Seeds of Hope Final

Learning from Programs for CICL of Cordaid Partner Organizations
SEEDS OF HOPE
CORDAID and the

PSYCHOSOCIAL SUPPORT AND CHILDREN’S RIGHTS RESOURCE CENTER
eds of H o p e :
Se Programs for CICL
arning from rganizations
Le id Partner O
of Corda Arnie C. Trinidad
Beatriz A. Torre
SEEDS OF HOPE
Copyright 2011
Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights
Resource Center and Cordaid
All rights reserved.
This book may be reproduced, as a whole or in part,

provided acknowledgement of the source is made.
It would be appreciated if the authors and the publishers
are informed at pstcrrc@gmail.com.
Cordaid assisted in financing this publication

and its distribution.
ISBN 978-971-95052-0-4
PUBLISHED BY
Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights
Resource Center and Cordaid
EDITOR: Johnifer G. Batara

BOOK PROJECT COORDINATOR: Faye G. Balanon
COVER DESIGN, ILLUSTRATIONS, and LAYOUT: Ariel G. Manuel
Recommended entry:
Trinidad, Arnie C.
Seeds of hope: Learning from programs for CICL of Cordaid
partner organizations/ Arnie C. Trinidad…[et. al. ]—Quezon
City: Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights Resource
Center and Cordaid, c2011.
109p.
1. Juvenile justice—Philippines. 2. Child welfare—

Philippines. I. Torre, Beatriz A. II. Title.
Contents
Acronyms ................................................................................................................. v
Preface ..................................................................................................................... vi
Cordaid and its Partners ..................................................................................... viii
Summary ................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter One: The Juvenile Justice Welfare Act (JJWA)in context ................ 1
Issues concerning the JJWA ............................................................................ 2
Lack of Strong Supporting Mechanisms ....................................................... 3
Shortcomings of barangays ............................................................................. 4
A Misunderstood Law ..................................................................................... 5
A Myopic View of Children and their Rights ............................................... 6
A beacon of hope for CICL ............................................................................. 7
Chapter Two: Education as Prevention ............................................................. 9
The Context ....................................................................................................... 9
The Response .................................................................................................... 10
The Process ....................................................................................................... 11
Responding to the needs of the communities ............................................ 12
Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 15
Ongoing Challenges ......................................................................................... 17
Lessons Learned .............................................................................................. 18
Chapter Three: Organizing Children on the Streets ....................................... 19
The Context ...................................................................................................... 19
Pangarap Foundation in Paliparan, Cavite ................................................. 22
The Process ...................................................................................................... 24
Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 25
Ongoing Challenges ........................................................................................ 26
Tambayan Center in Davao City ................................................................... 27
The Process ...................................................................................................... 28
Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 30
Challenges ......................................................................................................... 31
Lessons Learned .............................................................................................. 33
SEEDS OF HOPE
Chapter Four: Training Barangay Officials in the

Processes of the JJWA ................................................................................ 35
The Context ...................................................................................................... 35
The Response .................................................................................................... 39
The Process ...................................................................................................... 40
Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 44
Ongoing Challenges ........................................................................................ 46
Lessons Learned ............................................................................................. 49
Chapter Five: Rescue and Rehabilitation of CICL .......................................... 51
The Context ...................................................................................................... 51
The Response ................................................................................................... 55
The Process ...................................................................................................... 55
Outcomes ......................................................................................................... 60
Challenges ......................................................................................................... 61
Lessons Learned ............................................................................................. 62
Chapter Six: Strengthening Community Structures ...................................... 65
The Context ..................................................................................................... 65
The Response ................................................................................................... 68
The Process ...................................................................................................... 69
The role of BCPCs in dealing with cases of CICL ..................................... 71
Outcomes .......................................................................................................... 73
Ongoing Challenges ......................................................................................... 74
Lessons Learned .............................................................................................. 76
Chapter Seven: Reflections on Why Programs for CICL Work ................... 77
What makes a Juvenile Justice Program effective? ................................... 79
Impact ............................................................................................................... 80
Relevance ........................................................................................................... 83
Replicability ...................................................................................................... 84
Sustainability .................................................................................................... 86
Innovation ......................................................................................................... 87
Ethical ................................................................................................................ 89
Networking and Involvement of Stakeholders .......................................... 91
Participation ...................................................................................................... 93
Challenges ........................................................................................................ 94
Works Cited ........................................................................................................... 95
Appendix 1 : Framework for Effective Programs for Children in
Conflict with the Law ................................................................................. 96
Appendix 2 : FCED’s BCPC Functionality Assessment Form ..................... 103
Endnotes ................................................................................................................ 108
Acronyms
BCPC Barangay Council for the Protection of Children

CRADLE Centre for Restorative Activities, Development
and Learning Activities
CICL Children in conflict with the law
FCED Families and Children for Empowerment and
Development Foundation
HLAF Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation
JJCICSI John J. Carroll Institute on Church and Social Issues
JJWA Juvenile Justice Welfare Act
LCPC Local Councils for the Protection of Children
MYRC Manila Youth Reception Center
NAKAMATA Nagkahiusang Kabataan Aron Katungod
Matagamtaman
POs People’s organizations
PREDA Foundation People’s Recovery, Empowerment Development
Assistance Foundation
PAYO Philippine Action for Youth Offenders
PAO Public Attorney’s Office
RA Republic Act
SK SangguniangKabataan
SLEs Structured learning experiences
UNCRC United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
v
SEEDS OF HOPE
Preface
The Cordaid Project

This publication is a product of Cordaid under its Children’s Program: Linking
and Learning Subject that encourages organizations to share experiences, lessons
learned, and the challenges they encountered in their programs.
In April 2008, Cordaid partners raised the need to document their “best practices”
in the prevention of children from coming in conflict with the law, in responding
to the needs of children in conflict with the law (CICL), and in helping them
reintegrate with their families and communities.
From this suggestion, Cordaid commissioned the Psychosocial Support and
Children’s Rights Center (PST CRRC) to document the aforementioned practices
of its partner organizations whose services range from preventive programs for
children in general to programs for children at risk, and programs for CICL.
The documentation aims for providers to learn or be inspired from the wealth of
experiences of partner organizations in delivering their services to this important
group.
While Cordaid funded the documentation of the best practices, it does not mean
these were acquired through the funding of Cordaid. Philippine NGOs usually
source funds for their projects from local and foreign funding agencies and from
government agencies. Agencies usually provide funds for some components of a
particular program of NGOs.
vi
Learning from Programs for CICL of Cordaid Partner Organizations vii
The Best Practices Documentation

There is a current discourse on the use of the term “best practices.” Several
questions have been raised: What really is a “best” practice? The best practice
criteria has been drawn and redrawn but does it capture all the possible indicators
for “best” practices? Is there really a “best” practice considering that the term
“best” implies the practice is already seamless and perfect? Programs and projects
always have room for improvement. Using the term “best practice” also implies
that the programs have been scientifically proven to work through
experimentation or through years of observation (See Appendix 1 for the Criteria
Used to Assess the Practices of Cordaid Partner NGOs). Unfortunately, few studies
have been done on the work of NGOs on such a scale, especially in the Philippines.
There is also the need to improve the collection of “hard” data for such a rigorous
research. Unfortunately, in the Philippines, as perhaps in other parts of the world
as well, one of the lapses of NGOs is to make significant documentation of their
programs and practices. While they recognize the need for this, they are often
occupied with service delivery.
Documentations are mostly in the form of reports, evaluation studies, and the
like, which are often submitted to funding agencies. Documents are usually
technical reports that contain little reflection of their experiences and the lessons
learned in the process as these only conform to the programmatic requirements
of funding agencies. These documents are not often accessible to the public since
these are internal to the organization.
In the absence of experiential documentation, we rely on the aforementioned
reports of NGOs, which serve as important preliminary data in conducting this
research. This was complemented with focal group discussions and individual
interviews.
However, despite all the issues and questions, this research will continue to use
“best practices” because it recognizes that the Philippine NGOs’ practices have
achieved a level of effectiveness in their work with CICL. Since doing one’s best
does not necessarily mean perfection, it acknowledges that programs and practices
are dynamic. Thus, there would be further progress in the delivery of services to
CICL.
SEEDS OF HOPE
Cordaid and
its Partners
The Catholic Organisation for Relief and Development Aid or Cordaid combines
more than 90 years’ experience and expertise in emergency aid and structural
poverty eradication. Cordaid is an important development organization based
in the Netherlands with a vast network of partner organizations in countries in
Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
For this project, the following Cordaid partners were involved:
FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FOR EMPOWERMENT

