Lacson urges review of Juvenile Justice Law after Tacloban school shooting

Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson on Wednesday called for a review of Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act in the wake of the deadly school shooting in Tacloban City, stressing that recent violent crimes involving minors have raised questions anew questions about criminal accountability and age-based exemptions.

Lacson said the law’s provisions on criminal liability should be revisited and subjected to broader public discussion, particularly in cases involving serious crimes.

“Our Juvenile Justice Law may really need revisiting and further discussion,” Lacson said in a post on X.

“The February 12, 1993 Liverpool, England case of 2-year-old James Patrick Bulger who was abducted and murdered by two 10-year-old boys may convince us to reconsider age as an automatic exemption from criminal liability,” he added.

Lacson maintained that safeguards already exist to protect children’s rights while ensuring accountability.

“Discernment to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by state prosecutors as per the latest SC ruling should be safeguard enough to serve justice to all concerned,” he said.

Our Juvenile Justice Law may really need revisiting and further discussion.

The February 12, 1993 Liverpool, England case of 2-year-old James Patrick Bulger who was abducted and murdered by two 10-year-old boys may convince us to reconsider age as an automatic exemption from…

— PING LACSON (@iampinglacson) June 24, 2026

His remarks came days after a shooting at the San Jose National High School in Tacloban City left at least three people dead and several others injured.

Earlier, authorities said the two suspects — aged 14 and 15 — allegedly planned the attack weeks before it occurred. Police investigators also reported that the minors had discussed the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act while planning the shooting.

Under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, children aged 15 and below are generally exempt from criminal liability, while those above 15 but below 18 may be held liable if they are proven to have acted with discernment.

The issue has resurfaced following the Tacloban City school shooting, with some lawmakers and officials calling for a reassessment of existing policies governing children in conflict with the law.

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council, however, has maintained that the law already contains mechanisms that hold minors accountable while ensuring their rehabilitation.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court previously ruled that there is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment and that prosecutors must independently prove beyond reasonable doubt that a child understood the nature and consequences of the alleged criminal act.

“For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she acted with discernment,” the High Court said in an earlier ruling. — JMA, GMA News