Government officials and civil society groups remain divided on whether to amend the Philippines’ juvenile justice laws following a fatal school shooting in Tacloban City on June 22. While some agencies argue for a stricter approach to criminal responsibility, human rights advocates and the Juvenile Justice Welfare Council (JJWC) maintain that poverty and systemic neglect—rather than age—are the primary drivers of youth crime.
Why officials are calling for legal reform
Interior Secretary Jonvic Remulla is pushing for a more comprehensive juvenile justice law, arguing that current statutes are being exploited by criminal syndicates. According to Remulla, the 14-year-old suspect in the Tacloban incident allegedly believed he would not face charges due to his age. The Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and the National Youth Commission (NYC) have both expressed support for revisiting the minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR). The NYC, which is currently chaired by Joseph Francisco Ortega, suggested that policymakers and mental health professionals should study whether a “test of discernment” could be applied to children aged 13 to 15 in cases involving grave offenses.
Arguments against lowering the age of responsibility
Human rights watchdog Karapatan and the JJWC oppose lowering the MACR, arguing that such changes would not deter crime. Karapatan secretary general Cristina Palabay stated that these proposals divert attention from root causes like poverty, abuse, and a lack of state-supported rehabilitation. JJWC Executive Director Tricia Clare Oco cited a 2022 council study identifying dysfunctional family environments and limited parental supervision as the primary factors leading to youth involvement in crime. Oco emphasized that lowering the age of responsibility has not prevented school shootings or heinous crimes in other countries.
Trends in youth crime data
Philippine National Police (PNP) data shows the number of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) recorded by the council. Recorded cases were 24,683 in 2016; 26,850 in 2017; 23,767 in 2018; 19,557 in 2019; 15,897 in 2020; 11,696 in 2021; 6,185 in 2022; 10,035 in 2023; 4,383 in 2024; and 8,654 in 2025. Oco attributed the decrease to the effective implementation of local and national prevention and intervention programs. She noted that the current legal framework does not allow youth offenders to go “scot-free,” as the law mandates detention in rehabilitation centers for those under 15 who have committed serious offenses.
What may happen next
The debate over the juvenile justice system is likely to move toward the halls of Congress as officials continue to call for legislative review. Policymakers may face pressure to balance the demands for stricter accountability in grave offenses with the existing focus on child-sensitive rehabilitation. Future legislative discussions will likely involve a broad range of stakeholders, including educators, law enforcement, and child-rights experts, as they determine whether current frameworks remain adequate in light of evolving social media influences and changing youth behavior.