosecuted but received reduced sentencing.
Relevance:This case highlights how children are exploited by syndicates due to their vulnerability. Lowering the
MACR would discourage syndicates from using children for criminal activities.
2. Senate Hearings on Juvenile Delinquency (2018)
Facts: During hearings, the PNP presented evidence that children under 15 were increasingly involved in drug
trafficking and robbery, often manipulated by adults to avoid prosecution.
Relevance: These hearings emphasized the need for reforms to hold minors accountable and prevent their exploitation
in organized crimes.
3. RA 9344 Challenges (2010)
Facts: Law enforcement agencies petitioned for amendments to RA 9344, arguing it limited their ability to combat
juvenile delinquency, especially when minors were used by crime syndicates.
Relevance: The petition showcased the operational challenges of addressing juvenile crimes under the existing MACR
of 15 years.
4. People v. Gutierrez (2015)
Facts: A 14-year-old was apprehended for theft and was released due to the immunity provided by RA 9344. The victim
challenged the law, claiming it denied justice to victims of crimes by minors.
 Relevance: This case underscores the need for accountability, even for minors, to uphold justice for victims.

5. Senate Bill No. 2198 (2019)

Facts: This bill proposed lowering the MACR from 15 to 12 years old to curb syndicate exploitation and ensure
accountability for crimes committed by minors.
Relevance: The proposal reflects legislative acknowledgment of the necessity to adjust the MACR to address societal
issues effectively.
Negative (Maintaining the Age of Criminal Liability at 15 Years Old)
1. People of the Philippines v. Agustin Fernandez (2007)
Facts: A 14-year-old was convicted of theft under the pre-RA 9344 legal framework. Psychologists testified that the
child lacked full comprehension of their actions, leading to public criticism of the law.
Relevance: This case prompted discussions on the necessity of RA 9344, emphasizing the importance of focusing on
rehabilitation instead of punishment for minors.
2. Child Rights Advocates v. Republic of the Philippines (2019)
Facts: UNICEF Philippines and local NGOs filed a complaint opposing Senate Bill No. 2198, arguing it violated
international child rights standards under the UNCRC.
Relevance: This case reflects the global and local opposition to lowering the MACR, highlighting its potential harm to
children’s rights.
3. People v. Salonga (2011)
Facts: A 12-year-old involved in a gang robbery was caught but not detained due to RA 9344. The courts ruled for
community-based intervention, which successfully rehabilitated the minor.
Relevance: This case shows the effectiveness of the current juvenile justice system in rehabilitating young offenders
without lowering the MACR.
4. CHR v. Philippine Congress (2019)
Facts: The Commission on Human Rights filed a position paper against the proposed MACR reduction, arguing it was
unconstitutional and failed to consider developmental science.
Relevance: This case strengthens the argument that lowering the MACR contradicts the constitutional protection of
children’s rights.

5. Senate Investigation on Bahay Pag-asa Facilities (2023)

Facts: A Senate inquiry revealed that Bahay Pag-asa centers were underfunded and overcrowded, leading to abuse and
neglect of children in conflict with the law.
Relevance: This investigation demonstrates the systemic challenges of the juvenile justice system, highlighting the
impracticality of lowering the MACR without addressing existing issues.

https://legalresearchph.com/2021/02/02/the-subject-of-crime-a-legal-perspective-on-the-minimum-age-of-criminal-
responsibility/#:~:text=The%20House%20of%20Representatives%20approved%20a%20final%20reading%20of
%20House,undergo%20diversion%20activities%20or%20programs