Before becoming a college professor, I taught Grades 1 through 4. In much of my experience, I have dealt with students between the ages of six and 12 and, for me, educating young people towards becoming the leaders of tomorrow is fulfilling. However, the proposed amendment to RA 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, seeking to lower the age of criminal liability from 15 years old to nine years old corresponds with the adage “burning a house to kill a rat;” it imperils the future of the children, dubbed by Dr. Jose Rizal as “the hope of our motherland.”

It is idiotic to deem nine year olds criminally responsible.

In psychologist Albert Bandura’s works on social learning theory, he observed a group of young children watch an adult express physical and verbal aggression towards a large inflatable doll. Once the children were left alone, they repeated the same acts of hostility towards the doll. This is called observational learning, or “modeling.” In the 1990s, Nestle Philippines released ads with the line, “Sa mata ng bata ang ginagawa ng matanda ay tama,” capturing the content of Bandura’s study.

Lawmakers backing the move are seemingly under the spell of Circe, the mythological sorceress of Ancient Greece. For an academician, like me, support for the amendment appears to their affirmation to President Rodrigo Duterte of their loyalty. It is ironic that the primary backer of the original law, Speaker of the House, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, is also the one who approved the amendment; her reason? Duterte wants it.

It was as if lawmakers were presenting gifts at Mt. Olympus, waiting for the supreme ruler to bestow powers onto them.

With the midterm elections approaching, they know PDP-Laban offers political mileage and, if they want to secure their position, it’s “monkey see, monkey do.” However, lawmakers have failed to see the data from Salinlahi Philippines, an advocacy group for children’s issues, which revealed about two percent of all reported crimes from 2006 to 2012 were committed by children. In addition, 47 percent of the incidents are considered crimes against poverty (such as petty theft and robbery).

Furthermore, with regard to the proposed rehabilitation center for children, of the 114 mandated Bahay Pag-asa Youth Centers across the country, only 35 are operational.

This power play is a brazen move against children’s rights. Those who agree with the amendment are only those from privileged families, inexperienced with suffering from poverty and look with condescension on “victims of circumstance.”

Psychologist Erik Erikson said there are eight stages of psychosocial development. From six years old into adolescence, there is industry vs. inferiority, where children are keen on mastering intellectual and social challenges but failure could lead to feelings of inferiority and incompetence. At nine years old, being considered a criminal could lead to inferiority, resulting in a child shutting themselves off from society.

Government must look at the existing youth centers and see how they can cater to the number of children in need of rehabilitation. A system must be established where the needs of society are answered. Children in conflict with the law are a mere reflection of an oppressive society; byproducts of a corrupt and incompetent government. Children turn to crime because of poverty and abuse from adults who force them to commit crimes. When will they realize the root of this mayhem is poverty? Lowering the age for criminal liability does not cut it; it proves lawmakers are burning a house to kill the rat.

***

Comments are welcome at sensei.adorador@chmsc.edu.ph./WDJ