AND DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION
2290 President Quirino Avenue, Paco, Manila
Tel. No.: (02) 562-6997 / 561-6849 | Telefax: (02) 561-6849
Email:fcedfoundation@yahoo.com.ph
A group of professionals from multi-disciplinary backgrounds decided to establish
Integrated Social Services Enhancement Center (ISSEC) to address the needs
and issues of marginalized families in Manila City.
The group started to lay down the groundwork for an organization to address
core issues and problems of the marginalization as well as lay down the foundation
for a stable and sustainable social development organization. In 1992, ISSEC was
renamed as the Families and Children for Empowerment and Development
Foundation, Inc. (FCED). It was officially incorporated and registered as a non-
stock, non-profit service foundation. FCED motivates and facilitates self-
management and self-reliance in communities. The Foundation’s programs/
projects are focused on 13 to 25 Barangays in District V and VI (Paco and
viii
Learning from Programs for CICL of Cordaid Partner Organizations ix
Pandacan) in Manila. The programs are on community organizing, providing

livelihood opportunities, health and nutrition, educational assistance, advocacy,
and protection program.
JOHN J. CARROLL INSTITUTE ON CHURCH AND

SOCIAL ISSUES (JJCICSI)
2/F Benigno Mayo Hall (ISO Building), Social Development Complex, Ateneo
de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines
PO Box 250, U.P. Post Office, 1144 Quezon City, Philippines
Email: intersect_icsi@yahoo.com; Tel. No.: (632) 426.6001 to 30 local 4655 –
4668; Fax: (632) 426.6070; Website: http://www.jjcicsi.org/aboutus.htm
JJCICSI was established in 1984 by the Philippine Province of the Society of
Jesus to address the need to develop deep analysis and options for action
concerning current social issues. The Center tackled issues and concerns of the
disadvantaged. It focuses on research and advocacy with programs on Urban
Poverty and Governance, Church and Family Life, Environmental Economics
and Policy, and Rural Development.
PANGARAP FOUNDATION
2503 Taft Ave. cor Escobal Street, Pasay City, 1300 Metro Manila
Tel. Nos.: (02) 834-10-61 / 551-37-33; Fax: (02) 834-10-61
Email: pangarapfoundation@yahoo.com
Email: www.pangarapfoundation.org.ph
In 1989, Pangarap Foundation was established by the Sons of Mary, Ina-anak,
Inc. and the Ladies of Charity of Pasay. Pangarap Foundation, Inc. is a Gospel-
based integrated ministry for children in need of special protection and their
families. It maintains the Pangarap Shelter which provides residential shelter for
boys 8 to 17 years old where the children can stay for up to six months until the
children’s cases are resolved or are reconciled with their families. Pangarap also
maintains a drop-in shelter or a night shelter where children are offered a safe
place for the night. Pangarap’s interventions are faith-based aimed to facilitate
the healing and developing self-reliance and compassion of street children.
Pangarap also has a Street Education Program where street-educators offer
alternative education and the Community Outreach Program and After Care,
which offers educational assistance to street children living with their parents
and those who have reintegrated with their families and communities. Pangarap
x SEEDS OF HOPE
also work with the families of street children by providing the parents with courses
on parenting skills, counseling, and livelihood assistance.
PEOPLE’S RECOVERY, EMPOWERMENT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (PREDA)

FOUNDATION, INC.
Upper Kalaklan, Olongapo City 2200
Tel. No.s: (+63) 47 223 9629, (+63) 47 223 9630, (+63) 47 222 4994
Website: www.preda.org
PREDA Foundation Inc. was established in 1974 by Fr. Shay Cullen, an Irish
Columban Missionary, and Merle and Alex Hermoso. Since then it has maintained
a high profile in campaign and investigations on organized sexual exploitation of
children and on extrajudicial killings of CICL. PREDA rescues, provides
treatment to children, facilitates reintegration with families and communities,
and works to uphold justice for children who were maltreated, trafficked, and
sexually exploited. PREDA also works in preventive education, community
development, livelihood development, fair trading activities, research, among
others.
TAMBAYAN CENTER FOR THE CARE OF ABUSED CHILDREN, INC.

63 Artiaga St. Brgy. #36-D, Davao City, Philippines
Tel. Nos.: (082) 222-1025; Email: tambay@mozcom.com
Tambayan was established in 1996 by Sister Cecilia Fonacier, Ruth Lehmann,
and Edith Ong Ante Casiple to respond to the hyped-up issue of “buntogs” i in
Davao City. Currently, Tambayan works with adolescent street girls in urban
poor communities in Davao City. Tambayan, which means “hang-out” in Cebuano,
organizes girls in gangs to strengthen their inherent capacities to survive and
broaden their options to live a more meaningful life of their own choice. Tambayan
works in partnership with the girls by supporting their inherent rights to
participate in taking action on issues that affect them. Capacity-building programs
and services are provided through the drop-in center, therapy and counseling,
education, Alternative School and medical and legal support. Tambayan also
conducts social and policy advocacies on child protection issues confronting
adolescent street girls, namely, abuse and discrimination of children in the streets,
child prostitution and trafficking, juvenile justice, and summary executions.
Summary
The issue of Juvenile Justice received a lot of attention the past years. There has
been debate and changes in regulations (important moment was the passing of
the R.A. 9344 in 2006) and, as a consequence of its implementation, changes in
reality. The Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (JJWA), otherwise known as Republic
Act No. 9344, allows for intervention programs for children who are below 15
years old. It also makes possible the implementation of diversion programs for
those who are above 15 years but below 18 years old. The success of the campaign
to raise awareness on the issue of juvenile justice has prompted and inspired
family court judges to apply restorative justice on cases involving children.
Some definitions
Juv enile Justice and Welfar
Juvenile elfaree Syst
System “refers to a system dealing with children at
ystem
risk and children in conflict with the law, which provides child-appropriate
proceedings, including programs and services for prevention, diversion,
rehabilitation, reintegration, and aftercare to ensure their normal growth and
development.” [RA 9344, Section 4(m)]
Restor ativee Justice “is a principle which requires a process of resolving conflicts
ativ
Restorativ
with the maximum involvement of the victim, the offender and the community. It
seeks to obtain reparation for the victim; reconciliation of the offender, the offended
and the community; and reassurance to the offender that he/she can be
reintegrated into society. It also enhances public safety by activating the offender,
the victim and the community in prevention strategies.” [RA 9344, Section 4(q)]
xi
xii SEEDS OF HOPE
The restorative principles of the JJWA offer a lot of promise in rehabilitating

CICL and giving them a new lease on life. However, because the law has yet to be
fully implemented and is still facing opposition from certain sectors of Philippine
society, the law’s full potential has yet to be achieved.
The Philippine national and local governments displayed weak political will in
implementing the law, This can be seen in the lack of funding for the necessary
training of social workers, barangay officials, law enforcers, and other stakeholders;
the lack of institutions to help provide for the needs of CICL; and that the
implementation of the JJWA are not given due priority by the local governments.
Yet there is reason to feel hopeful. Experiences of NGOs that have traditionally
worked as partners of government in bridging its gaps in service delivery
demonstrate that the law can and does work.
During the past years Cordaid’s partner NGOs have focused on different aspects
of the implementation of RA 9344, and the prevention of children coming in
conflict with the law.
1 . Pr ev
Prev ention: The experiences of Tamba
evention: ambayyan Cent er and F
Center amilies and Childr
Families en
Children
for Empow erment and Dev
Empowerment elopment F
Development oundation (FCED) in aaw
Foundation war eness-
areness-
raising ar
aree present
present ed in this booklet. They addr
esented ess factors that place childr
address en
children
at risk for coming in conflict with the la
risk w.
law
As a result of these interventions, parents report that they have changed their
parenting and disciplinary practices within their families, which has led to
positive changes in their children’s behavior. Parents also shared that they
have become more vigilant in protecting their children from experiences and
influences that could push them to coming in conflict with the law.
Important lessons learned

• Advocacy on children’s rights should clarify that rights and
responsibilities go hand in hand. It is important to explain to children
and adults that “children’s rights” does not entitle children to “do
whatever they want” or to disregard the law completely.
• In delivering information about juvenile justice and RA 9344, it is
important to clarify the concept of “restorative justice.” Both adults and
children need to know that the processes of conflict resolution and
diversion are intended to ensure that CICL will experience humane and
non-abusive consequences for offences they have committed.
Learning from Programs for CICL of Cordaid Partner Organizations xiii
• Advocacy and awareness-raising activities should be gender-fair and

gender-sensitive. For example, when conducting sessions on parenting
practices, there should be an effort to reach out to mothers and fathers
equally.
2. In the work with youth in the streets, especia

streets, lly youth gangs, the differ
especially ent
different
approaches from P angar
Pangar ap F
angarap oundation and Tamba
Foundation ambay yan Center ar
Center aree present
presented.
esented.
Outcomes of these experiences

