NATIONAL COLLEGE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTATION AND GOVERNANCE

Diliman, Quezon City

A Case study on Children in Conflict with the Law in Caloocan City

A research paper for PA 299.2

Hazel J. Urminita

PA 299.2 Research Methods in Public Administration I 5:30 – 8:30PM

Professor Rizalino Cruz
 I. RATIONALE

Children, consisting of 39% of the overall population of the Philippines can play a
significant role as agents of transformation. However, these children often live in remote areas
with limited infrastructures and access to basic services.

In a typical Filipino community where poverty is a very common complication growing

rapidly in an urban setting, for example in Metro Manila where 20% resides in informal housings
or slum areas1.Children from impoverished households are often victims of extreme forms of
child labor such as prostitution or recruitment into armed forces. The effects of poverty are also
visible through that large amount of children living and working in the streets in the Philippines,
even though not very visible, there are an estimated 246,111 children living and working in the
streets, between the ages of 0-17 years old2.

With the current environment in the Philippines, children are not exempt from the
extreme expression of violence where arbitrary extrajudicial killings are very common, street
children are common victims of summary executions, violence, trafficking and exploitation.

Last 2014, there are 14,993 cases of Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) in the
Philippines3. That is more than one child per hour being accused or adjudged of committing an
offense under Philippine laws and they are susceptible to abuse during arrest and detention.

The Philippines is home to over 15,000 Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) as of 2014
data from the Philippine National Police (PNP). Majority of them were property-related crimes
wherein theft was considered the highest with the outstanding number of 5886 cases per year.

1
UNICEF Philippines, Annual Country Report 2010
2
Situation of the Filipino Children, CWC 2012
3
Council for the welfare of Children, 2015 Compendium of Statistics on Children
 Thus, this study aims to explore more on the CICL situation and the Juvenile Justice
Welfare System in the country.

II. DETAILS OF THE RESEARCH

1. Statement of the Research Problem

a. What are the factors behind children in conflict with the law?

b. Do existing programs of the government particularly the DSWD and policies

address the issues on Children in Conflict with the Law?

c. How is restorative justice for CICL being implemented and how does the

implementation serve to further the rights and principles of children in the

Philippines?

2. Objectives
a. To know the different factors behind Children in Conflict with the Law

b. To know existing programs of the government particularly the DSWD and

policies address the issues on Children in Conflict with the Law

c. To determine if restorative justice for CICL is being implemented and how its

implementation is being served to further the rights and principles of children in

the Philippines.

3. Significance of the Study

This study further heeds to amplify the importance of the children in our society and the
plight they are experiencing specifically the Children in Conflict with the Law.
Children being considered as the most vulnerable sector in our society, there is a need for
their rights and situation to be put into a priority. The study would also like to give contribution
to the awareness of the situation of children in the Philippines and giving it a sense of significance
in ensuring and looking into the process of juvenile justice in the Philippines.
 Furthermore, as this study draws attention to a sector that is most of the time being set
aside, the researcher is hoping to spark discussions and attention to the children’s sector to
further call for actions on implementation of programs and policy legislation.

4. Definition of Terms

a. Child – refers to a person under the age of eighteen (18) years old

b. Children in conflict with the law – refers to a child who is alleged as, accused of, or

adjudged as, having committed an offense under Philippine laws

c. Juvenile Justice and Welfare System – refers to a system dealing with children at

risk and children in conflict with the law, which provides child-appropriate

proceedings, including programs and services for prevention, diversion,

rehabilitation, re-integration and aftercare to ensure their normal growth and

development.

d. Restorative Justice – refers to an alternative measure in the criminal justice

process that is not punitive in nature but rather seeks to render justice to

offenders and victims alike, instead of tilting the balance heavily in favor of one of

the stakeholders to the disadvantage of another and, focuses on the social

harmony as the ultimate goal as well.

 III. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

a. International Instruments:

i. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child (UNCRC)

The UNCRC defines the child as a person under 18 years of age. It acknowledges the

primary role of parents and the family in the care and protection of children, as well as the

obligation of the State to help them carry out these duties.

The UN Convention consists of 41 articles, each of which details a different type of right.

These rights are not ranked in order of importance; instead they interact with one another to

form one integrated set of rights. A common approach is to group these articles together under

the following themes:

1. Survival rights: include the child’s right to life and the needs that are most basic to

existence, such as nutrition, shelter, an adequate living standard, and access to medical

services.

2. Development rights: include the right to education, play, leisure, cultural activities,

access to information, and freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

3. Protection rights: ensure children are safeguarded against all forms of abuse, neglect

and exploitation, including special care for refugee children; safeguards for children in

the criminal justice system; protection for children in employment; protection and

rehabilitation for children who have suffered exploitation or abuse of any kind.

4. Participation rights: encompass children's freedom to express opinions, to have a say in

matters affecting their own lives, to join associations and to assemble peacefully. As
 their capacities develop, children should have increasing opportunity to participate in

the activities of society, in preparation for adulthood.

