I. Title: JUVENILE JUSTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES: An Assessment

on the State’s Protection for the Rights of Children in

Conflict with the Law

II. Name of Author: DENNIE VIEVE IDEA

As adults we play a role in abuse...and if you are not protecting children, you are neglecting them

AND THAT IS ABUSE.

III. Outline

Introduction

o Global Facts on Juvenile Justice

o Overview of the Juvenile Justice System in the Country

o Defining Juvenile Justice

Analysis and Discussion

o Juvenile Justice in the Country vis-a-vis International

Commitments

o Issue on Automatic Suspension of Sentece

o Issue on the determination of ‘Discernment’

o Issue on lowering the age of criminal responsibility

o Solutions approached to the problem/issue

Conclusion

I. Introduction

Global Facts on Juvenile Justice

It is estimated that over 1 million children worldwide are

deprived of their liberty

80 percent of children will only commit one offence in their

lifetime

50 to 70 percent of crimes are committed by about 5 to 10 percent

of the population

It is estimated that there is an 80 percent likelihood of

deterring first-time juvenile offenders from committing further

offences, a group which represents 90 percent of juveniles who

come in contact with police1

When a child kills, does he instantly become an adult? Or does he

maintain some trappings of childhood, despite the gravity of his

actions? These are the questions plaguing the American legal system

1 Bergeron, Julie, JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN: DETENTION AS A LAST RESORT. Innovative Initiatives in the East Asia and Pacific Region, ( September 18, 2013), http://www.unicef.org/spanish/protection/files/Justice_for_Children_Detention.pdf, (last accessed October 1, 2013).

today, as the violent acts of juvenile offenders continue to make

headlines.

The Justice System in the Philippines is contradictory. In some

areas it is progressive and idealistic, in others outmoded and

ineffective. Either way, problems with the implementation are

paramount; the theory of laws often extends beyond their practical

reach.

The State, as mandated by the Constitution, has the obligation to

protect its people, be it an adult or a child. However, instances

still exist that our laws have discriminatory provisions that still

separate the people, especially the marginalized, including the

children.

Juvenile delinquency, children in conflict with the law, street

children problems - we can say that juvenile justice is one of the

legal problems that the country is, and still is, facing right now.

Children are products of their environments. Their situation mirrors

the realities of their families, community and society. While the

Filipino family puts much premium on the welfare of its children,

families are increasingly breaking down in the midst of the struggle

for survival. In the process, children are inadvertently sacrificed.

The Filipino family is mired in poverty. According to official

estimates, a little over one-third (65%) of the 85-million Filipino

population in year 2011 live below the poverty threshold, which was

set at Php88 a day (National Statistics Office [NSO] 2011). An

analysis of government data, however, reveals that 77.4% of Filipino

families do not earn enough to maintain a decent standard of living.

Ibon Foundation further estimates that some 92% of rural families are

poor. In the midst of purported economic growth brought about by

globalisation, the prices of basic commodities are fast rising;

leaving behind the legions of families whose incomes cannot catch up.

Delivery of social services is severely wanting.

To say that children are products of their contexts is not to say

that they are simply passive by-products. Undeniably, children

themselves also influence their situation. Given their contexts,

children cope – both positively and negatively. As the statistics

above show, children are not mere inactive appendages but have

increasingly been important actors in the survival of their families.

In many cases, children are forced to leave school to work so that

they can contribute to the family income. While child labour—defined

by the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) as the “employment of

children below 15 years of age and the employment of those below 18

years in hazardous or deleterious work”– is declared illegal, the

government differentiates it from child work, which is considered an

“acceptable vocation for children.” In reality though, the distinction

is not clear. Even the exemption provided for when parents give

consent for their child’s engaging in labour validates the reality

that a family’s economic status decides whether or not a child is

forced to work. Preoccupation with survival sometimes causes the

breakdown of families. Parents are no longer able to care for their

children so the older ones take charge of their younger siblings, or

they are left to fend for themselves. In some cases, children take to

the streets where they find “alternative families” among their peer

groups (barkada) or gangs. On the streets, children and young people

learn survival skills that may border along anti-social activities. In

some cases, petty crimes against property constitute survival

strategies. On the other hand, while child labour or child work may

seem undesirable, many children are in fact proud of their

contribution to the family income. Some children believe that work,

even if hazardous or illegal, is a normal part of their existence.

