Expungement (Sealing) of Juvenile Records in the Philippines
A 2025 Practitioner’s Guide
1 Concept and Policy Rationale
Philippine law does not use the word expungement in the U.S.-sense of physical destruction of a file. Instead, our system relies on (a) automatic confidentiality from first police contact and (b) judicial “sealing,” after which the case is legally treated as if it never occurred. The objective, rooted in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Beijing Rules, is to spare young offenders lifelong stigma while still allowing accountability and rehabilitation. (R.A. 9344)
2 Governing Legal Sources
| Layer | Key provisions (chronological) | What it does |
|---|---|---|
| A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC (2002) | §36-§38 – Confidentiality; §38 – Sealing of Records | First rule to require Family Courts to seal a juvenile record two years after final discharge upon motion or motu proprio. (A.M. NO. 02-1-18-SC) |
| Republic Act 9344 (Juvenile Justice & Welfare Act, 2006) | §43 – Confidentiality of Records & Proceedings; perjury shield; bar on use in later adult cases | Makes all CICL* records “privileged and confidential” from initial contact to final disposition. (R.A. 9344) |
| R.A. 10630 (2013) | Amendatory law that strengthened R.A. 9344; retained §43, created Juvenile Justice & Welfare Council (JJWC) to issue IRR | Institutionalised implementation and monitoring. |
| 2014 Revised IRR of R.A. 9344 | Rule 7 – Confidentiality & Privacy; Rule 7.c “When Records May Be Disclosed” | Details separate women-and-children police blotter, coding of names, court-order-only access, and reiterates ban on later use. |
| Data Privacy Act of 2012 (R.A. 10173) | §3 (l) & §13 list criminal history as sensitive personal information | Makes unauthorised processing of juvenile records a punishable offence; complements §43. (Republic Act No. 10173 - LawPhil) |
| Operational Circulars | PNP MC 2020-037 – mandates confidential handling & separate blotter; NBI follows similar practice on the strength of §43 | Reinforces field-level protection. ([PDF] PRIVACY POLICY OFFICE ADVISORY OPINION NO. 2023-0221) |
| Supreme Court Jurisprudence | e.g. G.R. No. 249307 (2020); G.R. No. 238798 (2023) – orders redaction of CICL identities & cites §43 | Affirms continuing force of confidentiality and sealing. (G.R. No. 249307 - LawPhil) |
*CICL = Child in Conflict with the Law.
3 Who May Obtain Sealing and When
| Requirement | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Final discharge or closure order has issued (after suspension of sentence, diversion completion, acquittal, or dismissal). | |
| Two (2) full years have elapsed without any new criminal charge involving moral turpitude. | |
| Good conduct shown (normally certified by social worker or Barangay). | |
| No civil liability issues remain unresolved. |
The Family Court may also seal the record motu proprio even before the two-year mark when justice requires (e.g., diversion cases). (A.M. NO. 02-1-18-SC)
4 Step-by-Step Procedure
Prepare the petition / motion
- Verified motion invoking §38, attaching:
- Certified copy of the final discharge / closure order;
- Sworn certificate of no pending case;
- Proof of notice to the prosecutor.
- Verified motion invoking §38, attaching:
Filing & docketing in the same Family Court that handled the criminal case.
Summary hearing – usually ex-parte unless prosecution objects. Court ensures the statutory conditions are met.
Issuance of the Order of Sealing – must list every office that ever handled the record: Clerk of Court, Prosecutor, NBI, PNP WCPD, BJMP, DSWD/Bahay Pag-asa, barangay, etc.
Dissemination & compliance
- Clerks transmit certified copies; agencies delete index references and write back that “no record exists” (express language of §38).
- NBI & PNP purge data from clearance databases on receipt of the order.
Legal Effect
- The proceeding is deemed never to have occurred for all purposes, including job applications, visas, firearms licensing, and sworn statements.
- Inspection of the sealed file requires another court order and is usually granted only at the request of the former CICL.
5 Automatic Confidentiality vs. Sealing
| Stage | Safeguard | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Initial contact → Final disposition | Statutory confidentiality (R.A. 9344 §43; IRR Rule 7) | Media blackout, coded names, separate blotter, “restricted” case type in e-Courts. |
| Post-discharge | Sealing/expungement under A.M. 02-1-18-SC §38 | Obliterates even restricted internal access; agencies must answer that no record exists. |
Because confidentiality already hides the file from the public, sealing mainly erases the “digital footprint” in law-enforcement databases and court indexes, preventing background-check hits.
6 Limitations & Exceptions
- Court-order disclosure – Rule 7.c allows release to specified persons for compelling reasons (e.g., subsequent probation determination).
- Civil liability enforcement – Records may be opened to satisfy a judgment.
- Research or statistical use – Only with anonymisation or Ethics-Committee approval.
- Subsequent adult prosecution – Prior juvenile record cannot be used for aggravation unless the offender consents in writing and it is beneficial to him/her. (R.A. 9344)
- Grave offences – The sealing rule does not exclude heinous crimes; protection is still mandatory because §43 contains no qualifiers and constitutional equal-protection jurisprudence disfavors carving-out classes of CICL.
7 Interplay with the Data Privacy Act
Juvenile-case information falls under “sensitive personal information” (DPA §3 (l)(4)), so any employee who leaks it without lawful basis risks 1–3 years’ imprisonment and a ₱500 000+ fine (§33 (a), DPA IRR). Agencies therefore require the sealing order before they can erase or “block” the file under DPA §16(d). (Republic Act No. 10173 - LawPhil)
8 Practical Tips for Lawyers and Advocates
- Ask the court for sealing simultaneously with the discharge order to avoid a separate motion two years later. The Supreme Court has allowed this where the prosecution interposes no objection.
- Always serve the NBI and PNP Records Management Division, not just the local station, to ensure database purge.
- When applying for an NBI clearance after sealing, bring:
- Original sealing order;
- Letter-request citing Memorandum Circular No. 2020-037 and R.A. 9344 §43.
- Check e-Courts: even after sealing, the case title sometimes lingers in the electronic docket. File a manifestation asking IT staff to overwrite the entry.
- Foreign travel / immigration – Carry a certified copy in case an INTERPOL or BI hit appears; Philippine sealing order is usually honoured after verification.
9 Emerging Issues (2024-25)
- Draft House Bill 9055 (17 th Congress) seeks automatic digital purge of CICL records when the child turns 21, aligning with EU “right to be forgotten.”
- JJWC is piloting an encrypted national CICL database with auto-purge flags timed to sealing eligibility. Roll-out expected 2026.
- Ongoing calls to extend sealing/protection to “child-at-risk” records (curfew, truancy) held only at barangay level.
(Monitor JJWC resolutions and Supreme Court circulars for updates.)
10 Conclusion
While the Philippines has no single statute labelled “juvenile expungement,” the combined force of A.M. 02-1-18-SC, R.A. 9344, its IRR, and privacy law provides one of the region’s strongest shields against the collateral consequences of youthful mis-steps. Mastery of the two-year sealing mechanism and rigorous follow-through with enforcement agencies is essential for fully restoring a former CICL’s legal slate.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational and academic purposes and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific guidance, consult competent Philippine counsel or the appropriate Family Court.