• Since it started working with youth gangs, Pangarap Foundation has
observed a decrease in the number of children and youth who join gangs
as well as in the number of incidence of violent conflicts between gangs
and the number of deaths from such conflicts.
• Members of gangs that Tambayan Center had worked with said they do
not engage in violent fights or “rumbles” as much as they used to. While
some conflicts still arise among the gangs (for example, disagreements
during summer camp or during NAKAMATA’s general assemblies), they
have become more capable of resolving these by talking things over.
Lessons learned
The experiences of Pangarap Foundation and Tambayan Center both highlight
the importance of a holistic approach in working with street children and youth
gangs. Both organizations have learned the importance of engaging the
participation of their target beneficiaries and other key community members
in planning and implementing these programs.
3. On the training of barangay officials in the processes of RA 9344, the
experience of JJCICSI’
JJCICSI’ss Restor ativ
ativee Justice Principle and Confer
Restorativ encing
Conferencing
and Mediation Training Progr am is pr
Program esent
present ed. One of the mor
esented. moree tangible
accomplis hments of the tr
accomplishments aining is that bar
training anga
baranga
angayy officials who once had
officials
negative attitude towards the law changed their hearts after getting a better
understanding of its principles.
4. An essentia
essentiall learning from PREDPREDA A’s Progr am of Rescuing Childr
Program en from
Children
Prisons and Giving them a Tempor ary Home is the importance of
emporary
developing a cooper
developing ativ
ativee rrelations
cooperativ elationship with loca
elationship locall socia
sociall workers who facilitat
orkers facilitatee
the release of children.
One of the strengths of the Center is its open center policy, which foregoes the
use of bars and guards to prevent children from leaving the center. Children
xiv SEEDS OF HOPE
stay because they are not forced to. They agree to stay in the center to go
through the rehabilitation program. Such commitment coming from the
personal decision of the child would incline the rehabilitation to succeed.
Additionally, Preda stresses the need to make the children admit their offense
because only then will true rehabilitation come.
5. On Strengthening Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children

(BCPCs) in communities. Results from the work of FCED are:
are:
• In areas where the BCPC is active, barangay leaders observe
improvements in the handling of CICL cases. As one barangay captain
says, “hindi na bara-bara” (the process is no longer unsystematic). Cases
are properly documented in a BCPC logbook, which is monitored by the
barangay captain, and are strictly kept confidential.
• In barangays where there are organized and functioning BCPCs, cases of
CICL are handled with the involvement of the BCPC and are usually
resolved at the barangay level through community-based diversion. The
number of cases of CICL that enter the formal justice system are
minimized.
Lessons learned
• Networking and forming partnerships with other NGOs that are already
active in FCED’s target areas have contributed to the sustainability of
the program.
• The presence of barangays with functioning and effective BCPCs can
encourage other barangays to invest in organizing their own BCPCs.
They can serve as “model” barangays in terms of upholding children’s
rights and handling cases of CICL in accordance with RA 9344.
Finally, for all these organizations involved, there are still a lot of challenges left,
which are also discussed in this booklet. It is important to share learnings and
take further steps forward to improve the work on Juvenile Justice in the
Philippines.
Chapter ONE
The Juvenile Justice Welfare

Act (JJWA) in context
In 2006, the international media outfit CNN reported the conditions of CICL in
various developing countries. The report included a segment on Filipino children
languishing in Philippine jails together with common criminals. (Global Angels,
2009)
The CNN report sparked condemnation from various sectors of Philippine society,
including children’s rights advocates from other parts of the world. This gave the
needed impetus for the passage of the then Juvenile Justice and Welfare Bill, and
to immediately get the children out of Philippine jails. Thus, the Juvenile Justice
and Welfare Act (RA 9344) of 2006 was enacted with the aim of upholding Article
40 of the UN CRC, which details the right of every child alleged as accused of,
adjudged, or recognized as having infringed the penal law to be treated in manner
consistent with the promotion of the child’s sense of dignity and worth, taking
into account the child’s age and desirability of promoting his/her reintegration.
Its passage was hailed as a significant development in upholding the rights of
CICL not only because of its adherence to the principles of restorative justice
and children’s rights but because it veers from the punitive approach in dealing
with CICL.
1
2 SEEDS OF HOPE
f
tion o ce
Defini s ti
stor ative Ju
Re equires hr
i n c i p l e whic conflicts
r
“… a p of resolving
ss
a p e maximum
r o c
he
e ctim, t
with th ent of the vi unity.
m m
involve and the com ation
e r ar
o f f e n d t o o b t a i n r e p ation
s ili
It seek ictim; reconc nded
v ffe
for the fender, the o d
of ; an
of the om munity fender
h e c of
and t c e to the
r a n
reassu he can be
/s ety. It
that he ted into soci fety by
ra sa
reinteg ances public the
h r,
also en g the offende ity in
in un
activat d t h e c o m m
a n s .”
victim o n s t r a t e g i e
t i 4
preven IC A CT 934
B L
- REPU
Issues concerning the JJWA

Hardly had the fanfare died when the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act was
criticized by people who believe it encourages and emboldens children to engage
in anti-social and illegal behaviors. There are several reasons for the criticisms:
• The general resistance to the JJWA from the public is the deeply rooted
cultural belief that in order to instill discipline children should be
punished. Thus, if a child commits a crime, spending time in jail is a just
punishment so that he or she will learn self-discipline;
• Lack of awareness, understanding, and appreciation of JJWA among law
enforcers. This is evident in a study conducted by PREDA where law
enforces failed to abide in procedures in the initial contact with CICL;
• The scarcity of resources remains a hindrance in raising awareness among
law enforcers and the public. The law was enacted but the budget needed
to implement it was scarce.
Learning from Programs for CICL of Cordaid Partner Organizations 3
Perhaps to underscore the issue on the implementation of the JJWA, the

Committee on the Rights of the Child noted the following observations:
“The Committee is concerned at the slow pace of implementation of the
JJWA (Juvenile Justice Welfare Act) and, in particular, at the number of
detained children and that children in conflict with the law do not effectively
have legal safeguards and access to medical care. The Committee also
expresses its concern at the limited use of diversion and the alleged
widespread practice of pre-trial detention of children. The Committee
further regrets the lack of specialized courts and personnel and it expresses
its serious concern at the conditions of detention of children who are often
detained with adults in overcrowded facilities in poor conditions. In
addition, the Committee is concerned at the recent initiatives to lower the
age of criminal responsibility of children.” (UN CRC, 2009, p. 23)
Due to the situations mentioned, it is evident that the problem lies not in
the principles of the law but on its implementation. Thus, people failed to
realize its potential that contributes to the rehabilitation of CICL.
Lack of Strong Supporting Mechanisms