The UN Convention includes four articles that are given special emphasis. These are also

known as ‘general principles’. These rights are the bedrock for securing the additional rights in

the UN Convention.

 that all the rights guaranteed by the UNCRC must be available to all children without

discrimination of any kind (Article 2);

 that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in all actions

concerning children (Article 3);

 that every child has the right to life, survival and development (Article 6); and

 that the child’s view must be considered and taken into account in all matters affecting

him or her (Article 12).

b. National Instruments (National policies for CICLs)

i. The Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006

In 2006, the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (Republic Act 9344) was passed, marking the

establishment of the comprehensive juvenile justice and welfare system. 4 The act was

developed in coherence with the international standards in juvenile justice and the rights of the

child, recognizing “the right of every child alleged as, accused of, adjudged, or recognized as,

4
Republic of the Philippines, Congress of the Philippines, 13th Congress, Second Regular Session, Republic Act
9344, “The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006” 25 July 2005
having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the

child’s age and desirability of promoting his/her reintegration. 5 The act therefore recognizes the

primary objective of resorting first and foremost to non-judicial measures, and the use of

detention as a measure of last resort. 6 Emphasizing the imperative that all children deprived of

their liberty must be separated from adult offenders “at all times”. 7

The act also provides broad, as well as specific protection from violence against children

in the justice system. The governing principles of the act generally prohibit all forms of neglect,

abuse, cruelty and exploitation. 8 Section 5 recognizes the right of children who come into conflict

with the law not to be subjected to torture or cruelty, inhumane or degrading treatment of

punishment, as well as the right not to be imposed a sentence of capital punishment or life

imprisonment, without the possibility of release.9 The Act elaborates on acts that are prohibited

to be resorted to by justice officials, this include labelling children as ‘young criminals, juvenile

delinquents, prostitutes or attaching to them any derogatory names’, recognizing the prolonged

negative effects that such stigmatization causes children. 10 Similarly, the use of threats, or

coercive or punitive measures, or the employment of degrading, inhuman and cruel forms of

punishment is strictly forbidden.11

5
Section 2 (d) of the act
6
Section 5 (c)
7
Section 5 (d)
8
Section 2 (c)
9
Section 5 (b)
10
Section 60
11
Section 61 (a-d)
 The act specifically prohibits the penalization of children for status offences, as well as

the crimes of vagrancy, prostitution, begging or sniffing rugby, preferring that children in these

situations benefit from counselling or treatment.12

c. Restorative Justice and Diversion under the act

The Act recognizes restorative justice as one of its governing principles, and develops a

system whereby the use of restorative justice is mainstreamed and used a primary measure for

children who have committed offences warranting not more than 6 years imprisonment 13. In all

such cases the “law enforcement officer with the assistance of the social welfare and

development officer or other members of the LCPC shall conduct mediation, family conferencing

and conciliation – with a view to accomplishing the objectives of restorative justice and the

formulation of a diversion program”14.

However, the use of diversion measures is not limited to cases warranting not more than

6 years in prison, rather there are various stages at which diversion may be decided upon: at the

primary investigation stage and all other stages of the judicial proceedings diversion is a

possibility. For more serious cases, that warrant note more than 12 years imprisonment, the

court may decide upon a measure of diversion, where this is deemed appropriate15.

The right of diversion is recognized on a voluntary basis, if the child qualifies for diversion.

Conferencing, mediation and conciliation may be referred to before the child enters into formal

12
Sections 57 and 58
13
Section 23 (a)
14
Section 23 (a)
15
Section 23 (c) see also section 37 and 24
judicial proceedings. It is during this process that the child has the opportunity to admit

responsibility for the offence at hand, and if so, may give his or her consent to partake into a

diversion program. The admission of guilt cannot be used against the child in any subsequent

judicial proceedings 16 . It is during this process that the child has the opportunity to admit

responsibility for the offence at hand, and if so, may give his or her consent to partake in a

diversion program. The admission of guilt cannot be used against the child in any subsequent

judicial proceedings. The diversion proceedings are limited to be completed within a delay of 45

days, and the social welfare and development officer shall oversee the implementation of the

diversion programme. The diversion program is in essence then, the agreed terms of the

conference, mediation or conciliation process. The diversion programme can contain an

appropriate diversion programme the ability of the family to guide and supervise the child is a

decisive factor. The Act also identifies family counselling as a possible diversion program.

An innovation of the Act is its incorporation of the recognition of indigenous conflict

resolution mechanisms that comply with the rights of the child. For less serious crimes, where

the mediation is conducted by the law enforcement officer or Barangay with support of the social

welfare and development officer, the Act provides that, where appropriate, “indigenous modes

of conflict resolution” should be utilized, “in accordance with the best interest of the child with

a view to accomplishing the objectives of restorative justice”.

Another innovation is the recognition of the particular vulnerabilities of girls who become

involved with the justice system, and the importance of addressing their special needs as girls.

16
Section 26
Specifying that girls should be handled by “female doctors, correction officers and social workers,

and shall be accommodated separately from male children in conflict with the law”.

The Act protects the child’s right to be heard at all stages of the preliminary investigation

and any subsequent judicial proceedings, as well the right to be accompanied by a parent or

guardian when giving testimony. The Act goes further in recognizing the importance of children

to be heard and to participate on all levels of decision-making that concern children. Therefore,

the Act provides that the formulation of policies and strategies should be conducted in

“consultation with children for the prevention of juvenile delinquency and the administration of

justice, as well as for the treatment and rehabilitation of the children in conflict with the law”

and that a mechanism is to be set up that ensures the involvement of children in “research and

policy development”. Thereby children are legally established decision makers within the

national policy agenda.

Retroactive applicability of the provisions of the Act, meant that adoption of the Act

would entail real change for children already in the justice system, that would benefit from its

protection and their sentences would be “adjusted accordingly”.

