The sight of a child in handcuffs is a grotesque image that should disturb any functioning society. Yet, with the looming possibility of lowering the age of criminal responsibility, this could become a reality here in the Philippines.
As the May 2025 midterm elections approach, voters must take a hard look at the politicians who advocate for this regressive policy. Do we truly believe that criminalizing children will solve the country’s crime problem? Or are we simply punishing them for being born into a system that has already failed them?
The push to lower the age of criminal responsibility is based on the flawed notion that doing so will deter crime and prevent adults from exploiting minors for illegal activities. Senate Bill No. 2026, titled, “An Act Lowering the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility, Amending for the Purpose Sections 6, 20, 20-A, 20-B, and 22 of Republic Act No. 9344, as Amended, Otherwise Known as ‘The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006,” seeks to reduce the minimum age from 15 to 12. The bill operates under the assumption that children possess full criminal discernment. However, scientific research contradicts this claim.
Studies in neurobiology, including research cited by the Philippine Pediatric Society reveal that the human brain does not reach full maturity until around the age of 16, particularly in areas responsible for impulse control and reasoning. The very children that lawmakers seek to brand as criminals are, in fact, psychologically incapable of fully comprehending the long-term consequences of their actions. Lowering the age threshold will not stop crime—it will only push more vulnerable children into a broken system that offers no real path to rehabilitation.
Data from the Philippine National Police (PNP) from 2012 to 2015 shows that approximately 60% of crimes committed by minors involve offenses against property, such as theft, robbery, and fraud. Meanwhile, 36% of juvenile offenses fall under crimes against persons, including rape, physical injury, and even murder. The remaining 4% involve violations of special laws, such as illegal drug possession and gambling.
While most youth offenders are involved in petty crimes, reports indicate that some minors are being drawn into more serious offenses. In 2015 alone, theft cases involving child offenders reached 3,715, physical injury cases totaled 1,859, and rape cases reached 642. These numbers highlight a concerning trend, but they also emphasize the need for rehabilitation and intervention rather than punitive measures.
However, the harsh reality is that children in conflict with the law are not hardened criminals; they are victims of circumstance. A significant majority of them come from impoverished backgrounds, growing up in environments plagued by violence, neglect, and lack of education. Many are coerced into criminal activities by adults who manipulate them, exploiting their vulnerability.
By labeling them as criminals instead of recognizing them as victims, we absolve the very adults who use them as pawns. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility does not address the root causes of juvenile delinquency—poverty, lack of parental guidance, and the absence of social safety nets. Instead, it shifts the blame onto those least-equipped to defend themselves.
Another key point is that the argument in favor of lowering the age threshold suggests that children who commit crimes are aware of their actions and should be held accountable. Yet, this perspective conveniently ignores the glaring failure of the government to properly implement the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA). The existing law already mandates intervention programs for children aged 12 to 15 who commit serious offenses, ensuring that they receive rehabilitation rather than punishment.
Rather than amending the law arbitrarily, Congress should focus on enforcing it effectively. Investing in community-based rehabilitation programs has been proven to reduce recidivism far more effectively than detention. If the goal is to prevent crime, the answer is not to jail children, but to address the systemic issues that push them toward delinquency in the first place.
Given these points, this brings us to the upcoming elections. The decision to support or oppose this policy is not just a legislative matter—it is a moral one. The senators who have voted in favor of lowering the age of criminal liability, including Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa, have shown a blatant disregard for human rights and child welfare. Dela Rosa, who served as the PNP chief during Duterte’s drug war, has a long history of endorsing policies that prioritize punishment over rehabilitation. The extrajudicial killings under his leadership targeted the most vulnerable, and now, he seeks to extend this punitive approach to children. This is not leadership—it is a failure of governance, a failure of compassion, and a failure of moral responsibility.
Indeed, the voters must remember who stood against this injustice. There are those who have taken a stand in defense of children’s rights, advocating for stronger implementation of the JJWA rather than its dismantling. Their stance reflects not only an understanding of effective crime prevention but also a recognition of our duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves.
At the same time, the candidates who have pushed for regressive policies that punish children instead of addressing the real causes of crime. Their support for lowering the age of criminal responsibility is a reflection of their leadership—one that prioritizes punishment over rehabilitation, cruelty over compassion, and fear over justice. Because this election is more than just a race for power, it is a referendum on our values as a nation. The choices we make at the ballot will determine whether we protect our most vulnerable or abandon them to a system designed to break them.
Countries that prioritize restorative justice over punitive measures have seen far greater success in rehabilitating young offenders and reducing recidivism. The Philippines should follow this example, rather than regress into a system that treats children as disposable criminals.
As the 2025 elections draw near, voters must ask themselves: What kind of society do we want to build? One that criminalizes poverty, or one that provides hope and rehabilitation? Do we want leaders who see children as criminals, or leaders who see them as individuals in need of protection and rehabilitation? The answer to that question will determine not only the fate of our children but also the moral standing of our nation. To stand by and allow the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility is to be complicit in the failure of our justice system.
A child who steals out of hunger is not a criminal. A child who is coerced by syndicates is not beyond saving. But a leader who chooses punishment over protection? That is a crime against humanity. The 2025 elections are our chance to decide what kind of nation we want to be. Let’s choose justice, not cruelty. Let’s choose leaders who fight for children, not against them.
Article: Ariane Claire S. Galpao
Cartoon: Bianca Diane Beltran
Comments