Among those considered “high-risk” are abandoned and neglected

children who have not been taken in by existing DSWD facilities,

children deliberately used in criminal activities and children of

prostituted women. Such is the context of children who become

vulnerable to circumstances where they come into conflict with the

law.

Juvenile justice is an issue that affects not only children

involved in criminal activities but also child victims of poverty,

abuse and exploitation. For example, street children and illegal child

immigrants are often treated as criminals. Child victims of

trafficking and sexual exploitation are oft en re-victimised in

criminal justice systems. Improving justice for children, including

juvenile justice laws, policies and procedures is one of the most

important strategies for enhancing the protection of children in

society.

Many rights of the youth were not adequately protected by the

state, although the Philippines had signed all the international

treaties concerning children’s rights; to wit:

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child;

Beijing Rules;

The Riyadh Guidelines; and

The United Nations for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of

their Liberty.

Consequently, substantive laws applicable to juvenile issues.

These include the more than three-decade-old Child and Youth Welfare

Code, the Revised Penal Code, the Special Protection Act (Republic Act

[RA] 7610 and RA 7658), the Rule on Examination of Child Witnesses (15

December 2000), Rule on Adoption (22 August 2002) and the Rule on

Commitment of Children (15 April 2002). Moreover, there are more than

40 local issuances and legislations directly and indirectly benefiting

children, of which the extent of implementation should be monitored

and evaluated.

However, in the existence of these laws, number of children in

conflict with the law continues to increase.

Children in conflict with the law or CICL is a person who is

under 18 years of age and is alleged ass, accused of or adjudged as

having committed an offense under Philippine laws. 2These children are

exempted from criminal liabilities, and those who are between 15 to 18

years of age are liable only if they acted with discernment which is a

level of intellectual maturity including the ability to distinguish

right from wrong.

2 An Act Establishing A Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council Under the Department of Justice, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, RA. 9344, SEC 4 (c) and (e) (2006).

Juvenile problems rooted from either out of necessity because

they are poor or through force because of syndicates which resulted to

child’s vulnerability to prostitution, drug addiction, and pushing and

commission of crimes. Also, juveniles are criminalized and stigmatized

for no obvious crime committed and were jailed because of vagrancy

laws.

According to the Department of Interior and Local Government

attached agency, the Bureau of Jail Management Penology (BJMP), CICL

are mostly property-related, which can be attributed to children’s

deprivation and poverty.

In the 2009 data of the Subaybay Bata Monitoring System, top

juvenile delinquency crimes cases are theft, illegal use of rugby,

rape, physical injuries and robbery. Strong evidences links these

early behaviour to later adolescent delinquency and serious adult

criminality.

Children who have no access to safe shelter, adequate food, basic

health care, and sufficient preparation to become economically viable

have been linked to abnormal development, economically and socially

marginalized existence, and persistent criminality. Children who have

parents that are criminals also have high probability of becoming

delinquents. Also, those who are identified to be abused and neglected

by their parents are more likely to become delinquents.

Juvenile Justice, although existing, still needs to be developed

and implemented well and should meet the international standards the

government signed in to.

International standards for juvenile justice call for:

Establishment of national legislation and programmes that foster

diversion alternatives to deprivation of liberty (with detention

a measure of last resort) and restorative justice;

Creating circumstances in administrative and other government

processes that are in the best interests of the child. This

refers to judicial systems that are child sensitive and that

minimize trauma, recognizing that childhood is the most formative

period of a person’s life and the time when individuals are most

sensitive and strongly influenced;

Fully safeguarding children’s rights, including the most basic

protection rights, and the right to participation by children in

the decisions which affect their lives (including judicial and

administrative decisions); and

Aligning national legislative and judicial programmes with

international law on juvenile justice and international good

practices in this area.

In view of the foregoing, this article aims to find out what

legalities are needed to solve juvenile issues and what approaches can

be done to lessen, at the very least, these problems that our children

are facing right now.

II. ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

Juvenile problems are broad; it can be associated in social and

legal aspects. As said, juvenile problems rooted from social problems

such as poverty and lack of parental guidance; and legally, the lack

of the State’s implementation on its juvenile laws and consequently,

the problem on the latter’s implementation.