It is a significant development that with the adoption of the Act, the minimum age of

criminal responsibility was raised from 9 years to 15 years.

In 2008, the DSWD issued an Administrative Order entitled” Guidelines in the Conduct of

Diversion for Children in Conflict with the Law” and the objectives state that the “Guideline is

issued to ensure that diversion is appropriately conducted by social workers, law enforcement

officers, prosecutors and other stakeholders” and aims to “provide a standard procedure” for
diversion, its implementation and supervision and monitoring232. The Guidelines further identify

which children are eligible for diversion, under the Act, and describes the diversion procedure,

identifying the various role players and structures needed. The annexes also provide interview

guidelines and protocol in conducting diversion proceedings, so as to ensure a child friendly

environment for children who are diverted.

The Presidential Executive Order No. 633 of 2007, provided for the release of detained

children in conflict with the law in accordance with the provisions of the Act. However, in 2011

NGOs transferred 446 minors to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

rehabilitation centres, following a court order issued upon petition by the NGO or the Public

Attorney’s Office, appealing to the provisions of the regulations of child detention provided for

under the Act. NGOs and civil society organizations and the Public Attorney’s office continue to

petition courts to release children wrongfully detained, and who are under the age of 15 years

of age.

Police stations have designated child and youth relations officers, that specialize in the

handling of children who become involved with the justice system, even so, reports indicate that

procedural rules concerning children are often not respected. The Department of Social Welfare

and Development (DSWD) has implemented community based programs to protect children who

become involved with the justice system from violence, abuse and other human rights violations.

In 2007, 2,759 children benefited from community based and center based sentencing

alternatives. 62% of males benefitted from community based programs. It was noted that girls

were more equally distributed among center based and community based programs than males.

d. Diversion Programs from Selected NGOs

The Community Based Diversion and Prevention Program in Cebu City 17 . This program was

initiated before the adoption of the law in 2003, as a pilot project in 12 barangays in Cebu City,

implemented by the local NGO, FREELAVA (Free Rehabilitation, Economic, Education and Legal

Assistance Volunteers Association).

A Children’s Justice Committee (CJC) is a trained group, that handle the diversion of eligible

children, most commonly through mediation. The CJC is composed of members of the Barangay

Council, the police, the school guidance councilor, the social worker, the Gender and

Development Project officer (GAD), as well as community volunteers. The CJC recommends

appropriate interventions and support services for the child at hand and implements these

programs, the CJC is also responsible for following up on the implementation of the Diversion

program and keeping records of the developments of the case. The CJC is a coordinates with the

Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC).

The GAD officer assists in preparing the assessment of the child, including interviewing

the child, in order to determine appropriate diversion, rehabilitation and reintegration programs.

The Social Worker also assists in conducting counselling sessions and preparing cases, as well as

liaising with families. Furthermore, the social worker is engaged in implementing the

psychosocial interventions that the child might need.

Community volunteers and Peer Educators are vital in the rehabilitation and reintegration

stages of the program, as well as in tertiary prevention, in other words to prevent re-offending,

as a follow-up mechanism through peer counselling. The appropriateness of community

17 Free Rehabilitation, Economic, Education and legal Assistance Volunteers Association inc. and Save the
Children UK, Guidelines for a Community-based Diversion and prevention programme for Children in Conflict
with the Law, Philippines, 2005
volunteers is assessed in accordance to a set of criteria, such as, knowledge of their leadership

qualities, their respected positions in the community and their willingness to be a volunteer.

Former child offenders serve as peer educators and are good role models for children undergoing

diversion, that encourage children to change their lives. This is often done in informal settings,

where personal sharing is a central feature. Engaging peer educators is also an effective

rehabilitation and tertiary prevention tool, that ensures that children who have been involved

with the justice system are able to regain social recognition and respect, connected to a positive

lifestyle, thereby building their self-esteem18.

The Police is a crucial role player, as the officer’s affiliation ensures that police will pass

eligible children directly through the CJC, so that eligible children may avoid pretrial detention.

School guidance counsellors assist children who have returned to school, to ensure that they do

not reoffend.

“Community-based prevention of child offending and reoffending is a continuing process.

Hence it cuts across the entire process of the community-based diversion work.”

“To rehabilitate a diverted CICL, the CJC undertakes various psychosocial interventions

such as, but not limited to, case monitoring, follow-up and continuous counselling, peer

education, values formation, and formal education. “

“The reintegration process, through other forms of psychosocial interventions facilitated

by the CJC, aims to bring the offending child back into the community-to a life of “normalcy” and

social acceptance, and where children’s rights and welfare are protected and upheld.”

18
P 107 Save the Children UK, “Back on Track: Making Community-Based Diversion Work for Children in
Conflict with the Law, A documention of Freelava’s experience in Cebu City, Philippines”, Philippines, 2005
“Rehabilitation and reintegration activities are best conducted in the family community

continuum for an offending child to rectify his/her negative behavior towards a productive and

independent life later on.” 19

e. Situation of Children in the Philippines

i. Children in the Philippines

The Philippines is considered as a diverse nation with an indigenous population of about

12 million of which 5.1 million are children20. These children often live in remote areas with

limited infrastructures and access to basic services.

Poverty is resilient in Filipino community and further complicated in rapidly growing

urban settings, for example in Metro Manila, an approximate 20% reside in informal housing21.

