Lowering criminal liability to age 9 or 12 is immoral
Published Feb 1, 2019 12:17 am
PAPER VIEW
By ATTY. MEL STA. MARIA
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
In all issues involving children, our laws and the Supreme Court have consistently held that their paramount interest is the inflexible criterion. To place 9 or 12-year-old children under the public glare for committing an offense and potentially incarcerating them with hardened criminals is immoral, not serving any redemptive objective at all. It hopelessly ignores the rest of their possible productive long years on earth --- fatally derailing, if not completely negating, rehabilitation.
The ages of 9 and 12, according to scientific findings, are merely impressionable ages. While children may exhibit a high degree of intelligence at that point, their level of discernment is not yet fully developed. Thus a four-year old genius may be so intellectually precocious to be able to literally read Noli Me Tangere but, still, he/she may not fully grasp the subtext, messages or the emotional content of the events depicted in the novel.
In its official statement opposing the lowering of the age of criminal liability, the Philippine Pediatric Society said: “As drawn from theories of cognitive and moral development, children’s discernment of right and wrong matures not only through education but also through the stages of their brain development. A younger child, for example, would not be able to fully anticipate all the possible consequences of their actions for themselves and society as a whole. An older child of 16 years is able to consider rules based on intention and outcome thus can make informed decisions especially when properly guided. This older comprehension of morality is able to take into account other groups of people and society as a whole. These stages are reached incrementally and it is impossible to conclude that an individual will have reached a certain level of cognition by a particular age. These stages of development highlight that while children may appear to identify right and wrong behavior, they lack an appreciation for why rules exist and the implications of these rules in the society. Younger children, therefore, need protection from the law and should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.”
In other areas of life, an enlightened view has already emerged recognizing that children below 18 years do not possess the degree of maturity permitting them to make reasoned and deliberate decisions. Hence from providing the marrying ages for female at 12 and for male at 14 in the old Civil Code, they were changed by the 1950 Civil Code to 14 years old for women and 16 years old for male. Finally, under the 1988 Family Code, the marrying age for both men and women was pegged at 18 years. Under our adoption law, children below 18 years are prohibited from adopting as they cannot be responsible enough to act as parents.
Republic Act 6809 set the age of emancipation at 18 years. Upon reaching this age, parental authority over the person and property of the child is terminated. The child “shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.” The Civil Code also specifically provides that children below 18 years of age “cannot give consent to a contract.” Any commercial agreement entered into by them will always be annullable. Our law on inheritance expressly mandates that “persons of either sex under eighteen years of age cannot make a will.” Pursuant to our election laws, anyone below 18 years cannot vote. Also, minor children cannot go abroad unaccompanied by parents without DSWD approval.
Disallowing children below 18 years from marrying, entering into a contract, donating, adopting, driving, making a will and voting because of the still underdevelopment of their brain for discernment and cognitive capabilities while, in the same breath, considering a 9 or 12 year-old boy or girl as fully possessing the capability to understand the intricacies of a felony enough to be a criminal is not only grossly incoherent but clearly inhuman.
Even the Bible said:“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” (Psalm 27:3:5).
Shame on you all legislators who dare think that a 9 or a 12 year-old child can be a felon to carry the weight of a chaotic society on his/her tiny should
Atty. Mel Sta. Maria
In all issues involving children, our laws and the Supreme Court have consistently held that their paramount interest is the inflexible criterion. To place 9 or 12-year-old children under the public glare for committing an offense and potentially incarcerating them with hardened criminals is immoral, not serving any redemptive objective at all. It hopelessly ignores the rest of their possible productive long years on earth --- fatally derailing, if not completely negating, rehabilitation.
The ages of 9 and 12, according to scientific findings, are merely impressionable ages. While children may exhibit a high degree of intelligence at that point, their level of discernment is not yet fully developed. Thus a four-year old genius may be so intellectually precocious to be able to literally read Noli Me Tangere but, still, he/she may not fully grasp the subtext, messages or the emotional content of the events depicted in the novel.
In its official statement opposing the lowering of the age of criminal liability, the Philippine Pediatric Society said: “As drawn from theories of cognitive and moral development, children’s discernment of right and wrong matures not only through education but also through the stages of their brain development. A younger child, for example, would not be able to fully anticipate all the possible consequences of their actions for themselves and society as a whole. An older child of 16 years is able to consider rules based on intention and outcome thus can make informed decisions especially when properly guided. This older comprehension of morality is able to take into account other groups of people and society as a whole. These stages are reached incrementally and it is impossible to conclude that an individual will have reached a certain level of cognition by a particular age. These stages of development highlight that while children may appear to identify right and wrong behavior, they lack an appreciation for why rules exist and the implications of these rules in the society. Younger children, therefore, need protection from the law and should not be held criminally responsible for their actions.”
In other areas of life, an enlightened view has already emerged recognizing that children below 18 years do not possess the degree of maturity permitting them to make reasoned and deliberate decisions. Hence from providing the marrying ages for female at 12 and for male at 14 in the old Civil Code, they were changed by the 1950 Civil Code to 14 years old for women and 16 years old for male. Finally, under the 1988 Family Code, the marrying age for both men and women was pegged at 18 years. Under our adoption law, children below 18 years are prohibited from adopting as they cannot be responsible enough to act as parents.
Republic Act 6809 set the age of emancipation at 18 years. Upon reaching this age, parental authority over the person and property of the child is terminated. The child “shall then be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life.” The Civil Code also specifically provides that children below 18 years of age “cannot give consent to a contract.” Any commercial agreement entered into by them will always be annullable. Our law on inheritance expressly mandates that “persons of either sex under eighteen years of age cannot make a will.” Pursuant to our election laws, anyone below 18 years cannot vote. Also, minor children cannot go abroad unaccompanied by parents without DSWD approval.
Disallowing children below 18 years from marrying, entering into a contract, donating, adopting, driving, making a will and voting because of the still underdevelopment of their brain for discernment and cognitive capabilities while, in the same breath, considering a 9 or 12 year-old boy or girl as fully possessing the capability to understand the intricacies of a felony enough to be a criminal is not only grossly incoherent but clearly inhuman.
Even the Bible said:“Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” (Psalm 27:3:5).
Shame on you all legislators who dare think that a 9 or a 12 year-old child can be a felon to carry the weight of a chaotic society on his/her tiny should