The call to bring back the age of criminal liability from the current 15 to nine is getting support from various sectors, and now even some senators are moving to amend the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 which had pegged the older age. The groundswell came right after the broadcast last week of a CCTV video showing a group of children robbing the driver and passenger of a taxicab in Metro Manila, although truth be told, our own officials in Davao City have always riled against the new law because of the perception that it lets children go scot-free whenever they come into conflict with the law. What most people see are children razzing the authorities because they are virtually untouchable and can do whatever they want over and over again until they reach the age of 15. What many people miss is the fact that this is not the intent of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, and neither does it let children go free without addressing the problem.

Senator Francis Pangilinan, the principal author of the act, says contrary to popular belief, children caught in crimes are actually supposed to be made to undergo “intervention,” defined by the law as “a series of activities which are designed to address issues that caused the child to commit an offense. It may take the form of an individualized treatment program, which may include counselling, skills training, education, and other activities that will enhance his or her psychological, emotional and psycho-social well-being.” In other words, the law affirms the fact there are reasons children would commit a crime, and that, at least most of the time, they are not even aware of the reasons they commit it. The proper response to such a bewildered state is not punishment in the adult sense but firm guidance.

Pangilinan laments the fact that the law is failing not because it is faulty but because it is not being implemented properly. Indeed, he says, many law enforcers are unaware of its very provisions; they think the law tells them to let child offenders automatically go free when in fact they should be brought to intervention. The fact that most government units do not have facilities for such intervention speaks volumes of their skewed priorities. For what is more important in society than our children? In a perfect world we would spare no expense to teach them and to guide them to become responsible citizens; as it is, we are calling for their punishment, as if it is the children who are failing us. In fact, this call to lower the age of criminal liability is nothing but an admission that we are failing them, not the other way around.

Arrogance

There is no arguing that security guards are a marginalized group; its members working for long hours under dangerous and hazardous conditions for very low salaries. While there definitely are guards who do not deserve the uniform of authority they wear, the vast majority are an honourable group who do their job to protect the rest of us, often at great risk to themselves. Among these risks, unfortunately, is occasionally coming upon persons in authority who think they can skirt security regulations just because they occupy positions in government. Such was the case when Lanao del Sur Rep. Mohammed Hussein Pangandaman’s vehicle was stopped for a security check at an establishment in Quezon City. Apparently believing that every Filipino should know who he is, Pangandaman allegedly proceeded to maul the security guard who had presumed to stop him.

Pangandaman has tried to explain that it was the security guard who initiated the scuffle because the latter made a move to draw his firearm when the congressman tried to talk to him. Even if this were true, the guard’s action was probably a defensive one; a move taught to every security personnel facing a possible challenge to his safety and authority. Think about it: when a man you are accosting makes a move for you, do you not see this as an act of aggression? Again, even if Pangandaman’s version of the story were true, then he only amplifies the perception that he was being arrogant and confrontational to a person who was, in this context, the one in authority.

There is an interesting footnote here, and we give it only a passing mention because we do not for a moment believe the third person involved actually has a stake in the case. We refer to Ang Galing Pinoy Rep. Mikey Arroyo whose party-list group supposedly represents security guards and tricycle drivers. With the Supreme Court and the Commission on Elections (Comelec) having already decided on the legitimacy of Mikey’s place in Congress, it would be interesting to see if he would actually make a move against a colleague in the House as well as a known ally during his mother’s term as President. So far, his statements on the matter have not been encouraging: all he has said is that his office is open to the mauled security guard. “Siyempre, pag lumapit sa ‘kin yun, siyempre di ko tataboy yan,” he was quoted as saying. In other words, he would not go out of his way to help his constituent – something that a real representative would do.

Jon Joaquin is the managing editor of the largest circulation newspaper in Mindanao, the Mindanao Daily Mirror in Davao City.

Have a comment on this article? Send us your feedback