CHR, advocates oppose MACR
Advocates for the protection of the welfare of children, in a forum budded as “Criminalizing the Child” held in the city last Friday, averred that children in conflict with the law must be accorded intervention and rehabilitation for them to become productive members of society when they become adults, and not incarcerated like common criminals.
The forum attendees representing cross sections of the community were unanimous in opposing a House Bill that proposes lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR), except for the Cagayan de Oro City Council, in a resolution, which proposed a higher age level for the MACR at 12 y.o.
House Bill No. 002 is a proposed legislation of the 17th Congress that seeks to amend Republic Act No. 9344 better known as Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA), as amended by Republic Act No. 10630 by reverting the MACR from 15 years old to nine years old. The MACR is the lowest statutory age, at which children may potentially be prosecuted in any court, and may be held criminally liable for offenses.
The proponents of this bill opine that it is the policy of the State to ensure that the Filipino youth are taught to accept responsibility for their words and deeds as early as possible, and not to unduly pamper them with impunity from criminal responsibility. In addition, the lawmakers
believe the time is ripe for the age of criminal responsibility to be lowered to nine (9) years old considering that most children above this age, especially in these times, are already fully informed because of the wealth of information that they can easily access through the use of technology.
Under the proposed measure, a child 9 years of age and above but below 18 years old shall be exempt from criminal liability and subjected to an intervention program unless he/she is determined to have acted with discernment, in which case he/she shall be subjected to appropriate proceedings in accordance with the proposed law. On the other hand, a child under 9 y,o. at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from criminal responsibility but shall be subjected to an intervention program.
The Commission on Human Rights (CHR), reiterates its strong opposition to any amendments which will lower MACR. “We affirm our previous stance that lowering the MACR oversimplifies the nature of juvenile offending and violates the fundamental principles of child protection and welfare as provided for by laws, international treaties, and internationally-accepted standards and principles.”
“We cannot overstress that juvenile offending will not be resolved by simply lowering the MACR. This will only subject more children into adult justice system instead of addressing the underlying causes both juvenile offending and victimization. It is contentious to say that incarceration will stop children from committing crimes or discourage syndicates from using or exploitcontributed ing them if the same is not backed up with a thorough study, research and crime statistics. On the contrary, there are numerous studies, scholarly texts and documented practices that would substantiate the view that early incarceration will only do more harm than good on children. Further, if the real intention of the legislators is to stop syndicates from using children to consummate their evil deeds then focus should be directed on prosecuting the real perpetrators and ensuring that they suffer the highest degree of penalty provided for under our laws,” CHR said in a statement.
CHR, recommended that instead of bringing more children into the adult justice system, the government must first prioritize the full implementation of the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act (JJWA) to ensure that the children who have been found to have violated the law and are now institutionalized are being rehabilitated to prepare them for their reintegration to their communities. Rather than pushing for a new law that would put more children in detention, the Congress should instead use their legislative powers to appropriate the resources needed by the different branches and instrumentalities of the government to fund the construction of Bahay Pag-asa Facilities in every province and highly urbanized city, as well as the employment of medical doctors, licensed social workers, educators, psychologists who will serve as members of Multi-Discplinary Teams in every Bahay Pag-asa Facility.
RA 10630 states that each province and highly urbanized city shall be responsible for building , funding and operating a ‘BahayPag-asa’ within their jurisdiction following the standards that will be set by DSWD and adopted by JJWC. The Philippines has 81 provinces and 33 highly urbanized cities but as of September 2016 only 37 Bahay Pag-asa Facilities have been established throughout the country. Of these, three are run by NonGovernment Organizations while two are considered not fully operational for failing to meet the standards established by the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
“Although the number pf facilities has grown over the years, still, these are not enough to accommodate all the children who need to be institutionalized and rehabilitated. To date, four regions have yet to establish ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ Facilities for children in conflict with the law (CICL) within their respective jurisdictions.” CHR said.