We told you so

THE Police Regional Office in Eastern Visayas (PRO-8) has filed criminal charges against a 15-year-old child in conflict with the law in connection with the June 22 shooting incident at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City that left three students dead and several others injured.

His accomplice, the PRO-8 said, being under 15 years old, will undergo an intervention program.

Satisfied with the course of action undertaken by the authorities? Well, according to the people I have talked to regarding this matter, none of them are, and are blaming the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act for the heinous act committed by those two minors.

Why? Because according to initial investigation, the two launched their act after reading and studying the said law, concluding they could avoid jail time for being minors.

How right they were.

The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, or RA 9344, states that children aged 15 and under at the time of the offense are exempt from criminal liability and are placed in intervention programs.

It adds that children above 15 but under 18 years old are also exempt from criminal liability unless it is proven that they acted with “discernment” (i.e., they understood the consequences of their actions). If proven, they face appropriate legal proceedings.

And here’s what probably emboldened them to push through with the act they had been planning for more than a month: The law explicitly prohibits detaining children in regular jails alongside adult offenders.

The amendment, RA 10630, also did not help as it provided that if a child 15 and under commits a serious crime (like murder or rape), they are not to be criminally charged but are subjected to involuntary commitment at a youth care facility intensive rehabilitation.

When the proposed bill which resulted in the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, including the proposed amendments, were being debated, I along with other media practitioners had the chance to question some of the proponents and raised our concern about the proposed measure, particularly on the age of criminal responsibility.

Most of us beat reporters at that time grew up in the wild 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, when violent frat wars and even riots between the khaki and black pants schools were prevalent. Take note that the age of high school students that time ranged from 12 to 16. Did they have the capacity to discern even at that tender age? I would say so.

Frat wars and riots between khaki and black pants schools do not happen at a drop of a coin. They were carefully planned. In fact, they were battle-ready every time the confrontations occur as evidenced by the weapons they employ: pana (improvised bow and arrow), sumpak (pen gun), matalas (bladed weapon), and things you could not simply pick up anywhere when the gang wars erupt.

You could even say that those in the elementary grades already have the capability to discern what is right or wrong as a conflict between two students (or pupils) or a groups are settled outside of the school as both parties are aware of the repercussions if they opted to engage inside the school premises — suspension, expulsion or even being brought to the nearest police precinct.

Another thing raised against the age of criminal responsibility is the possibility of these minors being exploited by some criminal syndicates in their illegal operations. You have the akyat-bahay, akyat-jeepney, the jumper boys of R-10, the windshield boys, etc.

Unfortunately, the proponents did not listen.

They even coined the term “child in conflict with the law” so as to distinguish the minors involved in criminal acts from adult offenders. But aren’t all criminals in conflict with the law? Why the need to sugarcoat?

The irony here is, despite the negative feedback from the people for whom the law is supposed to serve Sen. Kiko Pangilinan has stubbornly rejected any proposal to amend the law that he principally authored.

As rock star lawyer Carlo Ybañez puts it, “Laws must respond to reality.”

While the intention of the law is noble and was applicable at that particular time when it was enacted, Ybañez said it should be subjected to review now.

Is it still useful and applicable now? Ybañez asks.

The lawyer stressed the issue is not about Pangilinan.

“This is not about politics. This is about whether the law still protects both the child offender and the innocent victims,” Ybañez emphasized.

And I can only agree with him. We raised concerns before and are raising them again now. But better yet, ask the parents and siblings of the victims.

We told you so.