Liporada: The Juvenile Justice Law (RA 9344) from a parenting perspective

HOPING this commentary is not a day late and a dollar short, allow me to share my ratiocination on the issue: Whether or not the Juvenile Justice Welfare Act (RA9344) should be amended?

In April 2008, in the heels of moves to amend the RA9344, members of the Juvenile Justice Network Philippines (JJNP) cautioned local councilors against “plugging the wrong hole” in the assailed law saying “care not scare” counts more in protecting the city’s babes.

JJNP swayed aldermen from petitioning Congress for reduction of criminal responsibility from age 15 provided under RA 9344 to 10-years old apparently because of mushrooming youth-perpetrated crimes in the city.

Click here for Election 2010 updates

I remember one Atty. Alberto Muyot of the United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef) speaking before the council claiming the law was a product of extensive psychological research with Filipino children themselves as respondents.

He said, “Any proposal to change age of criminal liability would have to be backed up by research.”

Muyot went on saying, “The fact that children commit certain acts does not necessarily imply discernment of what is morally right or wrong.”

Dismissing claims there is growth in the number of CICL’s with the advent of RA 9344 the Women and Children Protection Desk and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology in support of JJNP’s claims noted a 67-percent reduction in commission of crimes perpetuated by minors.

But what is wrong with JJNP’s claims which the council and concerned Baguio citizens apparently overlooked in 2008 and which might have led to the eventual amendment of RA 9344?

I am a dad. Like majority of Filipino dads, I subscribe to ‘tyranny’ in my home, even if it means suffering anxiety for imposing punishment to my kids more than they feel my anger through my leather.

With my kids, I am lawmaker, executor, judge and jury packed into 220-lbs of pure dad’s meat. Needless to say, the only power greater than mine is my wife’s.

My dad used the same formula and so did my grandpa with ‘pa’ and my great grandpa with my grandpa, and so on (of course, not until we’re overruled).

While I grew up in a ‘dysfunctional’ family (if one considers imposition of parental ‘corporal’ punishment a dysfunction) it kept generations and generations of Liporadas from getting insane.

Looking back, I feel fortunate for receiving the tip of me papa’s ‘magic wand’ which magically made me understand the meaning of respect and authority.

Looking back, I feel I earned my badges as a dad after receiving some of ‘em beating, knowing my dad had to do it because he loved me and he was likewise responsible for what I would become.

With RA 9344 however, virtually nothing is illegal if you’re underage; no longer ‘until you get caught’ like in my younger years. Damn, even whipping my kids’ butts is now proscribed and penalized.

During my school uniform years we used to pray, “Lead us not into temptation.” Now, the kids of this generation even annexes our pray with a pun, “… because we can find it ourselves.”

The way I look at the situation now, when the law took away parents’ right to give ‘em little butts some beating, it likewise took away parents’ fear for what kids would do if they weren’t looking.

Going back to JJNP’s averments, to my chagrin, no questionnaires were ever floated to parents like my self. Which is why when RA 9344 was signed to law I grumbled, “This is the beginning of the rest of the mess.”

If indeed any amendments should be backed by studies, JJNP should put its data up its ass because it sure didn’t consider studying amendments to the Revised Penal Code from the parents’ perspective vis-à-vis Children in Conflict with Law (CICL).

On top of that, they should have considered the fact that there is no better way to raise little Filipinos but to raise ‘em the classic ‘pinoy’ way and not by another country’s standards.

On the reports from the Women and Children Protection Desk and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, I likewise realized the report may have been referring to index crimes.

Thing is, while indeed there is a reduction in index crimes, stray kids now, because of RA 9344, have evolved into perpetrators of more serious or grave crimes. Simply, there might have been a reduction in quantity but there sure was a step up in terms of quality – murder, homicide, serious physical injuries, etc.

Now, now, could the Dizon subdivision murders (assuming it was a minor who committed the same) and stabbing to death of 15-year old Chermaigne Calpito for no apparent reason while walking along the turf of a rival gang, among others, been prevented with the law’s amendment?

If only the natural instinct of parents to fear for the consequences of their kids’ actions can be bolstered by bringing back the old law, I believe the answer is “yes!” because they’d care more for their kids.