According to a member of Cebu City’s Anti-Drug Council, “(I)t would have
been better …[if ] there is already a strong supporting enforcement at the
root-level” at the time the law was implemented.” ii
When the law was passed, the rehabilitation centers for CICL were not
prepared to accommodate the estimated 4,000 CICL who were being
processed for release from the jails at that time. Worst was in Metro Manila
where majority of the CICL were located. The children who could not be
housed in the rehabilitation centers were prematurely released to their
families and communities, which defeated the restorative justice purpose
of the law. The shortage of social workers also resulted to delays in the
release of CICL and in the failure to ensure that the children went through
restorative justice processes.
The lack of social workers remains the same but since majority of the
children have already been released, the problem has somewhat subsided.
But social workers are still faced with the challenge of overseeing
meaningful programs for these children and those who will still come in
4 SEEDS OF HOPE
The above illustrates a situation when the proper mechanisms to help children
are not fully in place. Implementing the JJWA requires the involvement of the
“five-pillars of the Philippine justice system”- the community, law enforcement,
prosecution, court, and correction - in creating a child-sensitive and rights-
based justice system. But, as mentioned earlier, there are a number of issues
that needs to be addressed such as: “weak coordination among the pillars in
handling cases; judicial procedures, starting from the interview and investigation
to trial of children as victim, witness or accused, are still largely insensitive and
inappropriate to the unique situation and psychosocial makeup of children;
training of personnel and staff particularly of the Family Courts has proceeded
at a slow pace; and slow disposition of cases due to under staffing and huge
workload.” (SCPC, 2006, p. 38)
Shortcomings of barangays
Under the JJWA, barangays play a major role in the
rehabilitation of CICL since they are mandated to
administer diversion programs for them.
At the barangay level, many council
members were (and are still) not prepared
to handle CICL cases due to lack of
awareness on the child rights framework
and processes in handling CICL. They
often come up with inappropriate
diversion programs that are
supposed to teach children
responsibility over their
actions. Many are not even
aware of such diversion
programs.
According to JJCICSI, many
barangay officials are more
concerned with financial
settlement rather than spearhead
healing relationships between
the CICL and their victims. iii
Some also do not know how
to apply the law in real settings. For instance, BCPC members who are tasked to
conduct mediation, family conference and conciliation between the CICL and
their victims have little, no training, or do not know how to conduct these. Many
do not understand the concept or value of restorative justice. Some are unaware
of the salient provisions of the law. A glaring misconception has to do with the
age of criminal responsibility. A number do not realize that children, especially
those who have reached the age of 18, can be jailed when they are convicted of a
heinous crime, which they have committed when they were above 15 and below
18 years old, and when they have been proven to have the capacity to tell right
from wrong at the time the offense was committed.
Sen. Francis Pangilinan, author of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, adds: “It
was not true that minors who committed serious offenses could not be arrested….
They may not have any liability under the criminal justice system but most
definitely they have liability under the juvenile justice system…. For special cases,
if offenses are serious, they’re not released.” He underscored the “provisions in
the law wherein, on special cases, minors who commit serious offenses might be
placed in the custody of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD). (Napallacan, 2007)
A Misunderstood Law
The failure to show positive results in reforming CICL has reinforced the
perception that the law perpetuates the anti-social behavior of children because
they are no longer put in prison when they commit a crime. There is a clear
misconception on the supposed benefits and contributions of time in jail to the
reformation of children, and a general misunderstanding of the spirit and intent
of the law.
Research has shown that jail time does not deter “criminal behavior.” In fact, it is
harmful to the child’s psychological and social well-being. David Arredondo, MD,
(Napallacan, 2007) notes that jail time can do more harm than good to a child
whose psychological, social, and moral development is still in the process.
Such misunderstanding makes people believe that children are not held
responsible for their criminal behaviors. As Pangilinan correctly pointed out,
children are still held accountable under the JJWA. What has changed is how
they are made accountable for their anti-social behaviors.
6 SEEDS OF HOPE
While some local executives may have undergone training, these are not enough
to gain deeper appreciation of the intent and spirit of the law. The reason is that
most of the trainings are one-shot deal programs that are delivered in a span of a
few days. Officials who attend trainings are not given the opportunity to
internalize the law and learn practical ways to effectively address the needs and
concerns of CICL. Regular changes in local leadership through elections
contribute to the general misunderstanding of the law as new officials take charge
of responsibilities but have yet to be trained and to understand various aspects of
people’s issues, including CICL.
A Myopic View of Children and their Rights

Children in mid-adolescence, according to literature, are most prone to offend
(Australian Institute of Criminology, n.d.) because of the way they “think and feel
and the way they process information before they act. (Arredondo, 2003)” Using
magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, researchers found that adolescents
tend to process emotionally charged decisions in the limbic system - that part of
the brain charged with instinctive (and often impulsive) reactions.” Hence,
teenagers tend to be brash with their decisions, often acting without considering
the repercussions of their actions. Compared to adults, teenagers are more prone
to break social rules because they have little regard for this in their decisions.
People also fail to consider the social factors that push children to engage in
criminal activities, which make it wrong to assume that the CICL problem is
simply a problem of discipline and behavior that can be solved by putting the
child in jail. A study conducted by the Australian Government on CICL showed
that certain risk factors predispose children to commit an offense such as substance
abuse, early school leaving, peer influence, unemployment, lack of supervision,
and individual characteristics that have to do with difficult temperaments.
(Australian Institute of Criminology, n.d.)
People also fail to consider that although children may have come in conflict with
the law this does not mean they have lost their rights as human beings and as
children.
A beacon of hope for CICL

The restorative principles of JJWA offer a lot of promise in the rehabilitation of
CICL, thus, giving them a new lease on life. However, because the law has yet to
be fully implemented and is still facing opposition from certain sectors of
Philippine society, the law’s full potential has yet to be achieved. There is reason
to feel hopeful as shown in the positive experiences of NGOs that have been
partners of the government in bridging its gaps in service delivery. They have
demonstrated that the law can and does work.
8 SEEDS OF HOPE
We see grains of hope as NGOs put into action the principles enshrined in the
JJWA. The practices of these NGOs show that the law can avert at risk children
from coming in conflict with the law and to work for the best interests of the
CICL.
The programs of these NGOs range from community crime prevention programs,
helping local government units to set-up local councils for the protection of
children, filling in the need of local government units for manpower (e.g., by
providing assistance to government social workers), and training local officials in
providing intervention and rehabilitation programs for CICL to providing
rehabilitation programs . Some NGOs also work to change people’s perceptions
and attitudes towards CICL through their advocacy programs.
The challenge lies in documenting these practices to help people realize that the
law works when the proper systems are put in place.
Chapter TWO
Education as Prevention
Awareness-raising of Tambayan Center and Families and Children for
Empowerment and Development Foundation (FCED) to address factors that
put children at risk of being in conflict with the law
The Context
Children in urban poor communities grow in an environment that poses many
challenges to their development. Many come from large families whose parents
are minimum-wage earners or are unemployed. They reside in highly congested
slum areas with inadequate access to basic services. Their families may not
afford to send them to school.
Because of these conditions, many children are constrained to become street or
working children where they face numerous risks to their physical and
psychological health, including risks of becoming CICL.
Aside from the influence that these socioeconomic realities exert on the lives of
the children, there are other factors that contribute to placing the mat risk.
These include the communities’ general awareness on children’s rights and
common parenting practices, and disciplinary practices in other institutions.
Having grown up with traditional attitudes towards children and disciplinary
9
10 SEEDS OF HOPE
practices, many parents and other adults believe that the best way to discipline
misbehaving children is through punitive actions.
Parents whose children violate curfews, use illegal substances, or join gangs usually
punish them by harsh scolding, call them names, cuss at them, or hurt them
physically. Similarly, many teachers in public schools in these areas practice
corporal punishment on misbehaving students. Unfortunately, such practices
rarely have the intended effect of teaching children what is “right” and “wrong.”
Instead, many children turn even more to substance use and street gangs as a
means of escaping from the abusive environments in their homes and schools.
This puts them at greater risk of coming in conflict with the law.
The Response
In light of this situation, NGOs like the Families and Children for Empowerment
and Development Foundation (FCED) in Manila and Tambayan Center in Davao
City are conducting an awareness-raising campaign on children’s rights and
relevant laws through community-based education sessions. The campaign is a
preventive strategy aimed at restructuring the environment of children in urban
poor communities and
minimizing the factors that put
them at risk of coming in conflict
with the law . FCED and
Tambayan believe that when
community members are
inculcated with a sense of
responsibility in upholding
children’s rights, know what
child abuse is, and know what
can be done to protect children
from abuse, the entire
community will be more child-
friendly and children will be less
likely to engage in risky and
illegal behaviors.
The Process
Education sessions typically
start with basic information to
ensure that community
members have the same
understanding of crucial
concepts. It includes the
legal definition of who is
a child as well as an
explanation of why children
are accorded special rights.
This is followed by a
discussion on the United
Nations Convention on
the Rights of the Child
(UNCRC), its main principles,
and the specific rights it accords
to children. Sessions also include
a discussion on the significant
Philippine laws for children.
Sessions for parents include
discussions on responsible
parenthood, sharing of parenting
experiences and practices, and
a discussion of common
disciplinary practices that can
be considered physically or
psychologically abusive. In these discussions, they learn the possible effects of
abuse on their children’s behavior such as joining street gangs and using illegal
substances. They are also taught “positive discipline” and on how to talk to their
children in a firm but non-abusive manner when misbehavior occurs.
A variety of methods and strategies are used to achieve the advocacy objectives.
These include lectures, video or slide show presentations, small group
discussions, structured learning experiences (SLEs), role-playing, case studies,
and games. Open forums are conducted to give participants the opportunity to
raise questions and to share their reactions. Sessions end with an evaluation by
the participants to ensure that facilitators and organizers receive feedback to
gauge the session’s efficiency and to identify points for improvement.
12 SEEDS OF HOPE
Responding to the needs of the communities

