Abbey M.

MANILA – In the wake of the deadly school shooting in Tacloban City, calls have resurfaced to lower the age of criminal liability in the Philippines. But a human rights lawyer clarified Tuesday what the law actually says about the accountability of minors who commit crimes.

Human rights lawyer Atty. Edre Olalia said they are opposed to lowering the age of criminal liability, explaining that the principle behind the law is rooted in the limited understanding and maturity of children.

"Kahit na talagang napaka lungkot at karumaldumal yung nangyari, sa prinsipyong legal ay tutol kami sa pagbaba ng age, edad ng criminal liability. Kasi hindi lang naman ito ang dapat natin tingnan. Tingnan natin pangkalahatan. Kasi ang punto naman bakit may ang tawag dito, merong sukatan ng edad para panagutan ang isang menor de edad ay yung kakulangan pa sa pangkalahatan syempre. Kakulangan pa ng pag-unawa, pag-intindi at yung murang kaisipan sa mga bagay-bagay at sa mga pagkilos at behavior."

("Even though what happened is truly sad and horrific, on legal principle we are opposed to lowering the age of criminal liability. Because this is not the only thing we should look at. Let us look at the whole picture. The point behind having an age threshold for holding a minor accountable is the lack of full understanding, comprehension, and maturity in things, actions, and behavior.")

The incident has renewed calls for the amendment of Republic Act 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, also known as the Pangilinan Law.

Under the current law, children aged 15 and below at the time a crime is committed have absolute exemption from criminal liability. This means they cannot be imprisoned regardless of the offense committed, including crimes such as murder or rape. Instead, they may be placed under an intervention program such as referral to the social welfare department.

"Kung criminal liability, 'pag 15 and below ka, nung iyong di umano kinommit yung offense, yung krimen. Exempt ka, wala kang criminal liability, hindi ka pwedeng ikulong, hindi ka pwedeng litisin, hindi ka pwedeng i-convict."

("On criminal liability, if you are 15 and below at the time you allegedly committed the offense, the crime — you are exempt, you have no criminal liability, you cannot be imprisoned, you cannot be tried, you cannot be convicted.")

Those above 15 but below 18 years old also have no criminal liability, unless it is proven that they acted with discernment — meaning a full understanding of the wrongful act and its consequences.

"Sa 15 above 18, ang exception ay wala rin dapat na criminal liability kung maliban lamang kung mayroong tinatawag na discernment o naiintindihan niyang lubos ang kanyang ginawa at ano ang epekto nito. Doon sa 15 and below, ang gagawin dyan hindi ikukulong o iku-convict kundi maraming mga pamamaraan. Pwedeng reformation, rehabilitation, or intervention or counseling."

("For those above 15 but below 18, the exception is that there should also be no criminal liability unless there is what is called discernment — that they fully understood what they did and its consequences. For those 15 and below, they will not be imprisoned or convicted but there are many approaches available — reformation, rehabilitation, intervention, or counseling.")

For those above 15 but below 18 where discernment is established, Olalia said a process called diversion applies, which involves programs and steps toward reforming the child, and proceedings that differ from those applied to adults.

"Doon naman sa 15 above, [below] 18, pwede rin yung mga nabanggit ko pero dagdag yan, dahil na kung merong discernment na tinatawag, ang tawag yan sa legal ay diversion. Ibig sabihin may mga programa, may mga hakbang kung paano marireforma yung bata at yung paglilitis ng 15 above 18 na hindi tulad ng paglilitis ng age o adult."

("For those above 15 but below 18, the same options I mentioned apply but in addition, if there is discernment, this is legally called diversion. This means there are programs and steps on how to reform the child, and the proceedings for those above 15 but below 18 are not the same as proceedings for adults.")

Olalia clarified that even without criminal liability, parents or relatives may still be held civilly liable for damages under their parental authority, particularly if negligence is established.

"Siyempre, yung kanyang mga magulang, pamilya. Ang pwedeng managot kasi humahalili sila. Meron silang parental authority na tinatawag at lalo na kung merong tinatawag na negligence. May mga bali-balita pa. Siyempre kailangan hintayin natin yung...lubos na investigasyon at na-established ang facts."

("Of course, the parents and family. They can be held accountable because they stand in place of the child. They have what is called parental authority, and especially if there is what is called negligence. There are still reports coming in. Of course we need to wait for a thorough investigation and for the facts to be established.")

