The Philippines, like any other country, suffers from a plethora of social issues
perpetuated by poverty and the inability to bridge the gap between social ranks.
From the lack of access to good education to widespread unemployment, there
are numerous reasons why crime rates continue to fluctuate year after year. One
of the most pressing issues in the Philippines, however, is the issue of juvenile
delinquency. The number of juvenile delinquents documented each year has been
attributed to poverty, but advocates and pundits claim that the problem lies
largely in the failure of the State to properly deal with the so-called “children in
conflict with the law” (CICL). In this article, we will discuss what juvenile
delinquency is in the Philippines, what the possible causes are, and how the law
sees incidences of juvenile delinquency.
What Is Juvenile Delinquency in the Philippines?
Juvenile delinquency refers to criminal acts performed by children under the age
of 18. According to statistics released by the Philippine National Police from 2012
to 2015, about 60 percent of juvenile crimes fall under crimes against property.
These include theft, robbery, malicious mischief and estafa, statistics by the PNP
from 2012 to 2015 revealed.
On the other hand, crimes against persons, which include rape, attempted rape,
acts of lasciviousness, physical injuries, murder, attempted murder, seduction,
grave threats, abduction, and homicide, constitute 36 percent of the crimes
committed by children covering the same period.
The last 4 percent of crimes committed by children in the Philippines from 2012 to
2015 involved violations of special laws, such as Republic Act (RA) 9165
(prohibited drugs), Presidential Decree 1866 (illegal possession of firearms) and
Presidential Decree 1602 (illegal gambling).
While children and teenagers primarily figured in petty crimes, youth offenders
are allegedly getting younger and bolder. Some children are now figuring in
heinous crimes that would send them to jail for life. In 2015, theft, physical injury
and rape were the top 3 crimes committed by children. Theft cases recorded in
2015 reached 3,715, while physical-injury cases totaled 1,859. Rape cases
involving child perpetrators reached 642.
While the number of juvenile delinquents in the Philippines is astounding, laws
protect them from being put on trial as adults. The State and laws put in place
prioritize their welfare, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society, allowing
CICLs to improve their lives after the crimes they’ve committed in the past.
However, while the laws of the land aim to protect these children, the
rehabilitation programs remain wanting, with some reformative aspects of the
Philippine Juvenile Justice Law not being implemented well due to a lack of
financial support from the government or the absence of housing programs that
should be designed for their welfare during their supposed trials. Unfortunately,
these not only affect the success of rehabilitation, but also exposes children to the
risk of abuses within the system.
What Are the Causes of Juvenile Delinquency in the Philippines?
The causes of Philippine juvenile delinquency can be attributed to a plethora of
issues in society, with the authorities pointing to poverty as the driving factor in
pushing children to commit crimes. With a large percentage of juvenile
delinquencies consisting of theft and robbery, this assumption may not be far
from the truth. However, there are other possible causes that may also influence
children into committing crimes, including:
Abuse and Trauma
A number of children in the Philippines are subjected to psychological and
physical abuse in their own households. The psychological effect of these abuses
not only causes near-irreversible trauma, but also increases the risk of criminal
behavior in later life. Studies show that child maltreatment can double the
chance that a child may become a delinquent during their adolescent stage and
up to adulthood.
Criminal Imitation
A significant percentage of children in the Philippines grow up in environments
where they are exposed to crime and misdemeanors. Children are highly
impressionable, which may lead them to recreate the criminal doings that they’ve
either experienced or seen. This is highly observable in marginalized communities,
where children may be exposed to crime and misdemeanors at a young age,
offering a perspective that it is either normal or excusable.
Syndicate Activities
One of the possible causes of juvenile delinquency in the Philippines is the
machinations of syndicates all over the country. Recent reports show that
syndicates operating in the Philippines are taking advantage of the statutes of
juvenile justice. Syndicates use minors as implements and shields to perpetrate
crime, making them more susceptible to being used by criminals to further their
operations.
