UNICEF, Save the Children oppose lowering age of criminal responsibility

Child rights organizations opposed the proposed lowering of the age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines.

Lotta Sylwander, representative of UNICEF Philippines, on Friday said in a statement that lowering the age of criminal responsibility "goes against the letter and spirit of child rights."

"There is a lack of evidence and data that children are responsible for the increase in crime rates committed in the Philippines. Lowering the age of criminal responsibility will not deter adult offenders from abusing children to commit crimes," she said.

Save the Children also said such a move "is not in the best interest of children. This will only push them to further discrimination, abuse and eventually, into more anti-social behavior."

Child Rights Network, composed of organizations pushing for children’s rights legislation in the Philippines, described the proposal as a "big mistake" which "sets dangerous precedent for children."

The House Committee on Justice is set to finalize the substitute measure for the bills seeking to lower the age of criminal liability as a priority matter of legislation, panel chair Oriental Mindoro Representative Salvador Leachon said on Thursday.

In a statement, Leachon said the House panel will meet on Monday next week to finalize the substitute measure for House Bills 2, 505, 935, 1609, 2009 and 3973—all seeking a lower age of criminal liability—which it considers a priority legislation.

Under these bills, the age of criminal liability will be lowered to nine years old from 15 years old.

According to Leachon, there has been an "alarming" increase in the number of syndicates using minors in performing criminal acts.

"It is but the time to pass this bill to protect your children from being used by ruthless and unscrupulous criminal syndicates to evade prosecution and punishment," he said.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act

Save the Children said "what we need is for the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act [JJWA] to be fully implemented with clear programs and services for prevention, response, and the reintegration of children back into their families and communities."

UNICEF said "lowering the age of criminal responsibility is an act of violence against children."

"Children in conflict with the law are already victims of circumstance, mostly because of poverty and exploitation by adult crime syndicates. Children who are exploited and driven by adults to commit crimes need to be protected, not further penalized. Instead they should be given a second chance to reform and to rehabilitate," Sylwander added.

UNICEF also said children reach maturity at 16 years old, based on scientific studies.

"A 9-year old child has not yet even reached the age of puberty and their brains are not developed to understand the consequences of actions," Sylwander said.

UNICEF also balked at the proposal to delay the sentence until a child matures, up to a maximum of 25 years.

"If a child is jailed at 9 years old it means that they may have to waste away their life for 17 years under imprisonment until they can get a sentence for the crime committed. There is no mechanism to protect these children from cohabiting with hardened criminals and no guarantee that in detention they will be protected from violence and exploitation in jail," it said.

Sylwander said "children must grow up in a caring, nurturing and protective environment" and that "detaining children will not teach them accountability for their actions."

UNICEF instead called on Congress to strengthen the implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law instead.

We call on the government to focus on strengthening the implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Law instead of lowering the age of criminal responsibility. READ: https://t.co/O8QM1xxR1r #ChildrenNotCriminals #TulongHindiKulong #NoToLoweringMACR pic.twitter.com/ElleeJjIOs

— UNICEF Philippines (@unicefphils) January 18, 2019

'Misguided'

Child Rights Network finds the new version of the bill as a "brash, unfounded, and misguided move that is inimical to children’s rights."

In its statement, the CRN likewise stressed that a nine-year-old child is "not yet a teenager" and "has not yet even reached the standard age of puberty," citing scientific studies indicating that a child or adolescent's brain is still under development.

"Thus, children who come into conflict with the law at this age require an age-appropriate response that gives them a second chance at life. Brashly labeling them as criminals at a very young age essentially destroys their future," the CRN said.

Further, the alliance said legislators are "misguided" as they are "painting a picture of rampant criminality supposedly primarily instigated by children."

"This is a myopic view of the situation that utterly disregards the reasons why children are actually forced in situations where they commit wrongdoing," the child rights advocates said.

They added that "Leachon is wrong in reasoning that lowering the age of criminal responsibility will 'save' children from exploitation by syndicate groups."

Instead of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the CRN called on lawmakers to heed the call to strengthen the implementation of the JJWA.

"While we recognize that there are indeed challenges in implementing the JJWA, the current law has sufficient measures guided by the principles of restorative justice that will help rehabilitate children and encourage reparations for their wrongdoings without depriving them their future," the group said.

They pointed to UNICEF’s 2015 evaluation of the law which, they said, concluded there is “weak commitment of the local government units to the implementation of the JJWA which significantly affected the delivery of programs for children in conflict with the law.”

Legislators were also urged not to "act indiscriminately and pass what can be called a rigmarole of provisions meant only for the sake of optics and whitewashing."

"At a time when Congress has a choice between, on one hand, passing a piece of legislation that runs counter to evidence-based knowledge and scientific research and, on the other hand, protecting children’s welfare – we demand that our elected officials choose what is in the best interest of children," they said. —With a report from Margaret Claire Layug/KG, GMA News