Online poll shows many oppose amendments to juvenile justice law

Initial results of an ongoing online survey conducted by the House of Representatives showed that a majority of Filipinos oppose the proposed amendments to Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old.

The poll at the congress.gov.ph, the official website of the chamber, showed 684 out of 1,020 respondents or nearly 70 percent are not in favor of lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility under the House Bill 6052 or the “Strengthened Juvenile Justice Welfare Bill.”

The online survey showed that 328 of the respondents or 32.16 percent favor the proposed amendment while at least eight respondents or 0.78 percent have remained undecided on whether the proposal is a “justifiable policy” or not.

The question in the online survey was this: “Do you believe that lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility to twelve

years old is a justifiable policy?”

Before Congress adjourned last month, the House passed

on third and final reading the bill which seeks to provide parameters in the treatment of children in conflict with the law, especially youth offenders who acted with discernment.

The measure seeks to

strengthen the six- year old RA 9344 by proposing that the minimum age for criminal responsibility (MACR) shall be 12 to 15.

It provides that if the offense filed against the juvenile is murder, parricide, homicide, kidnapping, rape, robbery, drug trafficking or other offenses punishable by more than 12 years, such child shall be presumed to have acted with discernment.

Authors of the measure include Antipolo City Rep. Romeo Acop, Sorsogon Rep. Salvador Escudero III, Valenzuela Rep. Rex Gatchalian, Citizens Battle Against Corruption

party-list Rep. Cinchona Cruz Gonzales and Western Samar Rep. Mel Senen Sarmiento.

The bill defines youthful offender as a child above 12 but at least 15 years of age who acted with discernment and a child above years of 15 age years at the old time but under of the alleged 18 commission of a criminal offense.

The measure also suspends the sentence of a child 12 years of age or under and a child above 12 but at least 15 years of age who acted with discernment and was found guilty of an offense, but mandates that the child be committed to a repository institution or to the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development or

any duly-licensed agency.

If the child failed to comply with the conditions of the repository institutions mentioned, the child would be returned to the committing court for the imposition of the penalty upon reaching 18 years of age.

If the offense charged is murder, parricide, homicide, kidnapping, rape, robbery, drug trafficking or other offenses punishable by more than 12 years, such child shall be presumed to have acted with discernment.

Gabriela party- list Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan however warned the measure would only increase the numbers of youth

offenders in the country.

Ilagan lamented that RA 9344 has not been given the chance to be fully implemented and many aspects “have been neglected,” including the setting up of the rehabilitation centers.

RA 9344 provides that all children in conflict with law aged 15 and below and those above 15 but below 18 who acted without discernment are spared from criminal liability.

Social Welfare Undersecretary Alicia Bala, who chairs the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), cautioned against sending more children to jail.