Ladies and gentlemen, your honors, good evening.

As much as we would like to argue the conventional

perception of the law, the novelty of issue at hand compels us to innovate concepts of law in order to give life
and meaning to the the law itself. The issue at hand is simple, whether or not to reduce criminal liability to 9
years of age. Well, based on the arguments of my co-affirmative, we strongly believe so. While the intent of
protection of the Filipino youth may be highly laudable, its effects have had the opposite effectsthe pampering
of youthful offenders who commit crimes knowing they can get away with it.
While our worthy opponents believe that lowering the age of criminal liability is unnecessary, they believe that
9 years of age is too young and tender to accept such liability. Well, at common law, juveniles were entitled to
a presumption of incapacity, yes, BUT they were subject to criminal liability on an individualized basis: the
demonstrated malice supplied the want of years or the Malice supplies age doctrine. One cannot assess the
culpability of particular defendants unless one considers, without artful euphemisms or convenient elisions,
what they did. And what certain crimes reveal is that that there are violent juvenile offenders, who are as least
as mature and culpable as the typical adult violent offender. This is what Art 12 paragraph 3 says particularly on
the phrase, unless he acted with discernment. If the offender have not acted with discernment, it is the court
to determine.
Second, on the contention of the negative side about the treaty of UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, it
stated there in Article 1 that, For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being
below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. So there is
a possibility that majority can be lowered, so was criminal liability. There are also treaties entered by the
Philippines which we do not follow religiously. There are also countries that entered certain treaties but do not
follow them, citing US who is primary country who supports human rights, has death penalty. Therefore treaties
can also be ratified.
Moreover, our opponents believes that the syndicates should be punished and not the children. Well, our
legislators are not that blindfolded, not totally because there is already an act for that. RA 10630, section 6
amending section 20-C of RA 9344 states that Any person who, in the commission of a crime, makes use, takes
advantage of, or profits from the use of children shall be imposed the penalty prescribed by law for the crime
committed in its maximum period. Clearly, the contention of our opponents has already been stipulated in our
laws.
Our key note here is early reformation. If not lowered to 9 years of age, it makes children grow up without a
sense of accountability since they are not punished for crimes they commit. Those children below 15 years of
age who are exempted from liability are released without undergoing necessary intervention programs. In terms
of facilities, RA 10630 provides appropriation of Php400M to construction of Bahay Pag-asa rehabilitation
centers in provinces and cities with high incidence of children in conflict with law. The said Act also provides
intensive juvenile intervention and support center for CICL. So there is no problem for a child in conflict with
law aging 9-15 years because we have laws creating such facilities.
On the final note, what we contend is not putting to jail these CICL ages 9-15. What we want to imply is that as
early as 9 years of age or above, not exceeding 15 years will be reformed earlier. If the judgement is acquittal,
then good. If the judgement is conviction, there is intervention program to help them be molded to become
good citizens in this society. If a child is convicted, there is a record but it is concealed. It could not be used
against the child. If they get a court clearance, they would still be cleared. That is the good provision in the law,
pro-child.
Hence, the proverb professes, As the twig is bent the tree inclines. Even things with guidance, like airplanes
or rockets, start out in a particular direction. The longer they go in one direction, the more difficult it is to change
the ultimate destination. Ultimately, this quote is about children, and how they are raised. If they are raised
correctly, which clearly depicts early reformation in our arguments, they will do well in their society. If they
are allowed to misbehave from the beginning, it will be much harder to correct their behavior later in life.
In that, I rest my case. Thank you.
 Youre taking my time Mr. ____, please have some respect to rules and regulations.
1.) Suppose that a 12 year old child stabbed one of your family member, would you wanted to exempt him
from criminal liability and be freed instantly?
2.) So you want to let him be free knowing he did a wrong doing?
3.) Going back to your childhood, particularly in ages 15 years below, if you would happen to have commit
a wrongdoing, getting money from the wallet of your mom for example, would you feel guilty?
*wow what a conscience
4.) So would you be guiltier if your mom caught you or knew what you did?
*sarcastic laugh, quite a childhood
5.) So, do you concur that you acted wrong in getting money from you mom?
6.) At age 9, do you already know that theft is bad?
7.) Your parents did [not] tell you?
8.) In case you committed raped at age below 15, do you know what youre doing?
9.) If you committed a serious crime, do you wanted to be reformed?
10.) Do you wanted to be reformed earlier?
11.) So you do [not] believe that an action must be taken immediately?
12.) Suppose that, if you happen to encounter your delinquent 12 year old self, would you condone
your wrong doing?