A socio-legal reflection on juvenile justice in PH

I still remember asking my students, when I taught sociology of deviance, crime, and delinquency, to analyze news reports on school violence in the Philippines. What stood out was a disturbing shift: instead of ordinary fistfights, there were increasing reports of students bringing knives, ice picks, and screwdrivers to school, with some incidents resulting in stabbings. These cases suggested that school violence was becoming increasingly lethal.

The recent school shooting at San Jose National High School in Tacloban marks another turning point. If the allegations are substantiated, it would be the Philippines’ first reported mass school shooting allegedly committed by student minors against fellow students. The case is particularly significant because the suspects were only one year apart in age yet faced markedly different legal consequences: the 15-year-old may be prosecuted upon a finding of discernment, while the 14-year-old is exempt from criminal liability and subject only to intervention measures.

Beyond the tragedy itself, the incident has reignited calls to abandon age-based exemptions and require all minor suspects to undergo judicial proceedings. Although understandable given the gravity of the offense, such proposals require careful examination.

Article continues after this advertisement

As both a sociologist and a lawyer, I am continually confronted with the challenge of balancing sociological and legal perspectives. Criminal law focuses on how society should respond after harm has been committed, while sociology asks what social conditions make such violence possible. These perspectives may appear distinct, but they are ultimately inseparable.

One of the defining features of law is certainty. Legal rules require clear standards, which is why the current framework establishes age thresholds. From a legal perspective, age provides an objective and predictable basis for determining responsibility. Law enforcement and courts require clear rules to ensure consistency; without such boundaries, every case would begin with uncertainty.

Sociology, however, reveals complexities that legal categories may not fully capture. A 14-year-old raised in a stable and nurturing environment may demonstrate greater emotional regulation and moral reasoning than a 15-year-old exposed to chronic violence, neglect, or deprivation. Human development is shaped not only by biological age but also by family, peers, education, economic conditions, communities, and increasingly, digital environments.

Seen from this perspective, age is only one indicator among many. Yet the law cannot account for every social variable; it must translate complexity into workable legal standards. This is where the concept of “discernment” becomes a significant strength of Philippine juvenile justice. It serves as a bridge between legal certainty and social reality by recognizing that adolescents of the same age may differ in their capacity to understand the consequences of their actions.

Article continues after this advertisement

Calls to abandon age-based exemptions, while compelling in theory, present significant challenges in practice. Subjecting all minors, regardless of age, to judicial proceedings raises substantial practical and ethical concerns. It would require significant public investment in courts, judges, prosecutors, public defenders, psychologists, social workers, and diversion programs. Without adequate resources, expanding judicial intervention risks overwhelming an already constrained system and weakening the goals of accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

There is also a human cost. Even child-sensitive legal proceedings can be psychologically demanding. Children may undergo repeated interviews and examinations by law enforcement officers, social workers, psychologists, and lawyers, potentially requiring them to revisit traumatic experiences.

Sociology further reminds us that violence rarely has a single cause. Children develop within families, schools, peer groups, communities, among other social institutions. Understanding these influences does not excuse harmful behavior; rather, it highlights why accountability alone cannot prevent future violence.

Article continues after this advertisement

Public discourse often portrays children in conflict with the law as either helpless victims or fully responsible offenders. The reality is far more complex. Some minors are shaped by abuse, neglect, poverty, or manipulation, while others may possess sufficient discernment to understand the consequences of their actions. Vulnerability and accountability are not mutually exclusive; they often exist together.

Preventing youth violence requires more than legal responses; it demands collective reflection on the different social institutions that influence the lives of children. This challenge extends beyond courts and lawmakers–it is a responsibility, one that rests upon us all.

—————-

Minami Iwayama is a Filipino sociologist, academic, and lawyer whose areas of specialization include the sociology of law and the study of deviance, crime, and delinquency.