Lack of Access to Proper Education
Some juvenile delinquents in the Philippines fall at school age range, with most of
them not having access to traditional education due to financial constraints or
family issues. Formal education not only equips children with essential skills that
they can bring into adulthood, but it also gives them priceless information about
their actions’ potential consequences. According to studies, the higher the
educational attainment that a child has access to, the lower their desire to take
part in criminal activities. However, due to the inability of marginalized youth to
be educated and given proper exposure to moral guidance, some children are
pushed into a life of crime.
Extensive Access to Technology
Technological know-how had opened doors for these children to be better
acquainted with the world around them. According to the explanatory note of the
HB 922 of Party-list Reps. Irwin C. Tieng, Mariano Michael M. Velarde Jr. and Jose
L. Atienza Jr., “The massive influence of modern communication has brought
minors immense awareness of their surroundings,” the Explanatory Note further
added. “Minors these days are more mature, and their perspective in life has
greatly improved as compared to minors 10 years ago. Accordingly, it is but timely
to have our laws reviewed to adapt to the demands of the times.”
The Nature of Juvenile Delinquency and Rehabilitation in the Philippines
Juvenile Justice in the Philippines is dictated by Republic Act No. 9344, with a
specific focus on the stages involving “children at risk and children in conflict with
the law, from prevention to rehabilitation and reintegration.” It covers children
who have been accused or charged with a crime, allowing them to be separated
from hardened criminals and adult offenders when institutionalized after arrest.
This law presents Juvenile Justice as a structure that helps support minors when
they go into conflict with the law. These include proceedings that are age-
appropriate for children as well as programs and rehabilitation institutions
primarily designed to help CICLs to reintegrate themselves into society after a
probationary period.
This Republic Act was passed as an effort to improve the conditions of children in
detention. According to UNICEF, this legislative breakthrough that was passed in
2006 “was a landmark that gave many children around the Philippines a new
lease on life.” Before this law passed, thousands of children were exposed to
subhuman conditions and were at high risk of abuse as they were mixed with
adult criminals. Not only were they at risk of suffering from health conditions,
such as tuberculosis, HIV, and pneumonia, but they also suffer from scarce food
supplies and were at high risk of suffering from both sexual and physical abuse
while in detention. Party-list Reps. Irwin C. Tieng, Mariano Michael M. Velarde Jr.
and Jose L. Atienza Jr.
Republic Act No. 9344 indicates that children under 15 years of age cannot be
held criminally liable, while children between 15 and 18 need to undergo
intervention and rehabilitation after committing a crime.
The Juvenile Justice System in the Philippines Leads to Poor Reintegration
While the law was designed to offer CICLs with much-needed support and
restorative programs, it cannot be said that it is being enacted by the authorities
and the rehabilitation institutions. According to a leftist group, Karapatan, CICLs
are prone to human rights abuses. In fact, even before a court of law finds them
guilty of a crime, they already end up in juvenile facilities or, worse, detention
where they suffer psychological and emotional trauma as adult criminal offenders
do while in detention.
In addition, DSWD facilities that operate primarily for CICLs do not get enough
support to offer adequate therapy and psychosocial assistance to support Juvenile
Justice in the Philippines. According to Secretary-General of Karapatan, Cristina
Palabay, “Children in conflict with the law often end up behind bars like common
criminals even inside facilities run by the DSWD or LGUs.” In some instances, due
to the lack of proper infrastructures for children, the authorities are forced to mix
CICLs with adults, with girls being held in the same cells as women.
The lack of adequate support and specialized facilities have made rehabilitation
and reintegration for CICLs more challenging, with the authorities not being able
to handle a number of CICLs due to the lack of funds and the absence of a clear
system.
According to the US State Department’s 2011 Country Report on Human Rights
Practices, “From January to November [2011], Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology [BJMP] and Philippine National Police [PNP] jails held 66,825 prisoners,
95 percent of whom were pretrial detainees. The remainder had been convicted
of various crimes. Of the total number of prisoners and detainees, 6,107 were
adult women and 501 were minors. During the same period, the BJMP released
104 minor inmates, usually in response to a court order following a petition by
the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) or the inmate’s private lawyer or through NGO-
led appeals.”