He also noted that the owner of the firearm, especially if a police or military officer, may face administrative liability for negligence in securing the weapon.

The school may likewise face potential liability under substitute parental authority if it is proven that it failed to provide a safe environment or did not act on signs of bullying and violence.

Olalia said a holistic approach is the better solution — including stricter regulation of firearms and social media — to address the root causes of such tragedies rather than simply lowering the age of accountability. He also stressed that laws and government measures alone are not enough to discipline children, as parental guidance during their formative years remains the most important factor.

‍

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is open to a proposed total ban on violent online and mobile games in the Philippines, Malacañang said.

The Palace also expressed support for a proposal to lower the age of criminal liability.

Palace Press Officer Undersecretary Claire Castro said the Palace is willing to listen to and study the proposal to ban violent online games outright.

Castro noted that lawmakers should act swiftly on the matter.

"Naireport nga po na itong mga batang ito ay gumon sa paglalaro ng online gaming marahas, napag-usapan na i-ban, so maganda pong mungkahi yan at sana makagawa agad ng batas at open ang pangulo sa ganyang mga panukala," Castro said.

("It has been reported that these children are addicted to playing violent online games, a ban has been discussed, so that is a good proposal and hopefully a law can be made immediately — the President is open to such proposals.")

She added that legislators should not wait to be consulted and should move quickly to craft the necessary legislation.

"Sa tingin po natin kahit hindi na po kausapin ang mga mambabatas ay mabilisan silang magbabalangkas ng batas para maisakatuparan ito," Castro said.

("We think that even without being consulted, lawmakers should quickly draft a law so this can be carried out.")

This comes following reports that a suspect in the shooting at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City was allegedly addicted to a violent game.

The Philippine National Police said there are early indications that the suspects were heavily influenced by an online community.

PNP Spokesperson Police Colonel Allen Rae Co said the investigation is ongoing.

"Suffice to say, early indications are saying that [they were] heavily influenced by online content, so online community? Possibly," Co said.

The PNP did not elaborate further on the group.

Some parents said that violent online and mobile games should be banned, especially for minors, citing the negative effects on children's behavior and studies.

A youth named Mar, 19 years old, also called on parents to monitor what games their children are playing online.

"Sa mga bata po naman sana gawin ng mga magulang i-check ang mga bata sa mga games at anong nilalaro ng games," Mar said.

("For children, parents should check on their kids and what games they are playing.")

Meanwhile, the PNP expressed support for a separate proposal to lower the age of criminal liability to 12 years old.

"The PNP is supporting the lowering of the age of criminal responsibility. Age — what? We are thinking 12 years old," Co said.

PBBM is also open to any idea on lowering the age of criminal liability, though the Palace said he has not yet taken a position on a specific age.

"Sa ngayon walang posisyon ang pangulo kung anong edad, pero kung [ang] suggest [ay] 12 years old, ito ay makatwirang edad," Castro said.

("For now, the President has no position on what specific age, but if the suggestion is 12 years old, that is a reasonable age.")

‍

The House prosecution panel has admitted it cannot complete the pre-trial conference, particularly the marking of evidence by the July 25 deadline for the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, and is now seeking an extension of the process.

As of Tuesday, June 23, the marking of documentary evidence remains unfinished due to the sheer volume of documents the prosecution has prepared. These include evidence under the article on alleged misuse of confidential funds, which alone carries around 4,000 documentary exhibits, as well as the article on the Vice President's alleged unexplained wealth.

The pre-trial conference is currently scheduled to run until June 25.

House Lead Prosecutor and Batangas 2nd District Representative Gerville Luistro said the prosecution has already reached out to Senate Secretary Bantug through Secretary-General Cheloy Garafil to explore ways to speed up the marking process.

"The prosecutors have expressed their uncertainties as to whether the marking will be finished by Thursday. And that's why we already reached out to Sec. Bantug through SecGen Cheloy Garafil whether there are other measures which may considered to be able to expedite more the marking of the exhibits."

The process has also been slowed down by the defense team's insistence on having its own separate marking of the same exhibits. Luistro explained that this effectively doubles the time spent on each document.

"We understand that the defense is soliciting marking of separate documents which means, parehas ang exhibits naming, nevertheless the position of the defense is to have their own marking in a separate set of document. So you can imagine how time consuming is this, magkakaroon ng comparison of documents before marking, one for the prosecution, and next for the defense."

