Problems juvenile justice law (RA 9344) failed to anticipate
Imagine the following: A criminal gang recruits youngsters 15 years old and younger to its fold. The children are instructed in the trade secrets of the underworld. Armed with criminal skills, they are fielded by their syndicate masters to engage in mugging, porch-climbing, armed robbery, murder and other offenses.When the youthful perpetrators are caught, the police have no option but to turn the kids over to social workers who, after documenting the cases, are obliged to release them. Under the recently enacted Republic Act 9344—also known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006—minors aged 15 and younger have no criminal liability.
That scenario is, of course, a hypothetical one; however, it is not entirely implausible. R.A. 9344, which its proponents hope would guarantee children’s rights, may have in fact exposed minors to further exploitation by criminals—thanks to certain provisions of the law.
For years many well-meaning groups and individuals have advocated the passage of a juvenile justice bill. Helping boost their campaign were numerous media reports of youngsters confined in jails along with adult crime suspects. According to social workers and advocates of children’s rights, the experience exposed the youths to abuse by both their jailers and older detainees. In far too many cases too it turned the kids into hardened criminals.
President Arroyo affixed her signature to R.A. 9344 on April 28. Fifteen days later the entire text of the law was published in newspapers, thus completing the process of its enactment. It was a moment of triumph and vindication for many professional social workers—meaning those who are certified as such and duly licensed by the Professional Regulation Commission—and nongovernmental children’s advocates.
An immediate effect of R.A. 9344 was the retroactive dismissal of criminal cases filed against thousands of children aged 15 and younger throughout the country. As this was being written, no exact figures were immediately available although the commonly accepted range was from 1,500 to 4,000 “youth offenders.”
Some of them were confined in facilities specially designed for minors, such as Quezon City’s Molave Youth Hall, jointly operated by the city’s Social Services and Development Department (SSDD) and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology. However, the vast majority of youngsters who ran afoul of the law were detained in city and municipal jails—along with adult inmates.
R.A. 9344 provides that children 15 years and below are exempt from criminal liability. Criminal charges can be filed against those older—up to 18—but only if they are found to have committed the offense “with discernment,” that is, they were aware that what they were doing was wrong.
The law requires police and other law enforcers to immediately turn over to social workers children caught committing criminal acts. And the lawmen—relieved of the onus of jailing minors—have been only too eager to comply with the requirements of R.A. 9344.
The problem was that government social workers have found themselves swamped with problems that the law’s authors obviously did not anticipate. And by social workers I mean those employed by the various cities and municipalities; they are independent of the Department of Social Welfare and Development. As a result of the government’s policy of devolution in the late 1990s, the DSWD no longer has a significant local presence.
Strangely, the authors of R.A. 9344 consulted DSWD officials extensively but hardly touched base with city and municipal social workers—who are now expected to implement the new law’s provisions whether or not they are ready to do so.
Last week, for instance, police began turning over to the QC Molave Youth Hall dozens of minors—including those apprehended outside Quezon City. The number of minors police have been bringing to the city’s SSDD is growing at such a rate that QC social workers fear they will soon have little time left for their other programs, including hundreds of day-care centers.
But the strain on local resources is just an aspect—albeit an important one—of the complications brought on by R.A. 9344.
Last week, for instance, police turned over to the QC SSDD a 15-year-old boy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl. Under the new law, the boy cannot be held criminally liable even if he were to own up to the charge.
“Nonetheless, a crime has been committed,” said one of the QC social workers. “A 14-year-old girl was victimized. What do the authors of R.A. 9344 expect us to do? Tell the girl nothing really happened to her?”
The parents of the 14-year-old complainant are at a loss too. To whom, they ask, should they go now to get justice for their daughter?
As youth offenders flooded Molave Youth Hall, QC social workers tried to get advice from one of R.A. 9344’s authors, Sen. Francisco Pangilinan.
When they called up his office, a member of Pangilinan’s staff reportedly said that the senator was “unavailable.” Instead, the QC social workers were told to refer their questions to the DSWD.
One of the questions the QC social workers wanted to ask the senator was: What if criminal syndicates begin employing minors—who cannot be charged, thanks to R.A. 9344—to commit armed robbery, murder and other crimes?
For instance, even before R.A. 9344 was enacted, many of the reported cases of cellular phone snatching were perpetrated by teenage muggers. In some instances, the mugging victims were knifed or shot to death. It should not be too hard to imagine how youths who cannot now be held criminally liable could be further emboldened to commit such crimes.
Pangilinan unfortunately could not be reached for comment, much less guidance.