Bahay Pag-Asa and Molave Center for Youth Offenders
Fortunately, moves have been made to improve the Juvenile Justice System in the
Philippines, with former Interior Secretary Mel Senen Sarmiento calling to LGUs to
improve their juvenile integration programs. Together with this call, the Juvenile
Justice Welfare Council released guidelines for local government units to follow to
develop a Comprehensive Local Juvenile Intervention Program (CLJIP). These
guidelines include budget allocation, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation
of the CLJIP.
In addition, under the law, LGUs were required to put up and manage
intervention and support centers called the “Bahay Pag-asa.” These are 24-hour
child-caring institutions established, funded, and managed to provide residential
care for children in conflict with the law. CICLs who are at least 12 years old can
be committed to these youth-care facilities where they can be cared for and
monitored by licensed professionals and individuals.
For example, Quezon city, which is one of the most progressive cities in the
Philippine, has its Molave Youth Home as a way to support Juvenile Justice in the
Philippines. The facility is located at the Social Services Development Department
(SSDD) building behind the City Hall. Molave provides temporary custody and care
to youth offenders between 9 and 17 while undergoing trial.
A 2005 Gawad Galing Pook awards for pioneering work in the rehabilitation of
youth offenders, as well as their reintegration to society, Molave is being run and
managed by the city’s SSDD. At Molave, youth offenders get the chance to make
the most of their life while waiting for the judge’s verdict.
While the system is far from being perfect today, moves are now being
implemented to improve how CICLs are being handled to achieve maximum
rehabilitation and reintegration back into their family units and into society.
How the Law Has Failed in Youth Crimes and Exacting Juvenile Justice
In the Philippines it is not the first time that a teenager has committed heinous
crimes. Youth offenders are becoming braver and delving into more serious
crimes. From petty street crimes, they are now figuring in heinous crimes that
would send them to jail for life, or worse, join the death row in the absence of the
Juvenile Justice law; the implementation of which is now also being considered by
some lawmakers to deter the commission of drug-related heinous crimes.
But children at risk or children in conflict with the law are more vulnerable to
human-rights abuse. Hence, they need effective intervention to correct their
behavior.
The law, however, seemed to fail in curbing the number of children getting
involved in crimes. Worse, those involved in petty and even serious crimes are
getting younger and younger, some committing crimes like robbery-holdup,
murder, illegal drug use and peddling, prompting some lawmaker to think about
lowering the age of criminal responsibility.
Talks About Lowering the Age of Criminal Liability Put Forward
In recent years, the talks about lowering the age of criminal liability to 12 years
old have been put forward in a move to “teach them to understand
responsibility.” In 2016, Former House Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez and Rep.
Fredenil H. Castro of the Second District of Capiz filed House Bill (HB) 002 in the
newly opened 17th Congress.
Dubbed “An Act Amending Republic Act 9344, As Amended by Republic Act
10630, and Reverting the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility from 15 Years
Old to 9 Years Old,” the amendment seeks to lower criminal liability from the
current 15 years old to 9 years old.
Both representatives explained the “necessity” of such an amendment in their
Declaration of Policy:
“It is the policy of the state to ensure that the Filipino youth shall be taught to
accept responsibility for their words and deeds as early as possible, and not to
unduly pamper them with impunity from the criminal responsibility upon
reaching the age of 9 years.”
The authors of the bill were particularly concerned about juvenile delinquents in
the Philippines being used by syndicates in the commission of a crime, namely,
drug trafficking.
The same was clarified and reinforced in their Explanatory Note: “While the intent
of protection of the Filipino youth may be highly laudable, its effects have had the
opposite effects—the pampering of youthful offenders who commit crimes
knowing they can get away with it.”
With this reform, juvenile delinquents in the Philippines can be put on trial for
crimes they’ve committed and convicted as adults. Proponents of this reform
have cited the fact that syndicates and criminals have learned to exploit young
children in the drug trade and syndicate operations.