Among the proposals the House prosecution team is bringing before the Senate Impeachment Court are: a two-day extension of the pre-trial conference to run until Saturday, June 27, and the doubling of marking teams from the current four to eight.

Manila 3rd District Representative and House prosecution panel member Joel Chua acknowledged the difficulty of the workload.

"Medyo mahaba po, maraming document kaya nga po kami ay humihingi ng karagdagang araw at tsaka kung papayagan din kami additional team."

("It is quite lengthy, there are many documents, which is why we are requesting additional days and, if permitted, an additional team.")

However, both proposals still require the agreement of the defense team and approval from the Impeachment Court.

Despite the delays, the prosecution remains confident that the July 6 start of the trial proper is still on track.

"We remain confident at umaasa naman kami na kung wala naman pong magiging aberya, tuloy-tuloy lamang po ang marking ng ebidensya."

("We remain confident and we hope that if there are no disruptions, the marking of evidence will continue smoothly.")

Luistro further explained that if the defense agrees to a joint marking of common exhibits under a single document, the time spent could be cut in half.

"Kasi ang nangyari doon, separate yung presentation and marking for the prosecution. Papakita kay defense, patatatakan sa impeachment court, pipirmahan ng prosecution defense at saka ng impeachment court. So yung prosesong yun, uulitin mo ulit pagdating doon sa defense, notwithstanding the fact that you are talking about exactly the same document. So nadoble yung time. So if they will agree na isang document lang, ibig sabihin isang examination lang, isang pirmahan lang, so that will be, as to the time which will be spent, it will be diminished by half the time which is actually being spent when marking common exhibit but separate documents."

("Because what happened there, separate was the presentation and marking for the prosecution. It will be shown to the defense, stamped at the impeachment court, signed by the prosecution, defense, and the impeachment court. So that process, you repeat it again when you get to the defense, notwithstanding the fact that you are talking about exactly the same document. So the time doubled. So if they will agree on just one document, that means just one examination, just one signing, so that will be, as to the time which will be spent, it will be diminished by half the time which is actually being spent when marking common exhibits but in separate documents.")

Meanwhile, the prosecution team also intends to raise additional requests before the Senate Impeachment Court, including the disclosure of witnesses three days before their presentation, the participation of both public and private prosecutors in witness presentations, the possible opening of BIR records at the earliest opportunity, and the discussion of the conviction threshold, a proposal raised by the defense, which Lead Prosecutor Luistro said she is open to taking up when the Impeachment Court reconvenes or before the presentation of evidence.

‍

The Senate will investigate the shooting incident at San Jose National High School in Tacloban, with Senator Risa Hontiveros announcing that the inquiry will open on July 1.

Senator Risa Hontiveros, Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality, said the hearing will look into whether online platforms played a role in spreading violent ideologies.

"Sa July 1, muli nating bubuksan ang pagdinig para alamin kung may papel ang mga online platforms sa pagkalat ng mararahas na ideya. Nagiging pugad ng mga grupong nambe-brainwash at nagra-radicalize sa mga bata," Hontiveros said.

("On July 1, we will reopen the hearing to find out if online platforms have a role in spreading violent ideologies. They are becoming breeding grounds for groups that brainwash and radicalize children.")

She also stressed the need to re-examine whether all online platforms are doing enough to prevent the youth from being exploited.

"Titingnan natin ulit kung may sapat bang ginagawa ang lahat ng online platforms para hindi mapagsamantalahan ang mga kabataan," she added.

("We will look again at whether all online platforms are doing enough so that the youth will not be exploited.")

The senator added that there must be accountability for those who use the internet to victimize children, and that action should not wait for another victim to come forward.

"Dapat na may managot kung ginagamit ang internet para biktimahin ang mga bata at hindi na dapat hintayin pang magkaroon ng kasunod na biktima bago kumilos," Hontiveros said.

("There must be accountability if the internet is being used to victimize children, and we should no longer wait for another victim before taking action.")

‍

The defense team of Vice President Sara Duterte has acknowledged having additional witnesses who have yet to be named, even as the formal impeachment trial is set to begin in July.

During the continuation of the pre-trial conference, the defense camp disclosed that some witnesses are being kept confidential for their own protection.

