THE recent school shooting in Tacloban City has once again opened one of the most painful questions in criminal justice: Should children who commit grave crimes be imprisoned? Three young lives were reportedly lost, many others were wounded, and the suspects themselves were minors. Almost immediately, the public debate returned. The Philippine National Police has reportedly expressed openness to lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility to 12 years old. For many grieving Filipinos, the instinctive response is understandable: If the crime is grave, should there not be punishment?
But to understand the issue honestly, we must look beyond slogans. This question has several layers: the nature of crime, the purpose of imprisonment, the design of juvenile justice, the rights of victims, the possibility of rehabilitation, the role of parents and the moral light of Scripture.
Crime, choice and condition
The classical view of criminal law begins with human responsibility. A person has free will. If he knowingly commits a wrongful act, he must answer for it. This view asks: What did the offender do? Did he understand it? What penalty is proportionate? It protects society by insisting that evil acts must have consequences.
The positivist view asks another question: Why did the offender do it? It studies poverty, family breakdown, trauma, addiction, mental illness, peer pressure and social environment. It does not erase responsibility, but it recognizes that crime often grows in damaged soil.
Philippine law reflects both. The Revised Penal Code is largely classical in its concern for culpability and punishment, but even there, minority may reduce responsibility. Later laws became more rehabilitative. The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, for instance, treats drug dependence not merely as a police or prosecution problem, but also as a health issue requiring treatment and rehabilitation under health authorities and accredited facilities. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act follows the same correctional instinct: Children are not simply smaller adults. They are developing persons who may still be rescued.
From prison to correction
Historically, prisons were places of detention, punishment and public control. But in the 18th and 19th centuries, the idea of the “penitentiary” emerged. The word itself comes from penitence. Influenced in part by Christian reformers, the penitentiary was imagined as a place where offenders could reflect, repent and change.
The Pennsylvania system emphasized silence and isolation for moral reflection. The Auburn system emphasized discipline, labor and order. Both were imperfect, and often harsh, but they introduced a powerful idea: The offender is not only to be punished; he may be reformed.
Later, prisons became “correctional institutions.” The question shifted from merely “How much pain should be inflicted?” to “How can this person be corrected, rehabilitated and safely reintegrated?” This is why the modern Philippine system speaks of corrections, reformatories, rehabilitation and reintegration. If imprisonment is truly correctional, then the measure of justice is not simply how long a child is locked away, but whether the response protects society, honors the victim and prevents the child from becoming a hardened criminal.
What juvenile justice requires
Under Republic Act (RA) 9344, as amended by RA 10630, children 15 years old and younger are exempt from criminal liability, but not from intervention. Children above 15 but below 18 may be held criminally liable only if they acted with discernment. The law provides diversion, intervention programs, rehabilitation and, in serious cases, placement in youth care facilities such as Bahay Pag-asa.
This is often misunderstood. Juvenile justice does not mean “no consequence.” It means the consequence must be appropriate to the child’s age, discernment, development and possibility of reform. But the law also fails when intervention is weak, facilities are underfunded, parents are absent, schools are unprepared and communities are indifferent. A beautiful law without serious implementation becomes cruelty to both the victim and the child offender.
The biblical frame: justice and mercy
Scripture does not treat crime lightly. After the flood, God told Noah that human life is sacred because man is made in the image of God. Genesis 9 teaches that the shedding of human blood is a grave offense against God Himself. This is the moral foundation of justice: life is not cheap.
The Bible repeatedly commands rulers to punish evil and protect the innocent. Romans 13 describes governing authority as a servant of God to restrain wrongdoing. Proverbs 31 calls leaders to speak up for the weak and defend the rights of the poor and needy. Psalm 89 says righteousness and justice are the foundation of God’s throne.
But Scripture also refuses vengeance as the final word. God disciplines, but He also restores. The prodigal son must come to his senses. Zacchaeus must make restitution. The fallen brother must be restored in gentleness. Biblical justice is not permissiveness. It is not revenge. It is a moral order moving toward repentance, repair and restoration.
The five moral grammar of juvenile justice
A balanced Christian approach to juvenile justice must hold together five moral truths.
Repentance means the wrong must be named. A child who commits violence must not be excused with soft language. He must be brought to moral awakening.
Restitution means justice must seek repair. Where possible, the offender must make amends to the victims, the families and the community.
Retribution means grave wrong deserves a proportionate public response. This is not vengeance; it is society declaring that murder, violence and cruelty are not normal.
Rehabilitation means discipline must aim at transformation. A child must not simply be caged until he becomes worse.
Restoration means the final goal, where safely possible, is the return of the child to family, community and lawful life.
Parents first
Any discussion on children and crime that ignores the family is dishonest. The Constitution recognizes the natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth. It also declares the family as the foundation of the nation. Scripture says the same in Deuteronomy 6, Proverbs 22:6 and Ephesians 6: parents must teach, discipline, guide and model righteousness.
When children become violent, the State must investigate not only the child, but the ecosystem that formed him: family, school, online exposure, access to weapons, bullying, neglect and community failure.
So, should children be imprisoned? Not in adult prisons. Not as a first instinct. Not as political theater. But neither should serious child offenders be released into empty “intervention” that does nothing.
Justice must come first: truth, accountability, victim protection and public safety. Then restoration must follow: repentance, rehabilitation, family accountability and supervised reintegration. A nation that only punishes children has lost hope. A nation that refuses to hold them accountable has lost justice. We need both.