However, this was met with significant uproar as citizens expressed their
disagreement with the reform, citing that by lowering the age of criminal liability,
the Philippines will also be exposing children to a high risk of human rights abuses
when they are convicted. With a justice system that can be highly manipulated,
lowering the age of criminal liability does not only endanger the lives of children,
but also further oppress the marginalized youth, who are, more often than not,
pushed to commit petty crimes to survive.
Organizations and political groups called the reform irresponsible and pushed for
the full implementation of the Philippine Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act instead.
With juvenile support institutions still lacking budget and support from the
government, lowering the age of criminal responsibility just means that the State
has failed in their move to protect the youth from abuse and exploitation.
I was informed that a child below 15 years of age is exempt from criminal
responsibility. Nevertheless, the fact would remain that the child committed a
wrong against us. In a situation like this, can we at least file a civil case for
damages against the parents of the child offender?
The answer to your question is yes. To elucidate, allow us to lead your attention
to the pertinent provisions of law and jurisprudence. To begin with, Article 101 of
the Revised Penal Code, Article 2180 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines,
Section 20-D of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, and Article 221 of
the Family Code of the Philippines respectively reads:
Revised Penal Code of the Philippines
"Article 101. Rules regarding civil liability in certain cases. - x x x
"First. In cases of subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of Article 12, the civil liability for acts
committed by an imbecile or insane person, and by a person under nine years of
age, or by one over nine but under fifteen years of age, who has acted without
discernment, shall devolve upon those having such person under their legal
authority or control, unless it appears that there was no fault or negligence on
their part."
New Civil Code of the Philippines
"Article 2180. The obligation imposed by article 2176 is demandable not only for
one's own acts or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is
responsible.
"The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for
the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. X x x."
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006
[Republic Act (RA) 9344, as amended by RA 10630]
"Section 20-D. Joint Parental Responsibility. - x x x
"The parents shall be liable for damages unless they prove, to the satisfaction of
the court, that they were exercising reasonable supervision over the child at the
time the child committed the offense and exerted reasonable effort and utmost
diligence to prevent or discourage the child from committing another offense."
Family Code of the Philippines
"Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly
liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their
unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental
authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The foregoing provisions of law dictate the civil liability of parents with respect to
the delict/damages committed by their minor children. In line with these, the
Supreme Court in the case of Libi v. Intermediate Appellate Court, GR 70890,
Sept. 18, 1992, penned by Associate Justice Florenz Regalado, held that parents
are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal
offenses committed by their minor children, viz.:
"Under the foregoing considerations, therefore, we hereby rule that the parents
are and should be held primarily liable for the civil liability arising from criminal
offenses committed by their minor children under their legal authority or control,
or who live in their company, unless it is proven that the former acted with the
diligence of a good father of a family to prevent such damages. That primary
liability is premised on the provisions of Article 101 of the Revised Penal Code
with respect to damages ex delicto caused by their children 9 years of age or
under, or over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted without discernment; and,
with regard to their children over 9 but under 15 years of age who acted with
discernment, or 15 years or over but under 21 years of age, such primary liability
shall be imposed pursuant to Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
"Under said Article 2180, the enforcement of such liability shall be effected
against the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother. This was
amplified by the Child and Youth Welfare Code which provides that the same shall
devolve upon the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, upon the mother
or, in case of her death or incapacity, upon the guardian, but the liability may also
be voluntarily assumed by a relative or family friend of the youthful offender.
However, under the Family Code, this civil liability is now, without such
alternative qualification, the responsibility of the parents and those who exercise
parental authority over the minor offender." (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Therefore, even if a child below 15 years of age is exempted by law from criminal
responsibility due to his or her minority, apart from the mandated intervention to
rehabilitate the minor offender, indubitably, one of the available legal remedies
for an offended party is to file a civil case against the parents of such minor
offender pursuant to the aforementioned parental vicarious liability.