Each organization has encountered circumstances and challenges that are unique
to the communities they work in. Through their experiences, they have gained
valuable insights on how to adapt their advocacy activities to respond effectively
within a particular context.
For FCED, one major challenge is to ensure the sustainable impact of its advocacy
and awareness-raising activities on its target beneficiaries. In keeping with its
goal of empowering families and communities to take action for children’s welfare,
FCED places great importance in involving representatives of different sectors in
its advocacy campaign. Its community-based advocacy sessions are attended by
a wide range of participants that includes barangay council officials, barangay
tanods, Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) officers and members, school-aged children,
mothers and fathers, church members, local police officers, and day-care workers.
To ensure sustainability, FCED identify children and adults who can be trained
and are willing to serve as community advocates. Active members and leaders of
people’s organizations (POs) such as Mothers’ and Fathers’ Clubs and participants
of previous advocacy sessions who show interest in sharing their knowledge to
fellow community members are tapped as adult advocates. Elementary and high
school students with exemplary academic performance and experience in student
leadership are tapped as junior volunteer advocates.
These community advocates are given further training on Methods and
Techniques in Conducting Advocacy Sessions on children’s rights and relevant
laws. Experiences shared by community advocates indicate that they are effective
in reaching out to children and adults in their communities.
Another noteworthy insight from the experiences of FCED in advocacy work is
the value of engaging the participation of fathers in advocacy activities. Initially,
sessions on children’s rights and parenting in their communities were attended
predominantly by women (possibly because of an assumption that mothers play
a greater role than fathers in parenting). Over time, however, FCED staff and
community advocates were able to reach out to more and more men through
people’s organizations like Fathers’ Clubs. Fathers became increasingly aware of
their roles as parents and engaged more actively in discussions of parenting and
disciplinary practices.
FCED social workers and community advocates also talked about the challenges
in explaining the JJWA. Many community leaders and members believed that
children would “abuse” this law because they would not face any consequences
in committing illegal acts. In FCED’s experience, it was important to explain

continually how the traditional practices of detaining CICL, settling their cases
in court, and treating them with physical violence would impact on their
development, which increases the possibility of becoming in conflict with the law
again. Discussing how diversion (out-of-court settlement of cases) would enforce
consequences on CICL without violating their rights or placing them at risk
became an important part in their sessions with community members and children
as well as with barangay leaders.
On the other hand, the advocacy work of Tambayan Center for the Care of Abused
Children responds primarily to the experiences of girls who spend most of their
time in the streets of Agdao and Bangkerohan – urban poor areas in Davao City.
Business development in Davao City, which is turning into a major business hub
and tourism destination for southern Philippines, has attracted a large number
of residents from all over Mindanao and in other parts
of the country. Many of them are unable to find stable
employment and, thus, end up in slum areas. A result
of this is the proliferation of an estimated 3,000
street children who turn to the streets to make
money and to avoid physical abuses in their
homes.iv Of these, approximately 10% are girls.
Tambayan focuses on girls as the main
beneficiaries of its programs since most of the
city government’s programs for street children
caters to boys. (Tambayan, 2004) Moreover,
they observed that the girls on the streets are
at greater risk of physical and sexual abuses.
For example, when they are
involved in riots or violent conflicts
with other girls and are caught by
barangay authorities, they would
experience physical or sexual
abuses in the hands of
these authorities.
14 SEEDS OF HOPE
As part of its psychosocial services, the Tambayan Center conducts

awareness-raising and educational activities that provide information
relevant to these issues. Aside from discussing children’s rights, the
UNCRC, and the JJWA, it also discusses issues they consider relevant in
their community such as reproductive health, human trafficking, and
child pornography.
Through these sessions, the girls and those close to them learn that it is
their right to decide on what to do with their bodies. At the same time,
they acquire information about the possible consequences of being
sexually active, and the available resources to help them deal with these
consequences. The girls (as well as their parents or partners) are also
encouraged to think about and discuss the experiences, thoughts, and
feelings that led to their decision to be sexually active or be involved in
the sex industry. For example, many of the girls who where coerced in
their first sexual experiences shared that this made them feel they were
“damaged goods.” As such, the trauma results to feelings of
worthlessness, which led them to dangerous sexual practices and reckless
behavior as they see themselves of no value and, thus, expendable.
The girls also talked about the role of their peers, older relatives, and
other people who encouraged them to engage in commercial sex by
convincing them that it is their only means to earn much-needed money
for food and other necessities. Through these discussions, the girls and
the people who play important roles in their lives gain a better
understanding of the factors that have led or could lead them to such
behaviors.
Outcomes
• After each advocacy sessions, the participants express that these are
“informative” and feel that “madami kaming natutunan” (We learned a
lot). They experience a sense of “pagkamulat” (awakening) on children’s
rights, on how these rights apply to all children including CICL, and
what they can do to uphold these rights. Children learned how these
rights should be upheld and gained clearer ideas on what constitutes
violations of these rights.
• Parents report that they have changed their parenting and disciplinary
practices to their children, which led to positive changes in their children’s
behavior. “Dati ang mga tatay dito, konting pagkakamali lang ng mga
anak, palo na kaagad. Ngayon nabawasan na ang mga ganoon,” (Fathers
C E D ’s
2 1 , o ne of F
n g ay 8 lent
I n B a ra c a n , M anila, vio
Pand a used
areas in a m o n g children
d “riots” in 2008.
fights an t e very day
to occur
a lm o s embers
m m unity m
ed c o of 18
Concern n t e e r Brigade
a Vo lu ga
formed o k t u r n s guardin
ho to cur.
people w h e re th e riots oc
chool w ene in th
e
nearby s e m to interv
This ena
bled th also ll
ca
e sc a la te. They
fore it can’t
fights be is t a n c e if they
ce as s s felt
for poli . T h e v olunteer
e riots e majorit
y
handle th c ti v e becaus r e
e ff e a
they wer
e s and
a r e mother s th ir
e
of them e c h ildren. A
d by th
, “iba pa
g mga
respecte le d g e d
cknow s cite
BCPC a a r a n g a y leader
heir b mothers
nanay.” T e n t of these
the invo
lv e m as an
v o lu nteers
he r easing
and ot c t o r in the decr
nt fa
importa in their are
a.
C I C L
cases of
16 SEEDS OF HOPE
used to hit their children at the slightest mistake they made. That has
changed since there are lesser incidents of that sort,) shared a
representative from the Fathers’ Club in Barangay 821, one of FCED’s
area in Manila. Instead of the traditional punitive approach of hitting or
shouting at a child who is “pasaway,” (stubborn) they talk to the child
and take into consideration the possible reasons for his or her behavior.
According to these parents, they have observed that their children were
more likely to respond positively to these practices. They reported that
when they stopped using punitive practices and started engaging in
discussions with their children about why these behaviors are detrimental,
their children started to spend less time on the streets and lessened their
use of illegal substances like rugby.
Some parents also observed that their
children are spending more time at
home and are more willing to help in
household chores.
• Parents also shared that they are
now more vigilant in protecting
their children from bad
experiences and influences that
can push them to be in conflict
with the law. They explained that
participating in awareness-raising
activities like those of FCED and
Tambayan taught them the
importance of parents’
involvement in ensuring that
their children’s rights are upheld
and in guiding them through
difficult circumstances so they do
not come in conflict with the law.
• Barangay leaders and community
volunteer advocates shared that
children’s better awareness of their
rights is manifested in the increased
reporting of child abuse cases. Prior
to their participation in advocacy
activities, children do not know
what constitutes abuse, how to report cases of abuse, and, worse, they
deem it unsafe to report such cases. After knowing their rights and what
constitutes an abuse, the children have readily reported cases of abuse to
authorities. This is particularly true to street children and CICL who are
more vulnerable from authorities. These children have become more
empowered to report instances of abuse to members of the Barangay
Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) or to community