Children from impoverished households are often victims of extreme forms of child labor such

as prostitution or are recruited in armed forces. The effects of poverty are also visible through

the large amount of children living and working on the streets in the Philippines, even though

most are not visible, there are an estimated 246,111 children living and working on the streets,

between the ages of 0-17 years old22.

Children are not exempt from the extreme expression of violence that affect the

Philippines, where arbitrary extrajudicial killings are common, street children are often victims

19
Free Rehabilitation, Economic, Education and legal Assistance Volunteers Association inc. and Save the Children
UK, Guidelines for a Community-based Diversion and prevention programme for Children in Conflict with the Law,
Philippines, 2005
20
“Situation of the Filipino Children”, Subaybay Bata Macro Monitoring System, Council for the Welfare of
Children, Philippines, 2012
21
P 5 UNICEF Philippines Country Report
22
Situation of the Filipino Children
of summary executions and other targeted violence. The PREDA foundation and other NGOs

report that children suspected of committing petty crimes are targets for death squads and

very likely shot. Philippines also suffers from the effects of armed violence, and an estimated

30,000- 50,000 children are displaced by armed conflict annually23.

ii. Children in Conflict with the Law in the Philippines

The typical profile of a child who becalmed engaged with the justice system in the

Philippines is typically that of the male population; between the ages of 14-17 years old; with a

low level of education; is a school drop-out; comes from large low income families; engaged in

vices such as drugs and alcohol; and has been charged with property related crime.24 The use of

rugby is very common among youth gangs and children who become involved with the violations

of the law. 95% of the children who became involved with the justice system in 2010 were boys.

The Council for the Welfare of Children identifies a growing phenomenon of gangsterism in

rapidly developing urban areas.25 In fact, the areas that represent the highest crime rates are

urban areas.

Children who become involved with the justice system are commonly detained with

adults, as most prison here in the Philippines lack separate detention facilities for children.

Children in detention are often deprived of their basic rights, and forced to be retained in very

poor conditions, in overcrowded prisons, without access to adequate food and water, basic

23
Situation of the Filipino Children
24
Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities; National Report Philippines, UNICEF, Makati City Philippines, 2010
25
“Situation of the Filipino Children”
health care services, education and sanitation. 26 Reports show that children in detention are

victims of grave violations, such as sexual abuse, torture, the use of deadly force, forced labor,

exploitation and trafficking.

iii. Age of Discernment

One of the most controversial issues in juvenile justice as of the moment is the lowering

of the Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility (MACR). There is a big disparity around the world

on what the proper age is, and even within nations, differences subsist depending upon the

nature of the crime and the jurisdiction. In the Philippines, Republic Act 9344 or the Juvenile

Justice Welfare Act Section 6 on the Minimal Age of Criminal responsibility states that “A child

fifteen (15) years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt

from criminal liability.

There are current movement in the legislature to lower the MACR from 15 to 9 years old,

and actions on amending the Republic Act No. 10630 or An Act Strengthening the Juvenile Justice

System in the Philippines and the Republic Act 9344 otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice And

Welfare Act of 2006 that places the nation in the forefront of Asian progress on juvenile justice.

The law, the first of its kind in Asia, was overtly passed to bring the country closer to its obligations

as a signatory of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and pursuant

to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution and Philippine special laws on protecting children.

Also, the UNCRC as stated in a 2007 general comment that “Children’s rights in juvenile justice

26
Global Study op.cit
states that ‘a minimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12 years is considered by

the Committee not to be internationally acceptable.

The proposed amendment to the 2006 Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act would lower the

age of criminal responsibility – the age in which children can be deemed criminally responsible

for their behavior to 9 years old. This is also a direct contravention of the recommendation from

the UNCRC, which has urged states to set the age of criminal responsibility at 14 to 16 in order

to contribute to a juvenile justice system that is in accordance with the Convention on the Rights

of the Child.

This amendment also contradicts in the statement based on the Rule 4 of the Beijing Rules

that recommends that the beginning of MACR shall not be fixed at too low an age level, bearing

in mind the facts of emotional, mental and intellectual maturity. In the light of this rule, the CRC

has also recommended States parties not to set a MACR at a too low level and to raise the existing

low MACR to an internationally acceptable level. From these recommendations, it can be

concluded that a minimum age of criminal responsibility below the age of 12 years is considered

by the CRC not to be internationally acceptable.

iv. Challenges and shortcomings

In its concluding observations the Committee on the Rights of the Child (the Committee)

noted the positive development of the adoption of the Act, however pointed out that despite its

existence children who become involved with the justice system still do not “effectively have
legal safeguards”, noting in particular the high number of children deprived of their liberty27. The

Committee noted the “limited use of diversion and the alleged widespread practice of pretrial

detention”28, despite the fact that the Act prohibits the use of pretrial detention except as a

“measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time”.

The Act as such institutes the framework for the juvenile justice system, in identifying

various role players, procedures and the rights of children in conflict with the law, however it

does not constitute a separate justice system for children. The Committee notes with concern

that there is a lack of specialized courts for children as well as specialized professionals, and notes

that, despite the Act specifically prohibiting the detention of children with adult offenders, this

is still a common practice. Children are therefore commonly found in detention with adults, in

deplorable conditions, without access to basic services and needs. The urgent need to ensure the

effective implementation of the Act was reiterated in 2012 during the discussions on the

Philippines’ report to the Universal Periodic Review in the Human Rights Council. It was noted

that following the adoption of the Act and the issuance of Executive Order no 633, the number

of children deprived of their liberty decreased, however the release of children having committed

minor offences should continue in accordance with the Act and the Executive order.

