OPTIC Politics

Siya lang daw ang tunay 😂 eh, bakit di niya isiniwalat ang sarili? 😂😂😂

Itong si Risa Hontiveros, nakikisali sa mga national na pangyayari, ‘kala nya iboboto na siya sa 2028! 😂😂😂

Huy, SP Win Gatchalian, lumingon ka sa Valenzuela, lubog sa baha, stranded ang mga tao!

I dont know this is. How does it work? Hey everyone. Visit my Storefront to browse a curated selection of products I've added just for you. Check out the latest items!

Storefront: https://www.facebook.com/61558064122233/storefront?entry=post

Storefront | OPTIC Politics Storefront

THE WAR ON RA 9344: WHO WANTS TO PUT 12-YEAR-OLDS ON TRIAL—AND WHY?

OPTIC POLITICS | EDITORIAL | June 23, 2026

For nearly twenty years, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act has stood as one of the most fiercely contested laws in the Philippines. Passed in 2006 as Republic Act No. 9344 and later strengthened by Republic Act No. 10630, the law established a principle that many child-rights advocates considered a landmark achievement: children aged fifteen and below would not be held criminally liable and would instead be subjected to intervention, rehabilitation, and social protection programs. To its supporters, it was a declaration that childhood should not be surrendered to the machinery of criminal punishment. To its critics, it became a symbol of a justice system that they believe has been exploited by criminal syndicates, gangs, and adult offenders hiding behind minors.

The current push to lower the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility did not begin with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Senator Robin Padilla, or the recent public outrage over crimes involving minors. The campaign is older, deeper, and far more politically significant than many Filipinos realize.

Long before the present debate, former Senate President Vicente Sotto III had already launched efforts to amend RA 9344. Sotto repeatedly argued that criminal groups had learned how to exploit the law’s protections by recruiting younger offenders. Former Senator Panfilo Lacson echoed similar concerns, insisting that organized crime and drug syndicates were increasingly using children because they knew those children enjoyed legal protections unavailable to adults. Their position was clear: the State could not allow criminal organizations to transform children into legal shields.

Then came the Duterte administration, which transformed what had been a legislative proposal into a national political crusade. Former President Rodrigo Duterte made the issue a centerpiece of his law-and-order agenda. Duterte repeatedly argued that minors were being used as drug couriers, thieves, and street-level operatives because criminal organizations knew the law insulated them from prosecution. Under his administration, proposals emerged to lower the age of criminal responsibility not merely to twelve years old but, at one point, as low as nine years old. The proposal ignited a political firestorm across the country.

The House of Representatives under then-Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo became a major battlefield in that struggle. The House Committee on Justice initially approved proposals reducing the age to nine before eventually settling on twelve. Although the measure never became law, it demonstrated the extent of political support behind the effort. For the first time since RA 9344 was enacted, the prospect of fundamentally rewriting the juvenile justice framework became a realistic possibility.

The movement did not disappear after Duterte left office. It merely entered a temporary period of dormancy. Then came a new generation of advocates.

Senator Robin Padilla revived the issue with renewed force. His proposal sought to lower criminal responsibility to ten years old for specified heinous crimes. Padilla’s argument reflects a growing sentiment among supporters of reform: that certain offenses are so grave that age alone should not automatically shield offenders from criminal accountability. Whether one agrees with his proposal or not, Padilla has become the most visible legislative face of the contemporary campaign.

The movement gained even greater momentum when the Philippine National Police entered the debate with unprecedented institutional force. PNP Chief Nicolas Torre III publicly supported revisiting the law. PNP spokesperson Police Colonel Allen Rae Co later stated that the police organization was open to lowering the threshold to twelve years old. These were not isolated comments. They reflected a law-enforcement perspective that has steadily gained influence in national discussions about juvenile crime.