One of the problems arose from juvenile justice is when the

juvenile is placed in jails. Most juvenile delinquents were not

segregated from the hardened adult criminals in the biggest jails in

the Philippines, hence, after their release; they went back with more

knowledge of crime. In such case, juvenile delinquency, instead of

being reduced, will still continue to increase.

Another is the continuous passage of bills that intends to

minimize the age of juvenile delinquents from 15 years old to 12 years

old. Age of discernment is relative; we cannot say that if the child

is only 12 years old he cannot distinguish right from wrong. Instead

of decreasing the number of juvenile criminals by lowering the age, it

would just increase them. Delinquency is more of a matter of societal

problem and not of age problem.

Also, one of the problems that arouse juvenile justice problems

is the implementation of child laws in the country. There is still

lacking of right implementation of laws that instead of protecting

juveniles, some laws have conflicting provisions with the

international laws that protects the rights of the child.

Juvenile Justice in the Country vis-a-vis International Commitments

Rights of the children being infringed by the State, hence, Juvenile

Justice Problems:

First, the criminal justice system provides inadequate

rehabilitation and mostly punishes criminal behaviour of youth.

However the international treaties, for which the Philippines was a

signatory, put emphasis on the fact that children should not be

detained in jails and in exceptional cases, if they are detained, then

only for a very short time. Because of lack of funds there are still

not enough programs for education, vocational training and

rehabilitation centers.

Second, young offenders, many of them first offenders were mixed

with professional, “hardened criminals’, thereby turning jails and

prisons into schools of criminality. This non-segregation can be one

reason why the numbers of street children and crimes were rising.

Third, inadequate health care (often totally absent) and

subhuman conditions in the jails and prisons condemned many a young

inmate to an early death or to inflict irreparable harm to their

physical and mental health.

Fourth, while the State as Parents Patriae was expected to offer

and to give special care to its young offenders, it instead

negligently allowed a number of young people to enter the gates of

jails and prisons with the least amount of legal protection during the

litigation process. There were no juvenile courts, lawyers,

psychologists, probation officers who were specialized in dealing with

the youth.

Fifth, children in conflict with the law were serving stiff

sentences, doing time over and above their sentence, awaiting action

on their appeal for too long a time with no hope of being attended to

soon. Often they were unable to avail themselves of the benefits of

pardon or parole due to lack of knowledge about these options.

Sixth, the resolution of cases in the courts was extremely slow

and often unfinished. For example, for every 100 criminal proceedings

36 were resolved and 64 remained pending. As most young detainees had

no money to obtain bail this contributed to overcrowding in the

prisons. Another contributing factor to the congestion of jails and

detention centres was the lack of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations

Court as it had been abolished which increased the backlog of untried

cases.

Lastly, a danger at that time was also the reintroduction of the

death penalty. Some of the young inmates could get this sentence if

they had reached the adult age when on trial.

Moreover, the legal issue on juvenile justice arises from how the

law treats children in conflict with the law. Child laws lack

protection for child criminals in terms of criminal liabilities,

penalties, and not very clear as to the distinction of the crimes that

the juvenile offenders are liable of.

