Padilla pushes to lower age of criminal liability to 10 in Heinous Crime Cases

The proposed measure, which amends the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 (RA 9344), strips away full immunity from criminal liability for children aged 10 to 17 who are found guilty of grave offenses such as rape, murder, and kidnapping.

While the bill has not yet been numbered, its intent is unambiguous: restore what Padilla calls “the integrity of our justice system” while signaling that the current law “remains unresponsive, if not completely remiss in exacting justice, from juvenile offenses to heinous crimes.”

Padilla’s bill introduces significant changes to the treatment of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL). Under the existing law, minors aged 15 and below are exempt from criminal liability and are instead referred to intervention programs. Padilla’s proposal removes that exemption when heinous crimes are involved, even for those as young as 10.

CICLs aged 10 but under 18 who are charged with crimes would be committed to Bahay Pag-asa, a 24-hour child-caring institution. But if the crime falls under the legally defined category of “heinous,” detention and prosecution would proceed under criminal liability standards.

The bill outlines what qualifies as heinous crimes: parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping with rape or homicide, destructive arson, rape, carnapping with rape or homicide, and serious drug offenses punishable by over 12 years in prison under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (RA 9165).

Padilla emphasizes that his intent is not to abandon restorative justice, which focuses on rehabilitation rather than punishment. But he argues that serious crimes committed by minors cannot be met with impunity. “While we make it clear that our thrust is to ensure that youth offenders are dealt with through the lens of restorative and not punitive justice,” he said, “we must guarantee the integrity of our justice system remains and that we do not condone a more precarious state of abuse towards our children.”

The bill also tweaks age brackets and conditions for suspended sentences. Currently, minors aged 12 to 15 who repeatedly commit offenses may face escalating interventions. Padilla’s amendment shifts that bracket to 15 to 18 and clearly specifies that leniency only applies to non-heinous offenses. Likewise, automatic dismissal of cases involving children 15 and below would now only be possible if the crime committed was not heinous.

The urgency behind Padilla’s bill, though controversial, speaks to a broader anxiety: that the law, while protective, may be shielding children who are capable of committing unimaginable harm. While child rights advocates are likely to push back, the proposal reignites the country’s struggle to balance child welfare with justice for victims.