ON LOWERING THE AGE OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY: PERSPECTIVES FROM PHILIPPINE LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS

The proposal to amend the minimum age of criminal responsibility has elicited polarized reactions in the Philippines. On one side are the politicians led by President Duterte, who are behind a bill lowering the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 9 for two reasons: school-age thieves and drug-runners must be “taught responsibility” and that the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law is “soft” in dealing with children in conflict with the law (CICL). On the other side are human rights advocates vehemently opposing the bill on the ground that studies in the social sciences link emotional and mental immaturity to youth offending, not to mention the Philippines’ binding commitment to protect children’s rights when it signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. At the forefront, are the barangay officials, the first authorities encountered by the CICL upon apprehension, where the crucial decision is made: amicable settlement or State involvement. A survey among 30 barangay officials reveals that punishment is favored to deter re-offense. The lack of parental supervision is perceived as the root cause, but it is this same negligence that convinces them that handling the CICL should be a national affair, hence, their approval for lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility, and the children’s subsequent detention in government facilities. This study recommends that barangay officials be re-oriented regarding the aptness of rehabilitation for the CICL, particularly the framings of discourses from the social sciences, while also advancing a critique of the justice system itself critically through a Gramscian lens.