As noted by the Global Study, the Act foresees that implementation of its provisions

should be on a local level through the LGU, however this process will take time, due to the

immense number of LGUs that need to be instituted, as “there are 81 provinces,136 cities, 1’495

27
Par 80 United Nations, Committee on the Rights of a Child, Fifty-second session, Concluding Observations, The
Philippines
28
Par 90 CRC Committee
municipalities, and 42’008 barangays”29. Another example of the lack of normative acceptance

the Act has among judicial practitioners is that the Act provides protection for girls to be

protected from being charged for prostitution, however, there are reports indicating that girls

are systematically rounded up, under the assumption that they are prostitutes30.

Another worrying trend is the move toward once more lowering the minimum age of

criminal capacity, which the Committee and the UPR working group, as well as NGOs and civil

society organizations, strongly positioned themselves against. The Philippine Action for Youth

Offenders (PAYO) a collective organization for NGOs and civil society organizations working for

the rights of children who become involved with the justice system, points at social

misconceptions that increased crimes amongst minors is due to the lax provisions of the act.

There are consistent reports indicating that pretrial detention is still the norm when a child is

accused of having violated the law, and the pretrial detention period ranges between 2 weeks

and 2 months on average. In which time children are subject to multiple forms of extreme

violence, the DSWD has developed programs to assist children who have become involved with

the justice system, however, implementation of these services, is only possible once the DSWD

is informed of the case. Practice indicates that the DSWD is not informed of the case until the

case has passed to the Family Court which then contacts the DSWD31.

29
P 92 Global Study
30
Child Rights Coalition, “Philippines-Child Rights Coalition Asia”, found at:
www.childrightscoalitionasia.org/southeast-asia/philippines
31
Coalition to Stop Child Detention through restorative Justice (Philippines), “Philippines: Continuing Child
Detention with Adults in police Lockups, Arbitrary Detention of “Rescued” Street Children, and Extrajudicial
Execution of Children Accused of Violating the Law, Submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child,
52nd Session, 14 Septemeber-2 October 2009, Switzerland
 IV. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Figure 1: The seven elements and five main types of actors in ensuring a system that works best for children32

Over recent years there has been a growing recognition of the limitations of a fragmented

approach to child protection, which traditionally focused on specific child protection issues. The

report from the UN Secretary’s Study on Violence Against Children recommended that ‘all States

develop a multi-faceted and systematic framework in response to violence against children which

is integrated into national planning processes.33 This was re-emphasized in the Machel Study 10-

Year Strategic Review34 which recommended the development of national systems and capacity

building to protect children against violence, exploitation and abuse following the departures of

international actors in emergency and conflict-affected situations. Since then, numerous

agencies, such as UNICEF, Save the Children and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for

32
Bill Forbes, 2011

33
P.S. Pinheiro, World Report on Violence Against Children (2006), UNICEF p18.
34
UNICEF, Machel Study 10-Year Strategic Review: Children and Conflict in a Changing World (2009), pp100–101.
Refugees (UNHCR), have been investing considerable energy and resources in defining and

implementing a systems approach to child protection35 . It is hoped, therefore, that this paper

will contribute to the ongoing fruitful dialogue between agencies, organizations, governments

and other stakeholders about a systems approach to child protection that includes CICLs. A

systems approach to child protection requires a considerable conceptual shift from the

traditional stand-alone programming focus on particular groups of children in need of protection,

to the achievement of more sustainable, comprehensive and long-term responses to child

protection issues. A systems approach addresses child protection more holistically, brings greater

focus on prevention, and strengthens the critical roles and assets of the key actors responsible

for child protection. These key actors include government, civil society, parents, caregivers,

families and other community structures – which together provide formal, and informal child

protection mechanisms and services

Adopting a systems approach does not eliminate the need for some specific issues-based

programming targeting the most vulnerable children. A systems approach to child protection is

sufficiently flexible and robust to implement a wide range of interventions for the benefit of all

children in various situations, while simultaneously addressing, promoting and advocating for the

interests of significantly under-represented, marginalized or vulnerable children in a particular

situation or context. Even when focusing on a particular child protection issue, a systems

approach seeks to do the following:

35
UNICEF has published Adapting a Systems Approach to Child Protection: Key Concepts & Considerations, Chapin-Hall (2009);
Protection System: Comprehensive Mapping and Assessment Toolkit and A Concept Note on Child Protection Systems
Monitoring and Evaluation, Chapin-Hall (2010). Save the Children Fund has published several papers on child protection
systems and child protection systems in emergencies. To access these resources, go to
http://resourcecentre.savethechildren.se/. UNHCR’s ExCom Conclusion on Children at Risk, No. 107(LVIII) - 2007 addressed child
protection systems.
 - address child protection issues in a comprehensive and sustainable manner

- affirm the role of parents and caregivers as the first responsible for care and

protection of children

- affirm the responsibility of the government to guarantee the care and protection

of children,

- protecting and fulfilling children’s protection rights outlined in the United Nations

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and other international human rights instruments

strengthen the protective environment for all children.

