Revisiting the juvenile justice law

Is it time to revisit the juvenile justice law? The question has been raised following the June 22 school shooting at the San Jose National High School in Tacloban City, that killed three students and wounded at least 20 others. Two boys aged 14 and 15 have been identified as the gunmen who, subsequent investigation showed, had earlier exchanged text messages planning the crime on the premise that, being minors, they were unlikely to get any jail time.

Under Republic Act No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, children younger than 15 are exempt from criminal liability. Passed in 2006, the law focuses on restorative justice and seeks the rehabilitation of young offenders through community-based diversion programs.

The spike in school violence involving minors in the aftermath of the Tacloban school shooting however gives one pause, with last month’s Senate hearing on basic education listing 15 cases of school-related violence and threats within a three-week period.

Article continues after this advertisement

The latest incident involves a 14-year-old boy stabbed dead last week by a classmate aged 13 inside a Las Piñas City school over a P10 change. Recently, a teacher was mauled by two high school students in Davao de Oro, Mindanao, after he allegedly reprimanded them for violating the school’s dress code by wearing earrings.

Disturbing incidents

Were these disturbing incidents precipitated by the seeming lack of accountability in the Tacloban shooting? Could the young suspects be testing the limits of the law, secure in the knowledge that their age would protect them from prosecution?

According to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the 15-year-old is facing criminal complaints and remains subject to judicial proceedings under the country’s juvenile justice laws. The younger boy will meanwhile undergo long-term rehabilitation measures focused on behavioral, psychological, and social interventions. The length of rehab depends on the outcome of court proceedings, assessments, and the progress of interventions designed to facilitate reintegration into society, the agency added.

Under state custody, the youngsters’ movement and communication are restricted: they cannot leave the facility, have no access to mobile phones or the internet, nor allowed unrestricted visits. Instead of court proceedings, children in conflict with the law (CICL) undergo diversion programs to be completed within 45 days, said DSWD Regional Director Grace Subong.

Article continues after this advertisement

Scant comfort

Well-intentioned it may be, the concept of restorative justice however offers scant comfort to families of victims who might consider the prospect of no jail time unfair privilege for the offenders. As noted by Sen. Raffy Tulfo in a Senate hearing when he proposed more funding for separate prison facilities for errant minors, placing CICLs who have committed serious offenses in the DSWD’s Bahay Pag-Asa facilities is insufficient. While they should not be mixed with hardened criminals, the message that actions have consequences shouldn’t be lost either, Tulfo said. Young offenders must be made to fully understand the gravity of their crime, he added.

As it is, being sheltered in DSWD facilities instead of being in jail might be seen as recreational rather than corrective, the senator said. How about establishing supervised boot camps or structured immersion programs where reformed CICLs can share their experiences as life lessons for the young?, he suggested.

It wouldn’t hurt either if the DSWD were more expansive and transparent on what “diversion programs” are involved in the CICL’s rehab. What community-oriented activities do they participate in, and how does the agency determine their positive impact on the offender? Can extensive community service as part of these minors’ restitution for their crime?

Article continues after this advertisement

Judicial history

And what about the parents and other adults who should bear some responsibility over these minors? Already, Akbayan party list Rep. Chel Diokno has called for stiffer penalties for those who allow minors access to firearms, as the 14-year-old did, when he stole and used his aunt’s service firearm in the shooting.

With reports that the 14-year-old’s parents had moved posthaste to Metro Manila—suggesting that they have the means to uproot themselves immediately—the courts should also look into levying steep moral and exemplary damages against them for the loss of several young lives.

Our courts might want to look as well into how a United States judge recently made judicial history when he sentenced to 15 years in jail the father of a mass shooter, for gifting his 14-year-old son an AR rifle despite the boy’s history of violent behavior and apparent obsession with a 2018 school shooting. As noted by the parent of one of the boy’s four fatalities, parents may not always control their children’s actions, but they can always control what they put in their hands. Or in their head.

Indeed, revisiting our laws is a prudent step to check if they remain responsive in these highly charged times, when violence could be normalized by populist politicians and negligent elders.