When Lowering the Age of Criminal Responsibility Fails Everyone:
How Senator Robinhood Padilla's proposed bill creates harm than good
Senator Robinhood Padilla’s renewed push to amend the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344) — by lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) from 15 to 10 years old — has sparked strong opposition from child rights advocates and civil society organizations. Critics argue that such a move would be a harmful step backward in the country’s long-standing efforts to protect and rehabilitate children in conflict with the law.
Padilla’s proposal is not new. A similar attempt was made in 2019 by former Senator Tito Sotto, who then sought to lower the MACR to 12 years old. That initiative was ultimately blocked after a broad campaign by human rights organizations, child welfare advocates, and scientific experts. Padilla’s version of the bill is even more severe: it not only lowers the MACR to 10 but also removes criminal liability exemptions for children aged 10 to 17 who commit so-called “heinous crimes.”
The Salinlahi Alliance for Children’s Concerns, a long-time advocate for child protection, has condemned the proposal, reiterating their core message: “Children are not criminals.” According to the group, children who come into conflict with the law are often victims of poverty, abuse, trauma, and exploitation — conditions that shape behavior far more than any innate criminal tendency.
“Reducing the MACR will obscure the fundamental rights of children and compromise decades of progress in child protection under Philippine law,” the group stated. Salinlahi emphasized that the solution to juvenile crime lies not in harsher punishment but in systemic reform — including better access to education, higher wages for workers, affordable food and healthcare, and facilities for rehabilitation that are built on genuine care and support.
Scientific research supports this position. Studies consistently show that the areas of the brain responsible for impulse control, judgment, and risk evaluation continue to develop well into a person’s mid-20s. Children, particularly those as young as 10, lack the cognitive maturity to fully understand the consequences of their actions or navigate the complexities of the criminal justice system.
The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has also warned that lowering the MACR will not prevent organized syndicates from exploiting children. Instead, it will simply widen the net of prosecution and increase harm to already vulnerable populations.
Mamamayang Liberal Partylist Representative Leila de Lima, a former Secretary of Justice and staunch human rights advocate, also criticized Padilla’s bill. She described it as a “recycled idea that refuses to die” despite being repeatedly discredited by experts and advocates. According to De Lima, treating young children as criminals is not an act of justice — it is an act of abandonment by the state.
“We do not fix a broken justice system by putting its weight on the smallest, weakest shoulders,” she said. “We fix it by asking hard questions: Why are children turning to crime? Who benefits from these offenses? And where have we, as a society, failed?”
De Lima recounted firsthand experiences of what incarceration does to children, contrasting it with the life-changing effects of education, care, and structured rehabilitation. She emphasized that the state’s responsibility is to protect and guide children — not to condemn them at the first sign of failure.
Padilla, however, remains firm in his stance. In his explanatory note, he argues that the current law is “unresponsive” to youth involvement in serious crimes and asserts that today’s youth are more prone to risk-taking behavior. He insists that his proposal aims for restorative rather than punitive justice, but critics argue that criminalizing 10-year-old children runs contrary to this goal.
Advocates believe that such a policy would only deepen the cycle of neglect and trauma that many children already endure. Instead of punitive measures, what is needed is a comprehensive approach to social welfare — including accessible education, mental health support, child-friendly rehabilitation centers, and stronger protections for families in poverty.
Ultimately, how a nation treats its children reflects its moral and political priorities. If children mirror the failures of society, it is the reflection — not the mirror — that must be fixed.
Lowering the age of criminal responsibility is not imposing justice. It is surrender. The path forward lies in compassion, evidence-based policy, and a justice system that seeks to heal — not to harm — its youngest and most vulnerable members.