advocates.
• Some barangays are already observing decreased cases of CICL. Barangay
leaders in these areas assert that awareness of children’s rights and the
Juvenile Justice law has greatly contributed to this decreases. Parents
and other concerned community members have become more involved
in preventing children from engaging in behaviors (such as violent
fighting) that could put them in conflict with the law.
Ongoing Challenges
• Some community members have pre-conceived notions that NGOs that
advocate children’s rights “coddle” street children and CICL. According
to an FCED staff, some community members react negatively when they
approach. They would hear: “Ayan na ang mga kunsintidor!” (Here come
the coddlers!). In Davao City, many parents react negatively when they
find out that their children spend time at an organization called
“Tambayan,” thinking that this organization perpetuates behaviors like
drinking and rugby sniffing. Community members with such views
continue to resist participation in advocacy and awareness-raising
activities.
• Providing information about consequences in engaging in anti-social and
illegal behaviors is not adequate enough to persuade children and
adolescents to avoid them. For example, the staff of Tambayan Center
shares that even after participating in their activities, a number of the
girls they work with still use rugby and/or engage in commercial sexual
activities.
18 SEEDS OF HOPE
Lessons Learned
• In children’s rights advocacy, it should be made clear that rights and
responsibilities go hand in hand. It is important to explain to children
and adults that “children’s rights” does not entitle them to “do whatever
they want” or to utterly disregard the law.
• Similarly, in delivering information about juvenile justice and the JJWA,
it is important to clarify the meaning of “restorative justice.” Adults and
children need to know that the processes of conflict resolution and
diversion are intended to ensure that CICL do not experience humane,
non-abusive consequences for offences they have committed. Also, the
process of raising awareness on the JJWA is usually more effective when
it is done gradually. For example, by continuously visiting communities
to hold a series of education sessions.
• Advocacy and awareness-raising activities have to be gender-sensitive.
For example, in conducting sessions on parenting practices, equal effort
should be made to reach out to mothers and fathers. This ensures that
men and women are aware of the roles they play as parents in preventing
at-risk children from coming in conflict with the law. Moreover, it is
important to remember that boys and girls may face different issues (e.g.,
with regards to
their developing
bodies and their
sexuality) which
may also need to
be addressed in
these activities.
Chapter THREE
Organizing Children
on the Streets
Different approaches to working with youth gangs:
The Pangarap Foundation and Tambayan Experience
The Context
Street children – children and youth who live and/or work on the streets and over a range
of other urban spaces v – are commonly faced with a number of problems including
homelessness, undernourishment, domestic violence, sexual abuse and exploitation, the
worst forms of labor, sexually transmitted diseases including HIV/AIDS, physical injuries
due to vehicular accidents, street fights, and harassment by the police and extortionists.
Many of these children resort to joining groups or “gangs” to survive. Tambayan
acknowledges that the gangs are an expression of peer support, which is a prominent
feature in any teenager’s life. Due to the children’s experiences of marginalization and
exclusion, gangs became their natural social organization.vi Pangarap Foundation
recognizes that the children are poor, have no access to education and social services, join
or form gangs for their own security and to have a sense of belonging. Tambayan Center
points out that joining and forming gangs are “consistent with the adolescent stage of
exploration, identity-formation, and self-assertion.” (Tambayan, 2003) However, belonging
to a gang means increasing the risk of getting involved in illegal activities and, thus, become
at risk to abuse and violence from their peers and law enforcers.
19
20 SEEDS OF HOPE
Defining “Gangs”
The definition of a “child at risk” in the JJWA includes being a member of a gang,
which are among the circumstances that render a child “vulnerable to and at the risk
of committing criminal offenses.” vii
The gang’s hierarchy, rituals, and activities make the members highly vulnerable to
substance abuse, sexual abuse and exploitation, STI/HIV AIDS, physical harm and
injury, and all the psychosocial effects of various forms of violence against children.
Girl-children are not only vulnerable to sexual abuse and exploitation and STI/HIV
AIDS but to unwanted pregnancies and abortion.
Gangs of children that Tambayan Center and Pangarap Foundation work with are
children and youth who organized themselves into “groups”(gangs) with strict rules
and a defined hierarchy. According to staff membersviii gangs exist in the context of
a violent environment. The gangs are the perpetrators of violent acts and the victims/
survivors as well.ix These gangs often stake out territories and an infraction by a
rival gang from another geographical area results to violence. In fact, anything can
spark an inter-gang war such as an insulting comment, a challenging look, or rivalry
over a girl. The members are often from problematic families where the children
experienced physical, emotional, sexual abuse or neglect. The children also stress
the difference between a gang and
a “barkada” (peer group).
Tambayan Center’s research
showed that unlike gangs,
barkadas are groups of close
friends where there is
mutual support and doesn’t
have a leadership structure.
The research noted that the
major difference between
the two is that the gangs are
often involved in violent and
illegal activities while the
barkada does not get
involved in such activities. The
children noted that they can
belong to a gang and a barkada.
(Tambayan, 2003)
There are three kinds of gangs as defined in their membership: all-boys gang,
mixed gang, and all-girls gang. From the all-boys gang, mixed gangs emerged as
the boys recruit girls to join their gangs. Initially, the leaders bring their girlfriends
into the group. To date, however, according to Tambayan Center, girls are recruited
to encourage more boys to join the gang. According to Tambayan Center’s research,
one gang leader said: “The girls are here pretty much for our pleasure.”(Tambayan,
2004) Girls who are members of mixed gangs would eventually become
disappointed to discover that they do not have a voice in the group and are
considered “low” in rank with the males. Inevitably, they form their own gangs.
The all-girls gang differs from the all-boys and mixed gangs by not getting involved
in inter-gang wars. It is rare for them to be involved in such wars. However, the
members would often be involved in one-on-one violent fights with other girls
from different gangs over a number of reasons.
In all types of of gangs, the leadership is authoritarian. The leaders are often the
oldest and the founding members. Leadership is for life unless passed on by the
founding members through appointment. The leaders make the rules and change
it at will. They decide on the initiation rituals , where to spend the gang’s funds,
what activities to do to obtain funds, and the actions to take when provoked by
another gang.
The gangs usually have two major rituals: one for initiation and another for a
death of a member. The initiation ritual is where the children are most vulnerable
to various kinds of abuse and danger. Initiation involves beatings, humiliation,
and it may involve committing crimes such as stealing or beating up someone as
a challenge. For girls who belong in mixed gangs, they are given a choice “sarap o
hirap” (pleasure or hardship), meaning, they have to choose between having sex
with one or more male members of the gang or be beaten with a paddle. It must
be noted that the rituals can change at the whim of the leaders. For example, when
the all-girls gang, Warshock in Davao City, changed leadership the new leader
banned physical beatings from the initiation rituals. The new members were
instead required to produce a gallon of local wine for each member of the gang.
(Tambayan, 2004)
The ritual when a gang member dies varies but often focusing on honoring the
fallen. Tambayan documented the ritual during the death of Warshock’s leader
as a result of an inter-gang war. To honor her, they tattooed the name of their
leader on their bodies. This made them vulnerable to HIV/AIDS and hepatitis as
the needle used was homemade and not sterile. (Tambayan, 2004)
22 SEEDS OF HOPE
For many organizations concerned with CICL, working with children and youth
gangs is fraught with challenges. The programs described in the following sections
take different approaches in working with youth gangs. Pangarap Foundation in
Paliparan, Cavite focuses in building peaceful relations between rival gangs and
eventually encourages members to stop participating in gangs and take part in
community activities and/or educational programs instead. Tambayan Center in
Davao City, on the other hand, works in developing gangs into youth
organizations, which becomes part of an alliance that empowers them to raise
awareness in their own communities on the issues they face. Tambayan Center
and Pangarap Foundation both acknowledge that the violent nature of the gangs
is harmful to the children. Thus, their programs and services are geared toward
reaching out to the gangs in varying approaches, which will be discussed in this
section.
Pangarap Foundation in Paliparan, Cavite