Issue on Automatic Suspension of Sentence

One of the legal issues when it comes to juvenile justice is the

benefit of suspended sentence. There are many cases wherein juvenile

offenders were convicted of high crimes because at the time of the

conviction, their age exceeds the limit of twenty-one years, and if

the juvenile committed a heinous crime. Like in the case of Declarador

v. Gubaton, the CA held that, consistent with P.D 603, as amended, the

provision of suspended sentence would not apply to a child in conflict

with law if, among others, he/she has been convicted of an offense

punishable by death, or life imprisonment.3

3 Declarador v. Gubaton, 499 SCRA 341, (2006).

In the case of People vs. Hermie Jacinto, Justice J. Perez stated

that:: “Nevertheless, a child conflict with the law, whose judgement

of conviction has become final and executor only after his

disqualification from availing of the benefits of suspended sentence

on the ground that he/she has exceeded the age limit of 21 years,

shall still be entitled to the right of restoration, rehabilitation,

and reintegration in accordance with R.A. 9344 xxx”.4

Right to the benefit of suspended sentence should be strengthen

by the law because there are many cases wherein when the child commits

a heinous crime, and the judgement is pronounced when the offender is

already 18 years old or above, the child should still be exempted from

a very high punishment.. This can be a reason that a child can be

convicted easily of a very high offense and former’s welfare is not

considered primarily. In lieu with such problem, it should be

considered, what the court held in People vs. Sandiganbayan: “the

Court is always guided by the basic principle of statutory

construction that when the law does not distinguish, we should not

distinguish. Since R.A. 9344 does not distinguish between a minor who

has been convicted of a capital offense and another who has been

convicted of a lesser offense, the Court should also not distinguish

and should apply the automatic suspension of sentence to a child in4 People v. Hermie, G.R. No. 182238, (2011).

conflict with the law who has been found guilty of a heinous crime.”5

Also, in People v. Sarcia, the court said: “when the minor is charged

or accused with, or may have committed a serious offense, and may have

acted with discernment, then the child could be recommended by the

DSWD to go through judicial proceeding; but the welfare, best

interests, and restoration of the child should still be a primoridial

consideration xxx.”6

The court explained: Be that as it may, the suspension of

sentence may no longer be applied in the instant case given that the

accused-appellant is now about 29 years of age and Section 40 of

Republic Act No. 9344 puts a limit to the application of a suspended

sentence, namely, when the child reaches a maximum age of 21. Thus the

said provisions states: “Section 40. Return of the Child in Conflict

with the Law to Court. xxx If said child in conflict with the law has

reached eighteen (18) years of age while under suspended sentence, the

court shall determine whether to discharge the child in accordance

with this Act, to order execution of sentence, or to extend the

suspended sentence for a certain specified period or until the child

reaches the maximum age of twenty-one (21) years. xxx:”7

5 People vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 147706, (2005).6 People vs. Sarcia, G.R. No. 169641, (2009).7 People v. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, (2011).

Concerning the retroactive application of RA 9344 to a child

convicted or serving sentence before its effectivity it was held that

“Although the crime was committed on April 13, 1999 and Republic Act

No.9344 took effect only on May 30, 2006, the said law should be given

retroactive effect in favour of Raymund who should be exempted from

criminal liability for he was merely 14 years old at the time the

crime was committed.8

In such case, the promotion of the welfare of a child in conflict

with the law should extend to one who has exceeded the age limit of

twenty-one years, so long as he/she committed the crime when he/she

was still a child. The offender shall be entitled to the right if

restoration, rehabilitation and reintegration in accordance with the

Juvenile Justice Welfare Act in order that he/she be given the chance

to live a normal life and become a productive member of the community.

The age of the child in conflict with the law at the time of

promulgation of the judgement of conviction is not material. What

matters is that the offender committed the offense when he/she was

still tender age.9

8 1 Maximo P. Amurao, Jr., Commentaries on Criminal Law, 332, (2013).9 Cited in People vs. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, (2011).

Issue on determination of ‘Discernment’

The issue of ‘discernment’ is also one. Since discernment is

somehow relative, it is hard to determine whether a child really acted

with discernment regardless of his/her age. Discernment, as the he

court stated in Remiendo vs. People: “Discernment is that mental

capacity of a minor fully appreciates the consequences of his acts.”

10Moreover, discernment is the capacity may be known and should be

determined by taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances afforded by the records in each case, 11held in Madali v.

People. The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor

knew what he was doing and that it is wrong. Such circumstances

include the gruesome nature of the crime and the minor’s cunning and

shrewdness, court held in Llave v. People. 12

Discernment, as used in Article 12, Paragraph 3 of the Revised

Penal Code is defined as follows:”the discernment that constitutes an

exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under 15

years of age but over 9 who commits an act prohibited by law, is his

mental capacity to understand the difference between right and

wrong.”13

10 Remiendo vs. People, G.R. No. 184874, (2009).11 Madali v. People G.R. No. 180380, (2009).12 (Llave v. People, G.R. No. 166040, (2006).13 People v Doquena, G.R. No. 46539, (1939).

