[Pinoy Criminology] The Tacloban school shooting and the challenge of juvenile justice

The recent school shooting in Tacloban shocked the nation. Two children, reportedly aged 14 and 15, allegedly brought a firearm to school and killed three of their classmates. The details remain subject to investigation, but the broad outlines of the tragedy have already ignited a national conversation.

The public is asking familiar questions: How could children commit such a terrible act? Where did the family fail? Where did the school fail? Where did society fail? Most importantly, what does the law say should happen to these children?

The debate immediately revived calls to lower the age of criminal responsibility. The Philippine National Police expressed support for reducing the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 years old. Child rights advocates responded that lowering the age would not solve the problem. The discussion quickly became polarized. One side demanded accountability; the other side demanded protection of children’s rights. Yet the tragedy in Tacloban reveals that the issue is more complicated than either side often admits.

To understand the debate, one must first understand the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, or Republic Act 9344, and its amendment under Republic Act 10630. The law is among the most progressive juvenile justice laws in Asia. It is grounded on the principles of child development, restorative justice, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

The law recognizes that children are different from adults. They are still developing emotionally, psychologically, and socially. Their decision-making capacities are incomplete. Their personalities are still forming. For this reason, the law seeks to rehabilitate rather than punish.

Which children are exempt from criminal liability?

Under the present law, a child 15 years old or below is exempt from criminal liability. This is an important point that many people misunderstand. The exemption applies regardless of discernment. Even if a 15-year-old carefully planned a crime, understood its consequences, and attempted to conceal it afterward, the law still exempts the child from criminal liability.

Discernment becomes relevant only for children above 15 but below 18 years old. If they acted with discernment, they may be held criminally liable. If they acted without discernment, they remain exempt.

This means that if the reported ages of the Tacloban students are accurate, both children would be exempt from criminal liability. They cannot be prosecuted as adult offenders. They cannot be convicted of murder. They cannot be sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

No, the law doesn’t allow children to simply walk away

This reality has caused considerable public concern because many people equate accountability with punishment. Yet the law does not simply allow the children to walk away.

This is where Section 20-A of the law becomes important. Section 20-A was added through Republic Act 10630 to address serious crimes committed by children above 12 but below 15 years old. The provision recognizes that some juvenile offenses are extraordinarily serious. Murder, rape, kidnapping, terrorism, and other offenses carrying severe penalties fall within this category.

Under Section 20-A, the child is deemed a neglected child for purposes of intervention. The local social welfare officer must conduct an assessment and file a petition for involuntary commitment before the Family Court. The court may then order placement in an Intensive Juvenile Intervention and Support Center within a Bahay Pag-Asa facility. The child undergoes intensive psychological intervention, counseling, education, behavioral treatment, family therapy, and rehabilitation programs. The goal is protection of society while promoting rehabilitation of the child.

Many people hear this and ask whether the law truly provides accountability. Advocates of the law argue that accountability is not synonymous with imprisonment. They contend that intervention, rehabilitation, family responsibility, community supervision, and civil liability are meaningful forms of accountability. They point out that most children who enter the juvenile justice system are not school shooters. Most are poor children. Many are victims of neglect, abuse, family dysfunction, substance abuse, and community disorganization.

They argue that exposing these children to formal criminal processing often produces more harm than good. Comparative juvenile justice research supports this position. Countries that emphasize diversion, restorative justice, and rehabilitation often achieve better long-term outcomes than systems that rely heavily on punishment.

Meaningful distinction between crimes needed

Yet critics raise equally important concerns. They argue that the law makes no meaningful distinction between a child who steals food because of hunger and a child who carefully plans a mass killing. They point out that the current framework exempts all children 15 years old and below from criminal liability regardless of the sophistication of the offense.

They ask whether justice is truly served when a child who meticulously plans multiple murders faces the same exemption available to a child who commits a minor offense. They worry about public safety. They worry about victims. They worry about the message sent when extraordinarily violent conduct receives no criminal sanction.

Both sides raise valid concerns. Both sides are motivated by legitimate interests. One side seeks to protect children from the lifelong consequences of criminalization. The other seeks justice for victims and protection for communities. The challenge is not choosing one value over the other. The challenge is finding a framework that accommodates both.

The comparative juvenile justice literature teaches an important lesson. Most children who commit offenses eventually desist from crime. They mature. They gain employment. They develop families. They become productive members of society. For these youth, rehabilitation, diversion, and restorative justice make sense. They are effective. They are humane. They are supported by decades of criminological research. This should remain the foundation of Philippine juvenile justice policy.

However, a small number of cases involve extraordinary violence. The Tacloban tragedy appears to belong to this category. Reports suggest planning, preparation, acquisition of a firearm, and deliberate targeting. If these facts are established, they suggest discernment in its strongest form. The law currently has no meaningful mechanism to distinguish such cases from less serious offenses committed by children 15 years old and below. This is where reform may be necessary.

What to do with extraordinarily violent crimes

My position is a two-pronged approach. The first prong should preserve the rehabilitative philosophy of RA 9344 for the overwhelming majority of juvenile offenders. Diversion, restorative justice, counseling, family intervention, educational support, and community-based rehabilitation should remain the preferred response for non-serious offenses. The evidence supporting these approaches remains compelling. We should not dismantle a child-centered system because of a handful of extraordinary cases.

The second prong should address serious violent offenses committed with demonstrable discernment. Rather than lowering the age of criminal responsibility across the board, Congress should consider amending Section 20-A. A revised Section 20-A could create a distinct procedure for extraordinarily violent crimes committed with demonstrable discernment.

Such a procedure would require rigorous judicial findings, psychological evaluations, social investigations, and procedural safeguards. It would recognize that a planned school shooting differs fundamentally from ordinary juvenile misconduct. At the same time, it would preserve the rehabilitative philosophy that lies at the heart of juvenile justice.

The tragedy in Tacloban forces us to confront difficult questions. It challenges our assumptions about childhood, responsibility, punishment, and rehabilitation. It reminds us that justice is rarely simple. The answer is neither blind punishment nor blind leniency. The answer is a juvenile justice system sophisticated enough to recognize that not all juvenile offenders are the same.

Some need guidance. Some need intervention. Some need intensive treatment. A few may require a different response altogether. The challenge before the nation is to build a system wise enough to know the difference. – Rappler.com