The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) remains one of the most contentious issues in Philippine jurisprudence and social policy. Currently governed by Republic Act No. 9344, or the "Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006," the MACR is set at 15 years old. However, persistent legislative efforts seek to lower this threshold to 12 or even 9 years old, sparking a rigorous debate between "tough-on-crime" proponents and child rights advocates.
I. Legal Framework and the Current Standard
Under the current law, as amended by RA 10630, children aged 15 and below are exempt from criminal liability. They are, however, subject to an intervention program. Children above 15 but below 18 are also exempt unless they acted with discernment, in which case they undergo a diversion program or a formal trial in a family court.
The prevailing philosophy of RA 9344 is restorative justice, focusing on rehabilitation rather than retribution, recognizing that minors lack the full cognitive and emotional maturity of adults.
II. Arguments in Favor of Lowering the MACR
Proponents, often including law enforcement agencies and certain legislators, argue that the current law is being exploited and is no longer aligned with the country's peace and order needs.
1. Deterrence Against Exploitation by Syndicates
A primary argument is that adult criminals and organized crime syndicates use minors as "mules" or "fronts" for drug trafficking and robberies because they know the children cannot be jailed. Proponents argue that lowering the age would strip syndicates of this loophole and discourage the recruitment of minors.
2. Accountability and "Discernment" at a Younger Age
Advocates for a lower MACR argue that modern children are more exposed to information and mature faster than previous generations. They contend that a 12-year-old can distinguish right from wrong and should be held legally accountable for heinous crimes like murder or rape.
3. Public Safety and Increasing Juvenile Delinquency
There is a public perception that juvenile crime is rising. Proponents argue that the "immunity" provided by the current law emboldens young offenders, leading to a cycle of recidivism that can only be broken by stricter legal consequences.
III. Arguments Against Lowering the MACR
Human rights organizations, developmental psychologists, and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) strongly oppose lowering the age, citing scientific and systemic reasons.
1. Neurobiological Development and Maturity
Medical experts argue that the prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain responsible for impulse control and understanding long-term consequences—is not fully developed until the mid-20s. Lowering the age ignores the biological reality that children lack the capacity for adult-level decision-making and are highly susceptible to peer pressure.
2. Failure of Implementation vs. Failure of Law
Critics argue that the problem is not the age limit, but the poor implementation of RA 9344. Many local government units (LGUs) have failed to establish Bahay Pag-asa (Houses of Hope) centers. Without these facilities, lowering the age would likely result in children being detained in sub-par conditions or mixed with adult criminals, further hardening them into a life of crime.
3. Addressing the Root Causes of Delinquency
Opponents emphasize that juvenile crime is a symptom of deeper social issues: poverty, lack of education, and domestic abuse. They argue that the state should act as parens patriae (parent of the nation), focusing on social services and family support rather than penalizing victims of circumstance.
4. International Human Rights Standards
The Philippines is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). International bodies generally recommend a MACR of at least 14 years. Lowering it to 9 or 12 would be seen as a regressive step in the eyes of the global community.
IV. Comparative Perspectives and Policy Outlook
| Aspect | Lowering the Age (9–12) | Maintaining the Age (15) |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Retributive Justice / Deterrence | Restorative Justice / Rehabilitation |
| Brain Science | Prioritizes "Discernment" | Prioritizes "Maturity" |
| Key Risk | Criminalizing children; High recidivism | Potential exploitation by syndicates |
| Requirement | Expansion of youth detention | Full funding of Bahay Pag-asa |
The debate reflects a fundamental tension in Philippine society: the desire for immediate security versus the long-term goal of social reformation. While the legislative push to lower the MACR continues to resurface in Congress, the consensus among child welfare experts remains that the solution lies in strengthening the family unit and fully funding existing intervention programs, rather than lowering the age of criminal responsibility.