Juvenile Justice Law: What many Filipinos often misunderstand

MANILA, Philippines — The fatal shooting at a public school in Tacloban City has reignited calls to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility in the Philippines.

However, amid public outrage and renewed debate over the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, lawyer, educator, and human rights officer Amlan-Najar Namla said Tuesday that many Filipinos misunderstand what the law actually provides particularly when it comes to accountability.

“The most misunderstood point is what exemption from criminal liability actually means,” Namla said in an interview with the Inquirer. “When the public hears that a child is exempt, many assume the child faces no consequences and simply walks free. That is wrong.”

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: WATCH: Tacloban shooting suspect surrenders

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

Instead, children are removed from ordinary criminal prosecution and placed under intervention or rehabilitation programs designed to address their behavior and circumstances.

“The child is still accountable, still under State supervision, and in serious cases still deprived of liberty in a youth care facility,” the lawyer explained. “Below eighteen does not mean above the law.”

Age matters

Another common misconception, Namla said, is the belief that all minors are automatically exempt from criminal liability.

Under Republic Act No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, children aged 15 and below at the time of the offense are exempt from criminal liability.

Article continues after this advertisement

Meanwhile, children above 15 but below 18 may still be held criminally liable if prosecutors can prove they acted with discernment.

“The dividing line is the fifteenth birthday,” Namla explained.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: Should Juvenile Justice law be changed?

This distinction has become particularly relevant following reports that two minors, a 14-year-old and a 15-year-old, were the alleged suspects involved in the Tacloban school shooting.

According to the lawyer, the 14-year-old cannot be criminally prosecuted under the law.

“The State’s response is limited to an intervention program administered by social welfare authorities and local government units, focused on counseling, education, and rehabilitation,” Namla said.

The 15-year-old, however, falls into a different legal category.

A day after the child’s fifteenth birthday, criminal liability becomes legally possible if prosecutors establish discernment.

Establishing discernment

Discernment refers to a child’s mental capacity to understand the nature and consequences of an act and recognize that it is morally and legally wrong.

The concept has become a focal point in discussions surrounding the Tacloban case after police reported that the children allegedly planned the attack and were aware of the protections afforded by the Juvenile Justice Law.

Asked about this, Namla cautioned against treating those claims as facts.

“That is an allegation from an ongoing investigation. It has not been proven in any proceeding, and it is not for me or for the press to treat it as established fact,” the lawyer said.

“Awareness of the law and deliberate planning, if genuinely proven by evidence, would weigh toward a finding of discernment. But it must be proven, not presumed,” Namla added.

In a separate interview with Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC) Executive Director Tricia Clare Oco on Tuesday, she explained that for discernment to be established, a social worker initially assesses the child.

“They use what is called a discernment tool, a scientific assessment tool used to determine whether the child truly understands the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of his or her actions,” Oco told Inquirer in a phone interview.

“The discernment assessment is a lengthy process. It cannot be completed in a single one-hour session using a testing tool. It usually takes around two [to three] weeks because social workers visit the child’s home, assess the family environment, and conduct background checks. There are many steps involved in determining a child’s level of discernment,,” she added.

Once done, the court can then make a final determination after evaluating the totality of circumstances.

Debate over lowering the age

Meanwhile, Namla also pushed back on calls to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility.

“Placing younger children into the criminal justice system does not make communities safer,” the lawyer said. “It exposes children at their most impressionable to an environment that tends to harden rather than reform them.”

For experts, the Tacloban shooting should prompt a broader examination of the systems intended to protect children before they come into conflict with the law.

Namla pointed to gaps in mental health services, anti-bullying mechanisms, social welfare interventions, and school-based support systems.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“The choice is not between punishment and impunity,” Namla added. “It is between a response that only punishes and a response that also has a chance of preventing the next tragedy.” /mr