Age not just numbers after all

The heated debate in and out of the 17th Congress on the proposals to amend Republic Act (RA) 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act 2006, have brought out fresh ideas on how to better handle the country’s growing problem of more and more of our children getting in conflict with the law.

While they may not be our own real children – by genes and blood – they are minors who by their young ages are considered wards of the State whoever their parents are. As taxpayers, we help the State in its welfare support to these children getting in conflict with the law.

“Do not destroy our children, I will kill you.” This is the most repeated threat that we hear from President Rodrigo Duterte, especially whenever he talks about his anti-drugs campaign.

So we know where President Duterte is coming from whenever he rants about against this law – RA 9344 – and singles out Sen. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan for amending the Revised Penal Code (RPC) that originally set nine years old as the minimum age of children and raised to 15 years those who can be held liable for the crimes they commit.

A former fiscal for so many years before he became Mayor of Davao City, President Duterte rued Pangilinan tried to copycat the juvenile system from the US laws. However, President Duterte noted the Philippine version of the law did not provide for the essential needs of reforming juvenile delinquents – now called “children in conflict with the law” as the politically correct term.

A compromise version to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) to nine years old as earlier endorsed by the House committee on justice was amended to 12 years old was approved at the Congress plenary last Thursday.

The next day, the Senate committee on justice and human rights wrapped up their public hearing on similar Senate bills, ended in support of the 12-year old cap for the MACR. It turned out to be more acceptable to the Senators who initially opposed the proposal that its House counterpart earlier approved.

The bill states that a child below 18 years of age but above 12 at the time of the commission of the crime would be held criminally liable and subjected to the appropriate proceedings, unless proven that he or she acted without discernment. 

But the best outcome of the ensuing debates on the matter is that our lawmakers and experts agreed there much more things that need to be done than just amending the law to lower the age. The dismal performance of concerned national government agencies as well as local government units (LGUs) in implementing RA 9344 came out as the defective provisions that need remedial legislation.

Sen. Richard Gordon, who chairs the Senate committee shepherding the bill, announced his intentions to draft amendments that would impose greater accountability and appropriations to implementing agencies.

At the Senate hearing, Tricia Oco, executive director of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Center, bewailed out of the P400 million allocated in 2013 to build Bahay Pag-asa, or literally meaning house of hope, only P40 million has been spent for the purpose of building these halfway homes.  Thus, she reported, only 55 have been built of the 114 Bahay Pag-asa that should be built under the law.

Oco told the Senators each center costs about P15 million. While the Department of Social Welfare and Development contributes P5 million for each Bahay Pag-asa, the concerned LGU must put up P10 million.

While the debates on the issue have become emotional to many who decry it wrongly as jailing errant children, it brings to mind my childhood days when my paternal grandmother used to scare us with taking us to “Boys’ Town.”

We grew up in Sampaloc, Manila where we lived beside the house of my grandmother. We call her “Mama” and she was a stern disciplinarian to whom six of us grandchildren – three boys and three girls – were placed under her watch while our parents would be away together. At young ages, we also got into trouble, especially the boys when they fought with other children in the neighborhood.   

Aside from being beaten by her stick or slipper, we would also get tongue-lashing from my Mama. And each time, she would tell us we would be taken to the “Boys’ Town” where she said other misbehaving children are “detained.” The thought of being ”detained” with strangers and away from our home naturally scared us to death. 

I just don’t know if Mama’s “Boys’ Town” admonition could be considered a testimonial in favor of this institution. Although located in Parang, Marikina, it is the city government of Manila that runs this institution as a residential care center for underprivileged male children, ages eight to 16. Most of Town’s young wards come from the poorest communities in Manila whose families are unable to care for them.

As part of Manila’s intensified cleanup drive to rid the city streets of vagrants and street dwellers, Mayor Joseph Estrada sends “rescued” children to undergo ministering to help them become responsible and productive members of the society.

It was first put up in 1947 and through the years, it continues to operate at a 23-hectare lot and is supervised by the social welfare department of the government of Manila.

Male and female wards are allowed to stay at the complex until they finish high school. 

“Boys Town” wards are required to study at the Fugoso Memorial School, which offers elementary and secondary education inside the facility. After leaving “Boys Town,” wards are often referred to sponsors who could help them through college or get vocational training or perhaps provide them jobs. 

Aside from Boys Home, the present “Boys Town” includes Girls Home (for girls aged three to 16), Home for the Aged (for homeless, abandoned and neglected elderly people aged 60 years and above); and Foundling Home (for younger boys three to seven years old).

Whenever asked about their age, vanity-struck elders would retort: “Age is just numbers.” But for the sake of our children, our elders in Congress should see age as not just numbers after all in re-crafting this law.