Founded in 1989 as a drop-in shelter for street children in Pasay City, Pangarap
Foundation, Inc. has evolved into an organization that implements shelter-based
and community-based programs for street children and their families. In the early
1990s, some 45,000 informal settlers from Pasay City — including children and
families with whom Pangarap had worked — were relocated to Paliparan Site III
in Dasmariñas, Cavite. Pangarap Foundation established the Paliparan
Community Development Program (PCDP) in 1995 to sustain the recovery of
the children who were reconciled with their families and to prevent other children
from going to the streets.
One of the initial steps in forming the PCDP was a community survey to learn the
situation of children and families in Paliparan. Researchers from Pangarap met
with community leaders and members to validate the survey results and to identify
appropriate services and programs. Among many issues was the presence of youth
gangs in the community, some of which have been involved in criminal activities.
Community members were particularly concerned about the frequency of violent
conflicts among the gangs, resulting in serious injuries and even deaths.
From the data gathered by Pangarap Foundation, there were about 50 youth
gangs in the community. Deaths from gang violence at that time were about one
death a week. One possible reason for these conflicts was the lack of “sense of
community” among the residents of Paliparan. As program director Leah Lanzuela
pointed out, the residents came from different areas and

regions all over the Philippines, thus, could not identify
themselves as members of the community. Other issues
identified by community members included high rates of
child abuse, malnutrition, and unemployment and
underemployment among adults.
Based on these findings, Pangarap Foundation’s Paliparan
PCDP implemented activities under five interrelated
projects: Community Organizing, Livelihood, Education,
Health and Nutrition, and Youth. Those involved in the
Youth projects handled the issue of gangs. They conducted
seminars on Active Non-Violence, a yearly Peace Camp for
gang members, and socialization activities such as sports
festivals.
24 SEEDS OF HOPE
The Process
When Pangarap Foundation started its work with youth gangs, it observed that
despite the high incidence of deaths due to gang wars, the gangs continued to
flourish because of their quick recruitment of new members. Under this situation,
the main goal was to “break the cycle” by reducing the violent conflicts among
gangs and eventually by persuading individual members to leave their gangs by
involving them in non-violent and productive activities.
An important observation was that most of the gang wars were “territorial” in
nature. The gangs were based within the “phases” of Paliparan and conflict was
usually provoked when a gang perceived that members of a rival gang are
transgressing in their “territory.” Thus, the Youth Committee deemed it important
to gather the gangs in a “neutral” location where they could interact peacefully
without concerns of territory.
In 2003, the Youth Committee conducted the first Peace Camp - a three-day
activity bringing together identified members of different gangs to address the
issues of youth gangs and to encourage them to interact peacefully. Since then,
the Peace Camp is conducted once a year. The recent Peace Camp was held in
April 2009 and was attended by 80 gang members. It was conducted in Phase 3 of
Paliparan since it was a “less territorial” area that is not identified with a particular
gang. The participants were grouped into teams such that each team was
composed of members of different gangs, thus, facilitating interaction. The staffers
of Pangarap Foundation then conducted sessions on Peace Mediation and Active
Non-Violence wherein members of the different gangs discussed their conflicts
and worked towards resolving them in a non-violent way. A former gang member
shared the observation after these activities: “Nagbago ang mga dating gang
leaders” (The leaders changed). According to him, the interactions with members
of other gangs helped them “change their attitudes and mentalities” about each
other. They realized that many of them had experienced similar difficulties—
domestic violence and abuse within their families, lack of money for food and
other necessities—which led them to join gangs. They also realized that there are
many things they could learn from each other.
Another activity the participants found effective in the recent Peace Camp is a
dramatization of previous gang wars where gang members died. A former gang
member who had twice participated in the Peace Camp shared that this activity
made them express their feelings about the incident, and realize how all of them
are deeply affected by gang wars .
Outcomes
• Pangarap Foundation has observed a decrease in the number of children
and youth who join gangs, and the number of violent conflicts and deaths
from such conflicts. From 50, there are now only 20 youth gangs.
• A number of former gang members have graduated from high school and
vocational-technical education programs with the assistance of PCDP’s
education-related projects. They are currently working and they return
to the Paliparan Community Center from time to time to help in the
implementation of projects on youth gangs.
• Former gang members who have joined the Peace Camp also participate
actively in the planning and implementation of youth-focused activities
such as the sportsfest. One former gang member who became a team
leader in organizing the recent sportsfest
described his experience as: “Mahirap na
masaya.” “ Ang ganda pala, ” he said
about his experience in the
sportsfest and seeing
other young people
enjoy them.
• In a survey of Paliparan
residents in early
2009, majority
indicated high
appreciation of
P a n g a r a p
Foundation’s work
with children and
youth, particularly
its educational
assistance program,
feeding program, and
its work with youth
gangs.
26 SEEDS OF HOPE
Ongoing Challenges
• Members of youth gangs are getting younger, with members as young as
8 to 12 years old. A staff of Pangarap Foundation cites the lack of adult
supervision (because most parents are out working or looking for
employment), increasing number of school drop-outs, and few organized
activities for children and youth in the community as reasons for this.
Because the participants of their previous Peace Camps were mostly a
little older, one challenge is to come up with activities for younger gang
members.
• In inviting gang members to join the Peace Camp, Pangarap Foundation
utilize the youth volunteers and young people who were participants to
the Peace Camp and other activities of Pangarap Foundation who talk to
gang members and tell them about their own experiences in these
activities.
• A major challenge in working with youth gangs is the risk of conflicts that
may escalate into violence. Indeed, sometimes conflicts break out during
the Peace Camp but Pangarap staffers observed that these had lessened
as they conducted more Peace Camps and other activities. To reduce the
danger of such encounters, the staffers thoroughly search the participants
and their belongings for weapons and confiscate these when found.
Recently, they have designated volunteers from the Paliparan Fathers’
Club as camp marshalls to help prevent conflicts from turning into
violence.
• Work with parents needs to be improved. Conducting parenting skills
training and family therapy sessions may help address the gang members’
complaints about their parents’ ways of instilling discipline and child-
rearing skills. This issue is often cited by the children to be one of the
major causes of their decision to join gangs.
• A wider and stronger advocacy to stop the extrajudicial killings of CICL
need to be launched and sustained. Though this does not occur in the
areas where Pangarap works, this is an issue that needs to be addressed
with NGO networks and in the case of the areas where there is no
extrajudicial killings. Preventive activities need to be conducted with
law enforcers and local government.
Tambayan Center in Davao City

Tambayan Center for Children’s Rights, Inc. works with adolescent street girls in
four urban poor communities in Davao City: Agdao, Boulevard, Isla Verde, and
Bangkerohan. Tambayan Center focuses on street girls because they are the most
vulnerable to violations and abuses. (Casiple, 2008) When Tambayan Center
was established in 1996, it was a simple drop-in center where street girls can stay,
talk to each other and the staffers, and avail of basic services like hygiene and
food. The services currently provided by Tambayan are now divided into two
major programs: the Psychosocial Program (PSP) that aims to “facilitate (in) the
enhancement of abused girls in the streets so they can participate in the actions
that will improve their life situation,” and the Public Advocacy and Network
Building Program (PANBP) that aims to “strengthen the capacities of identified
partners and allies towards developing mechanisms that protect children’s rights
and ensure their participation.” (Tambayan Center, n.d.)
Street Organization , which is under the Psychosocial Program, is one of
Tambayan’s effective projects in working with gangs of street girls. Aimed at
strengthening the children’s collective capacities
for self-help and promotion of
children’s participation,
Tambayan’s Street
Organization program is
based on the belief that girl
gangs need not be seen as
a negative influence on the
girls’ lives. Tambayan
strives to change the violent
nature of the gangs and
turn these into positive
support groups that can
provide opportunities for
change, collective growth,
and participation.
To begin this change,
Tambayan Center aims
28 SEEDS OF HOPE
to uphold the dignity of the girls. This involves ending the derogatory labeling of
the children, which includes the negative definition of “gangs. ” Thus, Tambayan
Center defines gangs as an “expression of self-help and a structure in which they
support each other”—a structure that functions as “families for girls bound
together by similar experiences of abuse and an adolescent desire for
independence.” (Tambayan, 2004) In effect, Tambayan Center is advocating for a
change of paradigm – instead of focusing on the negative characteristics that
often affect definitions and points of view, it focuses on the children’s resiliency
and strengths. This helps the children in their struggle to regain their dignity.
Tambayan Center and the children they work with believe that the gangs – if
changed into a positive support group - have great potential as a means to organize
and empower street girls in dealing with their concerns, including those that put
them at risk for coming into conflict with the law.
The Process
Contact with girl gangs are usually made through the girls who visit Tambayan’s
drop-in center, through referrals by other gangs that Tambayan Center has worked
with, and through visits to their target areas. When a gang is identified as a priority
group, Tambayan Center staff gradually strengthens their ties by visiting them
regularly and involving members in activities. Eventually, the gang members
start to have meetings with Tambayan Center’s street organizers who work with
them in identifying the needs, issues, and goals of the gang and its members.
Each gang develops its own group-building intervention plan with the help of the
street organizer. The intervention plan includes indicators or targets that are
also identified by the members, which are used to check if their goals as a group
are attained. The group periodically conducts an assessment of their own progress.
They also decide when they are ready to “close” as a priority group. Tambayan
Center also provides assistance and support when gang members come in conflict
with the law, and closely monitor how barangay officials and law enforcers handle
their cases to ensure that they abide in the processes stipulated in the JJWA.
Aside from working with individual gangs, Tambayan Center also facilitates
activities aimed at bringing the gangs together, including a yearly Summer Camp
and the formation of an alliance of girl gangs called Nagkahiusang Kabataan
Aron Katungod Matagamtaman or NAKAMATA. Before conducting such
activities, staffers from Tambayan Center conduct meetings with each gang to
assess their readiness to interact with other gangs. They work closely with gangs
that have recently been involved in conflicts. Full reconciliation or

closure of previous conflicts is a requirement for each gang to be
allowed to join the summer camp.
Summer camp participants are also required to provide written
statements of their commitment that they will not fight with other
gangs during the camp and afterwards. The Tambayan Center staff
emphasizes that reconciliation and their commitment to uphold it is
not forced on them. According to a staff, “if they say that they are not
yet ready (to reconcile with another gang or to promise that they will
not fight with other gangs), we respect that. We don’t force them.”
In the Summer Camp, the girls participate in activities where they
get to know members of other gangs (“ dula-dula ” or games),
cooperate with each other to achieve shared goals (team-building
activities), and strengthen bonds with other participants (exchanging
notes to apologize for past conflicts and express the desire to get to
know each other better).
Building these bonds between the different gangs is an important
step toward bringing them together into Nakamata. This alliance of
girl gangs, which was started in 2005, is envisioned as “an expression
of the children’s interests and capacities to participate and responsibly
contribute to a relevant undertaking specifically on issues that
concern them.” (Tambayan, 2010) In Nakamata, the girls elect their
leaders, discuss their issues and concerns, and decide on activities
that they can do as an organization to deal with these concerns. In
their advocacy work, Nakamata engages the government, media and
other sectors to raise attention and awareness on children’s rights
and the rights of CICL.
Tambayan emphasizes that the “success” of their work with gangs is
not determined by a decrease in gang membership or by getting the
girls off the streets. They focus instead on whether the gangs have
developed greater knowledge and awareness of issues that are
relevant to them, of important decisions they might expect to face,
and on how to deal with these decisions.
30 SEEDS OF HOPE
Outcomes
• When interviewed about their experiences with Tambayan
Center, members of girl gangs shared that they have learned
many important things. They identified the following as
significant and influenced the decisions they made:
Children’s rights and the UN-CRC. The girls said learning
about their rights have empowered them to report abuses or
violations of their rights to authorities. They felt they have
become less vulnerable to abuse. As one girl said: “Kung wala
kaming alam sa rights, na-unsa na mi ngayon.” (If we didn’t
know about our rights, we wouldn’t know what to do.)
Respect for each other. Interacting with gangs that they once
considered their enemies have made them aware that they
actually have a lot in common.
Values. As one girl said: “kabalo na mi kung unsa’y tama o
mali” (We are aware of what is right or wrong). They also
became aware of the consequences of risky behaviors like
fighting, having unprotected sex, and the use of rugby.
• The girls also reported many changes in their behaviors. “Gi-