Defense team spokesperson Atty. Michael T. Poa explained that they had reserved witnesses whose names were being withheld for security reasons.

"Kami rin sa defense, meron din kaming na-reserve na witnesses, hindi namin pinangalanan. Bakit? Para sa kanilang seguridad. And if there is a rule that we have to disclose within three days, wala naman po kami nagiging problema doon. In fact, kami pa nga po yung humingi ng disclosure."

("We in the defense also have reserved witnesses that we have not named. Why? For their security. And if there is a rule that we have to disclose within three days, we have no problem with that. In fact, we were the ones who requested disclosure.")

The defense panel also requested early disclosure of which among the four articles of impeachment would be tackled first, to allow both sides — including the senator-judges, to prepare accordingly.

Poa elaborated on their requests, citing the need for all parties to be adequately prepared before the trial begins.

"Number one, ng order of trial, meaning anong article ang uunahin. And pangalawa, kung sino ang witnesses, humingi rin kami ng disclosure kung sinong mauuna, sinong sunod. Bakit po? Kasi po para po makapaghanda ang bawat panig, ang prosecution at defense, at pati na rin po ang impeachment court, ang ating senator judges. At kami rin naman po sa defense, kung hiningi namin ’yon sa prosecution, willing din naman po kaming sumailalim sa ganoong disclosure."

("Number one, the order of trial, meaning which article goes first. And second, regarding the witnesses, we also asked for disclosure of who comes first, who comes next. Why? So that every party can prepare, the prosecution and defense, and also the impeachment court, our senator-judges. And we in the defense, if we asked that of the prosecution, we are also willing to submit to the same disclosure.")

Meanwhile, Senate Secretary and Clerk of Court Atty. Renato Bantug Jr. had earlier clarified that the court would not prevent the introduction of so-called surprise witnesses once the impeachment trial proper begins. He noted that both the House prosecution panel and the defense team may still submit witnesses not included in their original pre-trial briefs, subject to reservations allowed by the court.

The pre-trial conference, including the marking of evidence related to the articles of impeachment, also remained unfinished as of the day's proceedings. The defense team explained that the document marking process is not straightforward, particularly given the thousands of documents involved.

Atty. Mark Vinluan stated that the defense was not undermanned and that it was actually the private prosecutors who lacked personnel.

"Ah actually I was there personally and the opposite was truth. The opposite is true. Um it was actually uh the private prosecutors who lacked a certain personnel for the marking of the exhibits. Ah siguro hindi lang naintindihan masyado ni Representative Luiso ito kasi hindi naman sila nagpa-participate buong araw no. So they just appear in the morning and then they leave and then they leave the rest of the task uh to the private prosecutors for handling the case. So siguro we are in the best position to deny that claim and we are saying now that we are not under man and we are complying with all the directives by the impeachment court."

("Ah actually I was there personally and the opposite was true. It was actually the private prosecutors who lacked certain personnel for the marking of the exhibits. Maybe Representative Luiso did not fully understand this because they did not participate the whole day. They just appear in the morning and then leave the rest of the task to the private prosecutors handling the case. So we are in the best position to deny that claim, and we are saying now that we are not undermanned and we are complying with all the directives of the impeachment court.")

The defense also said they are willing to adjust to whatever schedule the Clerk of Court or the impeachment court may set, including working on Saturdays if necessary.

"Like we said, the defense will always adjust. So kung ano man ang kinakailangan, handa naman tayong pumasok kahit Sabado." 

("Like we said, the defense will always adjust. Whatever is needed, we are ready to come in even on Saturdays.")

Atty. Carlo Joaquin Narvasa, another member of the defense team, also noted that they had not received any information about the House prosecution panel seeking an extension for the pre-trial conference, adding that the matter was not discussed with them directly.

"But also that's something that they never discussed with us. I just like you to know they're talking through you guys. So all these things we have been open with them. But the prosecution always talks to you guys. So this is the first time we're hearing about."

Despite the delays, the defense affirmed its commitment to moving the process forward. 

"The defense is committed to expedite. To do everything in our power to really expedite the case as well. And so far, lahat naman ng binibigyan ng instruction ng impeachment court, we faithfully comply and we really do the best of our ability." 

("The defense is committed to expedite, to do everything in our power to really expedite the case as well. And so far, everything the impeachment court has instructed, we faithfully comply and we really do the best of our ability.")

‍