Then came a turning point. Following high-profile incidents involving minors, Malacañang confirmed that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. is open to lowering the age of criminal responsibility from fifteen to twelve. That statement changed the political equation overnight. For the first time under the Marcos administration, the possibility of amending RA 9344 moved from speculation into the realm of active executive consideration.

This means that the list of major advocates now spans multiple administrations, political parties, and institutions. It includes Rodrigo Duterte, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Vicente Sotto III, Panfilo Lacson, Robin Padilla, Nicolas Torre III, Allen Rae Co, various House justice committee leaders, segments of the Philippine National Police, and now a President who has publicly expressed openness to lowering the age threshold.

But to focus solely on those calling for a lower age is to miss the other half of the story.

Standing against them is an equally formidable coalition. UNICEF has consistently opposed lowering the age. Child-rights organizations, psychologists, social workers, educators, religious groups, and juvenile justice advocates have repeatedly warned that reducing the threshold risks criminalizing children who are themselves victims of poverty, neglect, exploitation, abuse, trafficking, and social abandonment. Their argument is not that crimes committed by minors should be ignored. Their argument is that society often notices these children only after every other institution has already failed them.

This is where the debate becomes politically explosive.

Supporters of lowering the age frame the issue as one of accountability. Opponents frame it as one of child protection. Yet the truth is that both sides are responding to a real crisis. Criminal syndicates do exploit children. Poverty and neglect do create vulnerable children. Both statements can be true simultaneously.

The constitutional question is therefore larger than criminal law. The Constitution commands the State to protect the youth. The challenge is determining what protection actually means. Does protection mean shielding children from criminal prosecution? Does it mean protecting communities from violent offenders regardless of age? Does it mean holding adults accountable for recruiting minors into crime? Or does it require all of these simultaneously?

That is why the debate over RA 9344 remains one of the most consequential legal battles in modern Philippine history. It is not merely a disagreement about age. It is a conflict between competing visions of justice itself. One vision emphasizes rehabilitation, intervention, and social protection. Another emphasizes accountability, deterrence, and public safety. Both invoke the welfare of children. Both invoke the interests of society. Both claim the moral high ground.

What is undeniable is that the political momentum behind reform is stronger today than it has been since the Duterte years. When a sitting senator pushes for a lower age, when the national police support revisiting the law, when Palace officials openly discuss amendments, and when the President himself expresses openness to change, the debate is no longer academic. It becomes a question of national policy.

The Philippines now stands before a decision that will define how it views childhood, crime, punishment, and responsibility for years to come. The battle over RA 9344 is not ending. It is entering its most consequential chapter yet.

———

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS KAUFMAN

“I thank Judge Korner for reminding the world that nothing I did offended counsel’s ethical obligations at the ICC. She has clearly studied the code of conduct for ICC counsel closely - with me in mind!

I am far removed from the world of legal seminars and social functions that she talked about in the first status conference where prosecutors, defence counsel and judges all club together in chummy fashion. Accordingly, it is not surprising that she finds me at fault for not conforming to the unspoken conventions that she expects from the members of such a unique club. As she is presumably aware, nothing that I said is at variance with what is currently being said in corridors and elsewhere. And if the media cannot benefit from the honest views of defence counsel then all that remains is the Prosecution’s narrative. The former President was proud to have me as his counsel and the arguments raised at confirmation will be those, God willing, that I hope will lead to his ultimate acquittal.”

Itong mga CPP-NPA-NDF allied na mga mambabatas tutol babaan ang edad sa Juvenile Law. Bakit meron ba kayong mga membrong 15 years old pababa, humahawak na ng baril?

Matapos ang school shooting incident sa Tacloban, bomb threat naman sa dalawang school sa Tarlac. Kaya pa ba BBM? Or gusto mo ang mga ganito para makapag deklara ka na ng ML? 😂

Halos puputok na ang mga ugat sa leeg ni Ante Kler sa kakadepensa kay BBM kaugnay sa diskurso ni VP Sara tungkol sa “masamang damo madaling mamatay BBM” 😂😂😂