Webster defines "juvenile" as young, immature, a young person, or for the children. Speaking of fruits or, say, plant leaves, the term invokes in Cebuano as: "Hilaw, linghud, lapyo, ug nagkahulogan nga dili pa hinog nga dili pa makaon; ug sa tawo pa, hiktin ang pangisip, ahaw sa kalantip, ug layaw pa ang panglantaw".
But, we're dealing here with the law on so-called "juvenile justice", as Republic Act 9344 is otherwise called in sophistry. Admittedly, its principal author, Senator Francisco "Kiko" Pangilinan, probably envisioned his bill with idealistic motive, that is, to enhance the welfare of delinquent offenders.
Indeed, one has no beef on the theoretical rationale of the law that young law-breakers have to be handled with gloved hands for their curative, reformative, or rehabilitative development. Rather than the punitive harshness in prison cells, the young have to be given that second chance to find themselves in the mainstream of society after reformation.
However, in the milieu of contemporary reality where even pre-teen and fore-teen street gamins are already "veterans" in crimes, such as, snatchings, thievery, even hold-ups and sex crimes, gang wars, sniffing of toxic elements to make them "high", and what have you, the "juvenile justice" law for 15 and below offenders has emboldened them more. At least, that's the common observations of law enforcers.
Evidently, just as in many other laws that lack in-depth and very incisive study and research, and a dearth of foresight as to their effects and repercussions, R.A. 9344 could be a case of the cart ahead of the horse. Amending the Child Welfare Code on the age ceiling of minor offenders up to 15 vis-à-vis exemption from incarceration and criminal culpability may sound innocuous and harmless.
The meat of the Pangilinan law is to place delinquent offenders under the so-called comprehensive "diversion" program under the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), instead of treating them as criminals per se. Well and good in theory.
But the DSWD whose field offices down to the LGUs encompass the cities and towns nationwide and, whose functions have been evolved to the LGUs have in the main without facilities, expert personnel, logistics or funding. With such evolvement theory, the DSWD field agencies become organic to the LGUs.
What is sadly obtaining is that even big cities - what more for the municipalities nationwide - do not have the capabilities. Each LGU is supposed to build some decent edifice as sort of halfway house to accommodate the delinquent offenders with complete facilities for housing them. Moreover, their workforce must employ additional personnel experts, such as, sociologist, psychiatrist, psychologist, to name a few, to complete the mandated "diversion" program.
And so, has the law provided for the essential appropriations in the national budget? The question answers itself in fat zilch. Have all the town LGUs the financial capability, or could just a handful of LGUs fulfill the intendment of the law? Even cities don't have them.
Meantime, police officers, also nationwide, have uniform plaintive cries of disgust that youthful criminals appear to commit offenses with impunity, knowing that practically they go scot-free.
Thus, the call by the LGUs and the peace and law enforcers for the repeal and/or radical amendment of R.A. 9344, or the favorite Senator Kiko Pangilinan statute, is timely and necessary to remove and/or temper the deleterious backlash of the law.
* * *
Email: lparadiangjr@yahoo.com