Each nation’s child protection system is unique and made of formal and informal

elements appropriate to its context. Formal elements are established or sanctioned by the

government and guided by laws, regulations and policies. Informal elements do not have

state/government mandates for protective functions. Instead, they are shaped by attitudes,

values, behaviors, social norms and traditional practices in society. The boundaries between

formal and informal elements will depend on the particular country context. For example, some

of the formal elements of the system, such as services, may be provided or implemented by non-

state/informal providers. Where the government has no capacity or fails to put in place adequate

protective services and mechanisms, civil society or other bodies may act on their own to fill in

the protection gaps, or may be requested by the government to do so. However, even where the

formal elements of the system are strong, the informal elements still play a significant role in

ensuring that children are protected. There is no universal consensus on the definition of child

protection systems.
Elements of a child protection system

1. Laws, policies, standards and regulations determine the system’s structures, mandates

and functions.

2. Services and service delivery mechanisms which provide protection for children.

3. Capacities to provide and perform the child protection services, including capacity

building, human and financial resources, and adequate infrastructure.

4. Cooperation, coordination and collaboration mechanisms ensuring that all elements of

the system, formal and informal, across different sectors and level (global, national and

local) work in a holistic and coordinated manner to ensure protection of children.

5. Accountability mechanisms to ensure that the system is effectively responding to key

child protection concerns and functioning according to the CRC, relevant laws and in the

best interest of the child.

6. Circle of care includes positive and protective attitudes, values, behaviours and

traditional practices; and a caring, supportive and protective immediate social

environment.

7. Children’s resilience, life skills and participation which strengthen children’s ability and

opportunity to contribute to their own protection and that of others.

 V. METHODOLOGY

a. Data Collection

i. Key Informant Interview on Selected CICLs in Caloocan City

days in the
Children Age Crime center Educational Status reason for commiting crime

1 month/ Never been to gutom at kulang sa alaga ng

1 Boy D 15 Theft oftener school pamilya

2 Boy M 15 Damaged property 1 day Grade 2 Inggit

3 Boy H 15 Theft and robbery 2 days 1st year HS nagugutom
Rescue, robbery 3 days/
nagugutom
4 Boy L 13 and theft oftener Grade 3
Rescue, robbery
nabarkada/ broken family
5 Girl A 15 and theft 1 day/ oftener Grade 2
Rescue, robbery 1 days/ 2nd year High
nabarkada/ broken family
6 Girl R 15 and theft oftener School
7 Boy P 16 Rape 1 day Grade 11 bugso ng damdamin/
8 Boy J 15 Theft and robbery 1 day Grade 9 napagbintangan/ nabarkada
3rd year high
gang war/ nabarkada
9 Boy C 18 murder 2 years school

Based on the interview, there are several factors why children commit crime. Primary to

this is the pressure that is coming from their peers to do the crime and the lack of care from their

parents. Due to the deprivation of their needs, these children resorts to committing crime in

order to survive. Majority of them are also not in school or they have stopped schooling thus it

can be said that education can be a contributing factor on why these children are also committing

crimes.

Based on the interviews conducted, the children are also not familiar with the rights that

they have as stipulated in the UNCRC and the Juvenile Justice Act. They only know that they

cannot be put into jail but they do not have the full acknowledgment of the inclusion of the
policies. Also, there were mentions of physical and emotional abusive treatment towards them

by the service providers, specifically the police and the social workers in the center. This further

resulted to children not wanting to stay in centers that supposed to be taking care of them.

As observed, majority of them are already ofteners – children that are committing crimes

over and over and keeps on coming back on the same centers. It was alarming that the two

female respondents have been around different centers in Metro Manila and that they even

shared the differences on how each centers cater to their needs. Based on the interviews of the

respondents, the services and space provided in the Caloocan City Yakap Center is not as good as

other centers in Metro Manila. It was noted that they were even deprived of water, medicines

and proper spaces for recreation and rest.

It was also duly noted that the children committing crimes in Caloocan City consists of 12

-18-year-old children and majority of the cases were property related theft.

ii. Problem Tree with CICLs in Caloocan City

Qualities of a CICL
Martin Benson Reasons for children committing crime
Mayabang Barumbado Dahil sa impluwensya ng barkada
Hindi nagpapasakop sa magulang at
Minsan Mabait Magnanakaw hindi marunong sumunod
Batang hindi sumusunod sa Mahilig makipag away
patakaran sa loob ng bahay Dahil sa barkada
Kulang sa pangangalaga ng magulang
Laging palaaway Mayabang kaya ako napunta dito sa yakap bata
Hindi marunong sumunod sa Dahil sa drugs at impluwensya ng
Sumasagot sa nakakatanda magulang barkada
Nagbago matapos ang limang Marami na ang nalulong dahil sa
taon salbahe barkada
Malakas makapanukso at dahil sa
Pangarp maging pulis walang diyos impluwensya sa nkakasalamuhang tao
 Magkapamilya mapagmahal sa magulang dahil sa barkada at droga
Nagrerebelde sa magulang matulungin Dahil sa paggamit ng masamang gamot
Nagnanais ng pagbabago sumusunod sa nakakatanda Dahil marami ng snatcher
Dahil hindi nagkakaisa ang aking mga
Inggetero kapatid
Nakikita ko po ang magulang ko na
Nangungursunada nagtitinda ng bawal na gamot
Hindi nakapag aral
Hindi sumusunod sa magulang

The researcher conducted a focused group discussion through a workshop and problem

tree among 10 children different that of the respondents of the key informant interview. These

children are all male and consists of 12 – 18 years old.