It was held that discernment was present in a case where the

accused, shot with a slingshot the right eye of the offended party,

and the accused even remarked “Putangina mo, mabuti matikman mo,”

which shows the accused realized the nature and illegality of his

wrongful act.14

Issue on lowering the age of criminal responsibility

In addition, many argue that these days, children in conflict

with the law are growing in numbers and that the minimum age of crime

responsibility should be lowered. However, we should also be open to

the fact that every law has a reason behind it, and have reasons and

rationale for its provision. In cases of minors, there are many

factors why they are exempted from criminal liabilities. Just like

what the court held in Guevarra v. Almodovar: “It is worthy to note

the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting circumstances

embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of

intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of

negligence on the part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence

as the second element of dolus, Albert has stated:

14 People v Alcabao, No. 423-R, (1947).

"The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power,

necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a

licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . . . the

infant (has) no intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal

liability."

It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and

below are not capable of performing a criminal act.”15

In Roper, the Court relied on scientific and sociological

research to conclude that: “three general differences between

juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders

cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders:” (1)

children are more impulsive and have greater difficulty weighing the

long-term consequences of their actions; (2) children are “more

vulnerable... to negative influences,” such as peer pressure; and (3)

children’s personalities are more malleable, so it is more likely that

they will change in response to positive influences.3 Due to these

three key differences, the court held that “from a moral standpoint it

would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an

adult.” 16

15 Guevarra v. Almodovar,169 SCRA 476, 482, (1989).16 Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).

The Court in Graham v. Florida noted fundamental differences

between children and adults, lessening the moral culpability of

children who commit crimes: “developments in psychology and brain

science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and

adult minds.... Juveniles are more capable of change than are adults,

and their actions are less likely to be evidence of ‘irretrievably

depraved character’ than are the actions of adults.”17 Still, the

Graham holding was tied to the nature of the offense: It applied only

to children convicted of non-homicide offenses and left open the door

for children convicted of homicide to be sentenced to life without the

possibility of parole.

Moreover, reiterating the U.S. court in one of its decisions:

“Deciding that a “juvenile offender forever will be a danger to

society” would require “making a judgment that he is incorrigible”—but

“‘incorrigibility is inconsistent with youth.”18 Also in other U.S.

cases, it is stated that: “Youth is more than a chronological fact.19

It is a time of immaturity, irresponsibility, “impetuousness, and

recklessness.” “It is a moment and “condition of life when a person

may be most susceptible to influence and to psychological damage.” 20

17 Graham, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010).18 Workman v. Commonwealth, 429 S. W. 2d 374, 378 (1968).19 Eddings, 455 U. S., at 115.20 Johnson, 509 U. S., at 368.

Aside from amending or improving child laws in the country, there

are more policy approaches that can be done to solve one of the

current issues today which is the juvenile justice. Approaches that

the government needs to do should be with the help of many pillars of

the justice system like the LGUs, police, the court, and the

prosecution and correction agencies. The approaches to the issue at

hand are; to wit:

The government, together with the Department of Social Welfare

and Development, should establish home visitation programs,

especially in rural areas, for mothers at high risk for abusing,

neglecting, or inadequately providing for the needs of children

be given assistance or help by the government.

Also, the government may or should establish educational day care

programs with home visitation components for at-risk infants and

children that provide assistance to parents, teach parenting

skills, and involve marital and family therapy.

Development of comprehensive community-based children’s

programmes and services to respond to basic needs and promote the

rights of children – All government agencies should complement,

coordinate and orchestrate their programme development, planning,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation down to the villages

geared towards prevention of juvenile delinquency.

Allocation of 10% of LGU budget for prevention programmes –

Primary prevention includes addressing issues of poverty and the

culture of commercialism so that in addition to the social

services budget as contained in the local annual development

fund, a 10% child-focussed support programme is recommended of

the regular annual implementation plan budget. Secondary

prevention includes concerns related directly to high-risk

children such as streetchildren, children of women in

prostitution and children used in criminal activities. Tertiary

prevention programmes should focus on keeping children from re-

offending.

