Choosing restorative justice

Anger is a powerful, heady emotion. While in itself it is not a pleasant emotion, its release – particularly from those grieving and aggrieved, those who have suffered grave injustice – can be a necessary, cathartic experience. Anger is a natural emotion and as long as it can be expressed and processed in a healthy manner, it can serve as an engine for proper action.

For people, at least. Acting solely out of anger is not a privilege afforded to the State or its officials. It’s simple enough to see why. The State has a responsibility not only to individuals but to all of its citizens, not only to the exemplary but the criminal; not only to the needs of the present but the foundations of the future. The entire reason that the State seeks to place its territory under the rule of law is to remove us from the cycle of an eye-for-an-eye, or a world where might makes right. While the State has the right and obligation in the present to punish violations of its laws, the laws it crafts must take potential outcomes and future scenarios into account. Lex prospicit non respicit goes the maxim: “The law looks forward, not backward.”

And a nation that looks forward to the future must protect and invest in that future, even in the face of tragedy, so that we do not pile on suffering upon suffering. And investing in our future means investing in our children – their protection, their growth and, if necessary, their reformation.

The heinous shooting that occurred last month in Tacloban, perpetuated by minors aged 14 and 15 years old and leaving three minors dead and 20 others injured, has re-ignited debates about what to do about children who commit crimes, and the current efficacy of Republic Act 9344 as amended, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.

We cannot and must not minimize the gravity of the crime committed, nor the grief felt by those affected. We cannot speak of the future without thinking of those children who senselessly had their futures cut short at the hands of their peers. It is imperative that we find out why and how this happened and what can be done to prevent it. Yet the justified grief and anger that many are feeling should not move the State to regress on its studied stance on children in conflict with the law.

Every time a minor commits a heinous crime while below the age of criminal responsibility, there is always a call to lower that minimum age, to find a way to retaliate against those who have harmed us, to not let the minors “get away with it.” This is a natural reaction, an emotional reaction, that comes from a place of grief and anger. But time and again we have seen that, when one is legislating for the future, such arguments are simply contrary to solid research and good policy.

There is no showing that lowering the age of criminal responsibility will prevent minors from committing crimes. The presence of that responsibility is not a magic bullet after all, as seen from the many adults who are not deterred by criminal sanction or jail terms. More to the point, the concept of punishment only acts as a deterrent for one who can properly reason and evaluate long-term consequences. Such requires mental maturity that research has repeatedly shown can only be generally said to be present at the age of 16. Someone younger than that will likely have difficulties with impulse control, and that is not someone who will be deterred by the distant prospect of criminal responsibility.

Neither is it fair to say that there are glaring flaws in the JJWA when the simple fact is that the law to this date has not yet been fully implemented, as experts have been ringing the alarm about repeatedly over the years. The full implementation of the law requires resources and cooperation from various stakeholders and government agencies, but despite the best efforts of some, there is still a vast deficiency in what has been established or provided.

Case in point: more than a decade after the 2013 amendments to the law required the creation of Bahay Pag-asas – the facilities which are made precisely to hold as a consequence of their actions, among others, children above 12 years of age up to 15 years who have committed serious crimes – data from the Juvenile Justice Welfare Council as of May 2026 show that only 33 out of 82 provinces and 28 out of 33 highly urbanized cities have their own Bahay Pag-asa, and that while there are 117 operational facilities, only 28 had valid accreditation from the DSWD at the time of a recent Senate hearing.

Without adequate facilities, children in conflict with the law are crammed together without proper segregation: younger children mixed with teens, those accused of minor crimes with those who committed grave offense.

In the case of girls, it was only in June 2025 that a Regional Rehabilitation Centers for Youth for girls was established; before that, many girls in conflict with the law were housed with girl victims of crimes at the National Training School for Girls in Marillac Hills.

Systemic challenges have made proper age and risk segregation very difficult. While one can understand the constraints of budgets and lack of trained personnel, we cannot simply accept that this state of affairs will continue forever. As the legislature reviews our nation’s juvenile justice laws, it is imperative that this include the creation of a plan of action to fully implement the mandate of the law, to give children in conflict with the law the treatment they deserve.

Because our duty to our children does not end when they act in monstrous ways. Every child contains within them the potential for good and evil, and even for those who have gone astray – especially for them – the State has the obligation to steer them back towards the light. Even without being completely implemented, the current system has seen a lot of success stories, children that have been reformed and made the most out of the second chance given to them. But even if rehabilitation fails, even if a second chance is rejected, it is still the State’s obligation to provide it, consistent with the principles of restorative justice.
There are few things as tragic as a future cut short. But those that have been lost cannot be returned by sacrificing the futures of others.