The researcher first asked the qualities that they commonly known of CICLs and based

from the conducted workshop, majority of the children responded that they do not follow order

from their parents and that they do not have a proper attitude towards other people. Meanwhile,

some of them also answered that as CICLs, they also wanted to be good to their families and that

they would also like to change their lives and have a family.

Majority of the known reasons why the respondents engaged in crime is because of peer

pressure and the usage of drugs which is quite alarming. It was duly noted that there were

children who have engaged in using drugs because of the influence of their parents.

It could then be concluded that based from the responses from the children, the main

reason why they commit crimes as children is because of peer pressure. It only means that the

influence of the people around them greatly affects the attitude and approach of children in their

life.
 iii. Key Informant Interview with selected Government Agencies with CICL

interventions

Common reasons of
children committing
Position crime Common cases on CICLs handled Challenges identified
Social Worker I Neglected by parents Theft and robbery Functionality of BCPC
dysfunctional families rescues JJWC lack of training and
No supervision from curfew orientation
parents Parents do not
cooperate
Lack of social workers
Drug use Robbery and theft Lack of training
Broken family Lack of staff/ manpower
House Parent in the center

Due to the limited time of the researcher, she decided to focus on the approach of the

Caloocan City Government on juvenile justice. Based from the key informant interview conducted

with the social worker and house parent from the Yakap Center, there were only 5 social workers

catering and giving services to all children in all the almost 200 barangays in Caloocan City. Due

to the limitation of the Social Workers and the disparity on the proportion of children to receive

service and the social workers that supposed to give services to the children, it can be noted that

obviously, the implementation of the law is not fully recognized in the local level. It was also

mentioned by the Social Worker that trainings seldom come in the city and they have very limited

manpower in cascading them to the local. It can also be noted that they do not have a set up

Juvenile Justice Welfare Desk in the city and that the BCPC is also not functional, giving too much

gap in the implementation of the juvenile justice welfare act.

 The Social Worker also mentioned that they are getting enough support from the LGU

and that the incumbent mayor is very supportive of the programs of JJWC and DSWD for CICLs,

however, it does not reflect in the center where in they keep and take care of the children. Also,

no proper retribution is being done to the children as the method being used by the house

parents, social workers and police to discipline the children is through harmful practices. It was

noted in the interview that due to the behavior of the children, the socials workers, house parents

and police assigned to CICLs are doing physical and emotional harm to the welfare of the children.

As per their experience, if there are uncontrolled quarrels inside the center, the social worker

will immediately call the police and beat them physically. It was also the personal experience of

the researcher wherein she heard and saw how poorly the children are being treated inside the

center.

However, based from the social workers, they see that the intervention and care of the

community especially the parents will give a different light to the treatment of this children. It

has been a big challenge for the social workers to convince parents to take care and watch out

their children due to many reasons. It was then suggested more social workers should be working

in the area and that there should be in depth training given to them. Interventions should also

be given to parents through encouraging them and giving them livelihood so they could take care

of their children.

b. Data Analysis

The Philippines is an example of a diverse set of engaging parties that have initiated

promising community-based initiatives for primary, secondary and tertiary prevention.

 Public debate is testament to the need of comprehensive disaggregated data on children

who become involved with the justice system, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of

interventions and programs. The researcher, being a former development worker even had a

hard time securing for disaggregated and updated data from the government agencies involved.

Capacity building amongst judicial officers is very crucial in implementing the legislated

appropriate processes of dealing with children who are accused or suspected of having violated

the law. Social workers should be given appropriate and immense training in taking care of these

children as well as police officers should also be involved in making sure that children are being

treated properly and that they should not resort in harming the children’s welfare just because

of their unruly behavior. It is alarming that our government workers are the same people harming

the children in the center, thus there should be proper intervention and guidance on how these

service providers should properly treat the children in their best interest.

Obviously, the Philippines being one of the countries who were able to comply with the

international standards do have a good law on juvenile justice. Separate facilities and judicial

courts for children, need urgently to be set up in order to curb the negative effects entailed in

involving with the justice system as a child.

The juvenile justice system set up by the law, is one in keeping with international

standards on the rights of the child as well as juvenile justice and containing innovative and

forward striving provisions on diversion and child participation. The DSWD has also developed a

comprehensive set of guidelines for the implementation of diversion for children who become

involved with the justice system. The contents of the law, can be said to coincide with the
provisions on juvenile justice contained in the CRC, and the law reflects a “buy in” in to the

arguments and findings of the CRC Committee and the UN Study, that restorative justice is a

practice that derives from the rights of children in conflict with the law, in respect of the principle

of the best interest of the child, and in line with the general principles of the CRC. In this way the

Juvenile Justice Act has “given way” to restorative justice rather than “traditional objectives of

criminal justice, such as repression/retribution”.

As observed, there is a great implementation gap between what the law stipulates, and

how the law really works, in other words, how children in conflict with the law are really treated.

Based on the information provided we can conclude that there is a group of organized actors

that adhere to and support the provisions of the law, and in extension, also the international

standards on restorative justice for children, this being the government, as legislator, and the

DSWD, international and national NGO’s and civil society organizations.