With the help of the police:

o Advancement of the protection role of the police as

its present image and practices erode people’s trust

and confidence – The police’s community relations

division is essential in diversion and mediation. A

special arm for children at the PNP should render 24-

hour service for investigation and set up in a

distinct place where child-appropriate systems are

installed;

o Increasing the knowledge of laws on children;

o Setting up of a separate temporary detention cells for

children by sex;

o Child development-appropriate and gender-sensitive

handling of CICL;

o Creation of a diversion/mediation committee;

o Creation of a mediation-counselling centre as a one-

stop central unit for CICL with an in-house local

government social worker;

o Diversion for cases where the imposable penalty is

imprisonment below two years;

o Conduct of trainings on child development children’s

needs and the protection and promotion of child

rights;

o Conduct of information and education campaigns on the

new Rules of Court for Juveniles and relevant

international instruments;

More importantly, the prosecution system should be improved.

Segregation of criminals in the jails is needed so that juvenile

criminals are separated from adult criminals. Assignment of

Special Prosecutors for child offenders, who have the authority

to divert cases with penalty below four years, provided that the

child admits to the commission of the crime under no duress (This

could be lobbied at the national legislature.)

Also, exemption of child offenders from criminal liability based

on age when used by adults in criminal activities such as acting

as couriers for prohibited drugs and ensuring measures to protect

children in diversion proceedings are needed.

III. CONCLUSION

In developing countries like the Philippines, the reality

contradicts what the law is describing. In the Philippines, the

individual is blamed for his wrongdoings. No drastic changes are

being made by the state for the betterment of the individual, so the

status quo remains. If the state is not prepared to help juvenile

delinquents surely the crime rate will rise, because they are learning

from the adults in the prison. The solution to the problem of

controlling juvenile delinquency is not incarceration but good

education and vocational training thus emphasizing prevention and

rehabilitation.

  When we are dealing with children in conflict with the law, we

are dealing with children who had a bad start in life with

circumstances and experiences very difficult to accept. The state has

the obligation according to articles 4 of the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child to protect all children and to

translate all rights in the Convention into reality. Now the main

legal protection for underprivileged youth is implemented in the

Philippines, the Government of this country has the obligation to show

the world its role as a true protector of human rights. A constructive

social policy for all young people will help in the prevention of

juvenile delinquency with emphasis on free education. Many who are

abandoned, neglected, abused, exposed to drug abuse are in marginal

circumstances and are in general at social risk. Those should have the

immediate attention of the authorities and NGOs.

There should be a move away from institutionalization and

children, in their best interest, should be rehabilitated as early as

possible and integrated back into society, so that they can play a

constructive role. For those who have become hardened criminals as

young as they are, there cannot be another way of living.

The brains of juveniles have not fully matured. Juveniles,

especially those under the age of 16, don't have the mental

capabilities to plan or carry out crimes, or to understand the

consequences of their actions. They have low impulse control, and act

on emotions like anger and fear. If we feel that giving them the right

to vote or get married before the age of 18 is wrong, why is it ok to

sentence them as adults?

 When we are dealing with the problem of juvenile justice, we

have to be aware that in most countries in this world the local NGOs

and governments spend much money for the solution of the problem of

street children, however little or none for children in conflict with

the law. Government and NGOs in general are not aware of the fact that

the problem of street children and children in conflict with the law

are related social problems.

The law on juvenile justice is written, in the first place, for

the benefit of the children’s welfare. The State is indeed in support

with the promotion of the youth’s welfare, as manifested in the stated

principles of the Philippine Constitution. As mentioned earlier,

children are products of their environments. No matter how many laws

are enacted by our legislative body for the protection of children; no

matter how perfect the provisions of the law might be, as long as the

implementation of the law is weak, instances of juvenile

discrimination will be present.

Moreover, although wrong, children are still children. Despite

the fact that crime in wrong (I'm not saying that they should get off

lightly), children still haven't fully developed their decision making

even by the age of 18. This can result in wrong choices being made,

allowing them to learn from their mistakes. Not only that, teenage

years are confusing enough as it is- people still treat you like a

child but expect you to act like an adult. Rehabilitation rather than

prison, especially for children and young Adults.

Our juvenile laws must be improved more, the provisions in

conflict with other international treaties we signed into must be

repealed or amended, and some provisions should be made more specific

so that interpretation is clearer.

Furthermore, legislations that would promote discrimination to

children must not be supported by the government (specifically the

President), just the legislation lowering the age of criminal

responsibility to twelve years. Criminal responsibility, especially

those of juvenile, should not be always a matter of age demographics

and criminality. At some point, we can assess that juvenile

delinquencies have more to do with circumstantial poverty and societal

problems.