On Juvenile Crimes
Why lowering age of criminal responsibility and harsher penalty won’t solve the problem
Recent violent incidents involving minors—including a shooting in Tacloban and stabbing cases in General Trias and Cavite City in Cavite—have reignited public concern over juvenile crime. These events have intensified calls to lower the age of criminal responsibility, with proposals to revisit the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act once again surfacing in public discourse. As frustration grows, the debate now centers on whether punitive reforms alone can safeguard communities or whether a more balanced approach is needed—one that recognizes both accountability and the unique developmental circumstances of children in conflict with the law.
For most people, the conversation begins and ends with headlines. For us, however, it reaches much closer to home. Some of these stories do not simply pass through the news cycle—they find their way into our case files in our firm, where they unfold through real people, real families, and real legal challenges. They serve as a reminder that juvenile justice is rarely as straightforward as it appears, and that every case carries its own unique circumstances.
To better understand this balance between accountability and rehabilitation, it is helpful to first examine what Philippine law says about children in conflict with the law.
Legal Accountability and Age
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (Republic Act No. 9344), as amended, recognizes that children are fundamentally different from adults in terms of development, judgment, and capacity for change. The law does not excuse criminal behavior. Instead, it adopts the principle that children who come into conflict with the law should be held accountable in a manner appropriate to their age, maturity, and developmental stage.
This approach is consistent with international standards. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), to which the Philippines is a party, emphasizes that children accused of crimes must be treated in a manner that promotes their dignity, worth, and reintegration into society. Similarly, The Beijing Rules (UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice) stress that juvenile justice should prioritize rehabilitation over retribution.
Even domestic laws echo this principle. The VAWC Law (RA 9262) recognizes children as victims of violence and provides special protective measures, underscoring that minors require distinct safeguards under Philippine law.
Studies Supports the Law
Research shows that the adolescent brain is still developing, particularly in areas responsible for:
- Impulse control and self-regulation
- Risk assessment and understanding long-term consequences
- Emotional regulation and decision-making under pressure
- Resistance to peer influence and social pressure
Because these functions are still maturing, young people are more impulsive and susceptible to external influences than adults. This does not diminish the harm caused by criminal acts, but it explains why children have a greater capacity for rehabilitation and behavioral change—and why the law advocates for it.
Courts’ Approaches and Programs
In fact, courts treat them differently because they are not yet fully mature in judgment, impulse control, and emotional regulation. Treating them exactly like adults ignores their developmental stage and undermines the very purpose of justice, which is not only to punish but also to reform. The law recognizes that minors have a greater capacity for rehabilitation, and therefore procedures must be tailored to their needs.
Philippine jurisprudence and international practice show how courts and justice systems adopt these special approaches:
- In People v. Sarcia (G.R. No. 169641, 2009), the Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider the offender’s age and circumstances in sentencing, underscoring the rehabilitative intent of juvenile justice.
- Diversion programs under RA 9344 allow cases involving minor offenses to be resolved outside formal court proceedings, focusing on accountability without institutionalization.
- Restorative justice processes encourage children to acknowledge the harm they caused, make amends, and rebuild relationships with victims and the community.
- Specialized child‑friendly procedures are mandated in courts, such as in‑camera hearings, the use of screens or video testimony to protect child witnesses, and the appointment of social workers or child psychologists to assist during proceedings.
- Internationally, under the CRC framework, detention is used only as a last resort, and many jurisdictions prioritize community‑based rehabilitation and education programs over incarceration.
These examples demonstrate that protecting children in conflict with the law is not about excusing wrongdoing—it is about ensuring justice that is both effective and humane. By adopting special procedures, the justice system acknowledges the unique vulnerabilities of minors while still holding them accountable in ways that foster growth and reintegration.
Rehabilitation Over Retribution
The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act promotes interventions proven to reduce future offending while protecting both the child and the community. These include:
- Diversion programs to resolve cases outside court
- Restorative justice to acknowledge harm and make amends
- Counseling and psychosocial interventions for behavioral issues
- Education, skills training, and family support to address root causes
- Community-based rehabilitation to encourage reintegration
Numerous studies show that evidence-based rehabilitation programs are more effective than purely punitive approaches in reducing recidivism among young offenders.
It Takes a Village
For us, the debate on juvenile justice should not revolve solely around lowering the age of criminal responsibility or imposing harsher punishment. These measures cannot resolve the deeper social realities that shape the lives of children. Poverty, neglect, abuse, peer pressure, and lack of guidance are often the unseen forces behind juvenile offending.
What is truly needed is a stronger commitment to prevention and empowerment. Every institution that touches the life of a child — the family, the school, the church, and the wider community — must be strengthened and enabled to fulfill its role in guiding the youth. Even the most responsible parents cannot shield their children if the community they grow up in is hostile or unsafe. A child raised with care at home will still be vulnerable if, upon stepping outside, they encounter abusive policing or a neighborhood where violence is normalized. Likewise, even diligent parenting cannot compensate if schools fail to provide proper guidance, or if churches and civic organizations remain passive instead of actively shaping values and offering support.
This is why juvenile justice is not just a matter of law but of collective responsibility. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child — and that village must be empowered. Families must be supported, schools must be equipped to teach both knowledge and values, churches and faith communities must continue to provide moral grounding, and civic organizations must create safe spaces for children to grow. When these institutions work together, they form a safety net that prevents young people from falling into cycles of crime and violence.
In the end, protecting society means protecting its children. Justice is best served not by harsher punishment, but by building a community where every child is raised with guidance, support, and hope for a better future. Only then can we truly say that our justice system safeguards not just the present, but the generations to come.