The government and the DSWD use the law to leverage change, and to administer

administrative orders, to improve the situation of CICL, adopting the concept of privileging a

restorative approach, from a retributive approach to criminal offending by children. However,

these efforts and discursive exercises, has limited normative and authoritative reach among

judicial practitioners. In this sense they have limited effectiveness in strengthening children’s

access to restorative forms of justice.

There is a direct flow of normative corroboration between legislator, government, DSWD

and human rights organizations, however this normative authority has very limited authoritative

reach to other groups, such as local government, or barangays, that have very limited buy in, to

the concept of restorative justice. The law, elaborates on how restorative justice measures
should be implemented through the local barangay structures, and rather clearly identifies

responsible parties on a local level, however this has had limited effect on how justice is

performed locally. The implementation process as intended through the law, does not seem to

correspond to the practical reality of exercising a normative authority from above into the “micro

social interactions” that take place in almost the 42,000 barangays in the country. Not only

barangays seem to not have the “normative expectations” toward justice or the justice system,

as is held by the law. Rather severe forms of violence are routinely practiced, and harsh

punishments administered to children who are found to have committed an offence. Social

perception of child offending also reflects a negative and harsh perception of CICL, that supports

“getting tough” on juvenile crime through retributive forms of justice.

The Philippines being a country prone to natural disaster, with high incidences of

violence and crime, have very uncertain economic situations for a large part of the population.

The daily reality of community members, will shape the sense they have that they have access to

safety and justice. The continued brutal treatment of children in conflict with the law, reflects

this perception and the normative expectations that come with it, for example, that safety is

maximised through “getting tough” on crime. Even though studies and policy outcome, do not

support such a finding. In such cases the argument can be made that people will want real results,

that they can feel and therefore relate to before they fully adhere to a normative expectation

that restorative justice is more effective than a retributive system, to deal with the issue of

juvenile delinquency. In this sense the effectiveness of local pilot projects will have a great long-

term effect toward renegotiating those normative expectations. These social economic

circumstances will also shape the perception the public have on the reasons underlying juvenile
delinquency, and as long as child offenders are seen as anti-social criminals, the general attitude

that favors a retributive system of justice will not change. NGOs and international organizations

point out that it is necessary to undertake awareness raising campaigns in order to effectively

implement a restorative juvenile justice system, as it entails a change of paradigm, a totally other

way of thinking about what justice is, for which broad programs of public education will be

necessary in order to shift normative expectations and adherences.

The effective implementation of a restorative juvenile justice system, is further hampered

by limited economic resources to enforce the law. The law tries to bridge this gap by providing

for the economic upkeep of the system, through local government funding. However, this does

not seem to have local acceptance. The government would need to allocate more resources in

order to ensure effective implementation of the particular formulations of the law. At this point

the actors that support this normative perception, have at their disposal, persuasion as their

strongest asset, as coercion would require economic back-up. One might therefore draw the

conclusion that the implementation of restorative justice is ineffective, however there are clear

indications that the normative expectations concerning child offending, are constantly being

renegotiated, this can be seen in the discussions on the proposal to lower the minimum age of

criminal responsibility, that has, as of yet, not passed in parliament. This indicates that the

drafting and adoption of the new legislation, was a step toward shifting the discursive weight

toward a juvenile justice that encompasses restorative justice as a central feature. In effect it

represents a “nodal point” which partially fixes the common normative perceptions.
 VI. CONCLUSION

Despite these major implementation gaps, largely attributed to an under resourced

justice system, challenges are met by innovative legislative provisions, an engaged corps of NGOs,

civil society organizations, community members, and government officials who are committed

towards improving the system. Even though implementation gaps are significant, and reports by

NGOs and civil society organizations including that of the observation of the researcher and

responses from the government agencies involved, are testament to the fact that there is weak

implementation of its provisions on a local level, the fact that there is this strong basis, gives

significant leverage to NGOs and civil society organizations to work together with the

government agencies to improve the situation of children who become involved with the law.

It can therefore be concluded that despite the compliance of the Philippines to the

International Standards and despite the country having good policies on Children in Conflict with

the Law, there is still a big gap in its implementation in the local level because institutions that

supposed to be taking care of children are not properly set up and he service providers who are

supposed to be taking care of children do not receive proper training on how to properly deal

with children committing crime.

 VII. POLICY RECOMMENDATION

The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means their

irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult. From a moral standpoint

it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater

possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed.

The researcher calls on the government and non-government stakeholders to:

1. Take all necessary and concrete measures to ensure that the age of criminal responsibility

is not lowered, and to consider the crucial role of defining the age of discernment of

children involved in crimes;

2. Provide diversion or intervention program that is rights-based, age and developmental

appropriate to children in conflict with the law. Every municipality/province should have

its own youth detention home for CICL that comply to standards and provide adequate

budgetary allocation for it;

3. Strengthen the monitoring of the plight of children in conflict with the law, especially

those already detained or imprisoned. Children, particularly those who have committed

minor offenses should be released immediately;

4. Strengthen advocacy to properly implement the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act as

amended by RA 10630 among local officials, law enforcers and service providers. Parents

and children at the community should also be oriented on JJWA;

5. Solicit support from the Local Government Units to establish and make their Local Council

for the Protection of Children/ Barangay Council for the Protection of Children functional;

and;

6. Strengthen the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC), as the agency mandated to

oversee the implementation of the JJWA as amended by RA 10630, and its Regional

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Committee.