tagaan ng limitasyon ang pag-laag” (We limit the time we spend
on the streets), said the members of Tropang Dangerous, a gang
based in Bangkerohan. The girls said that instead of staying on
the streets, they now spend more time helping their parents at
home, attending school (with the assistance of Tambayan), and
applying for work to earn much-needed money.
• Members of gangs that Tambayan had worked with said that
they do not engage in violent fights or “rumbles” as they used to
do. While conflicts sometimes take place among the gangs (e.g.,
disagreements during Summer Camp or during Nakamata
general assemblies), they have become more capable of resolving
these among themselves.
Challenges
• It is not always easy for the girls to participate and pay attention during
activities. Some of the discussions were difficult to understand (“dili
kasabot”), which makes them feel shy or frustrated. The girls noted that
this is particularly true for the younger members (12 to 13 years old) who
become impatient with long discussions. It may be important to identify
the needs and issues of the younger members and incorporate activities
that are relevant to them.
• The Tambayan Center staff and the girls note that many of the girls still
return to the streets to “tambay” or engage in “bisyo” (vices). Jayjay, a
member of the gang Diskarte, observed that these girls continue to
experience family problems or financial problems, and turn to the streets
because “ang kasiyahan nila nasa barkada, at ang barkada nila nasa daan”
(Their happiness is with their friends, and their friends are on the streets).
She expressed appreciation of Tambayan’s continued efforts to reach
out to these girls—“hindi ka puyon magsuporta.” (They don’t get tired in
giving us support) Tambayan Center staff also emphasized their policy
of non-discrimination, i.e., they are committed to continue working with
these girls by educating them about the possible consequences of their
behaviors, establishing contact with their parents to help them deal with
family problems, and providing legal assistance if they come in conflict
with the law.
32 SEEDS OF HOPE
• One major concern is the continuing and increasing incidence of killings

of street children and young gang members (among others) in Davao
by the so-called “Davao Death Squad” (DDS). Although the issue of
death squad killings has been raised by human rights groups since 1999,
the killings continue to increase. A number of gangs that Tambayan
Center works with have identified death squad killings as one of the
most pressing problems they currently face. Indeed, a report by the
Human Rights Watch claims that the victims include children as young
as 14 years old. (Human Rights Watch, 2009) The girls feel that they are
not safe on the streets and that they can be assassinated even if they
are not doing anything illegal. The Committee on the Rights of the
Child has this to say:
The Committee reiterates its serious concern about patterns of

violations of children’s right to life, including in the context of
the internal armed conflict. The Committee notes that the State
party has acknowledged extrajudicial executions as a “very
serious concern” and it expresses its deep concern at reported
cases of extrajudicial killings, including of children, as
highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
summary or arbitrary executions and other sources and that
such extrajudicial killings have been committed by the Philippine
armed forces, the Philippine National Police and death squads
operating in Davao. The Committee notes some positive initiatives
taken by the State party, such as the establishment of the Melo
Commission and of Task Force Usig and the promulgation, in October
2007, of the Recourse to the Rule of the Writ of Amparo and the Rule
of the Writ of Habeas Data but it is gravely concerned at the low
number of prosecutions and the lack of results in bringing perpetrators
to justice. (Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2009)
This issue highlights the difficulties faced by streetchildren, especially the CICL,
and NGOs that work with them in areas where government fails to uphold
children’s rights and human rights in general.
Lessons Learned
• The experiences of Pangarap Foundation and Tambayan Center highlight
the importance of a holistic approach in working with street children and
youth gangs. In both organizations, working with youth gangs is closely
connected with other programs and services such as educational
assistance, livelihood projects for youth and adults, legal assistance, and
family therapy. This is based on the recognition that there are multiple
factors that lead children and youth to join gangs, which put them at risk
of coming in conflict with the law, and that these factors must all be
addressed to truly uphold the rights of children at risk and CICL.
• Their work also shows the need for program planning and management
based on data gathered from the target communities. For example,
Pangarap Foundation’s projects with youth gangs were based on concerns
expressed by community members in a survey they conducted in 1995. In
April 2009, Pangarap Foundation conducted another survey and is in the
process of validating its findings with community leaders and members.
Among the findings are the following:
That majority of their respondents appreciate their work with youth
gangs;
Many of the respondents believe that violence among youth gangs is
still a pressing concern in their community and that there is a need for
further projects to address this.
• In addition to this, they asked participants in their projects to provide
feedback by filling evaluation forms where they rate aspects such as the
effectiveness of resource persons/facilitators, comment on how they can
use those they learned in the activity, and other topics of interest to
them. These measures enable Pangarap to plan and implement activities
that are based on the community’s needs and interests.
• Both organizations have learned the importance of engaging the
participation of their target beneficiaries and key community members
in planning and implementing their programs. In Pangarap Foundation,
former gang members who have participated in the Peace Camp are
recruited as youth volunteers. Youth volunteers are effective in gaining
the trust of gang members because they can speak from their own
experiences and are not perceived as threats. Tambayan Center’s work
with girl gangs, on the other hand, requires the gang members themselves
to identify their needs and goals, participate in planning their own
34 SEEDS OF HOPE
intervention activities, and monitor their own progress. In this way, the
girls are encouraged to articulate their own thoughts and make their
own decisions on matters that concern them.
• Pangarap Foundation and Tambayan Center have learned that working
with youth gangs is a gradual process that takes time and patience. The
resolution of conflicts between gangs, even if these started from “petty”
reasons, cannot be expected to proceed quickly. In Tambayan Center’s
experience, working intensively with each gang and ensuring their
readiness to interact with other gangs before bringing them
together is effective in minimizing the incidence of
conflicts.
Chapter FOUR
Training Barangay Officials

in the Processes of the JJWA
JJCICSI’s Restorative Justice Principle and Conferencing
and Mediation Training Program
The Context
The JJWA is founded on the principle of restorative justice, which requires a
“process of resolving conflicts with the maximum involvement of the victim, the
offender, the community,” “reparation for the victim,” and “reconciliation
(between) the offender” (and) “the offended and the community.”
Prior to the enactment of the JJWA, the police had the key role on CICL – from
arrest to rehabilitation.
However, under the JJWA, barangay officials, together with local social workers,
are assigned an important role, especially if the child has committed a minor
offense and cannot discern right from wrong. The police can only intervene if the
offense committed is a heinous crime that requires a penalty of more than six
years imprisonment.
35
36 SEEDS OF HOPE
The objective is to resolve the cases locally, minimize the need of bringing the
child to court (especially when the offense involves non-heinous crimes that
carries prison sentences of less than six years), and prevent the child’s
imprisonment. Under the law, the punong barangay and members of the Barangay
Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC) facilitates “mediation and family
conferencing” between the CICL and his/her victim. After the CICL admits his/
her fault, the child goes through diversion programs under the supervision of the
barangay.
This process is meant to ensure that justice is served by resolving the conflict
between the child and his victim/s. The child is also made to recognize his/her
fault and to rectify mistakes. In so doing, the community relationships that have
been strained by the child’s offense are restored. The law, indeed, ensures that
the victim achieves justice and the erring child owns up to his/her fault and is
made to go through a rehabilitation program to ensure positive changes in his/
her behavior.
While barangay officials have experiences in mediation under

the Barangay Justice System where disputes are brought before
the Lupong Tagapamayapa or the Barangay Captain for
resolution, most disputes incurred by CICL are settled through
“pay-offs” with little effort to conduct dialogue or discussion
about the impact of the child’s offense and his/her accountability
for his/her actions.
Unfortunately, local officials usually have little or no training to
process CICL cases. Many elected barangay officials have little
or no background at all on child psychology, child-friendly
processes, and juvenile and restorative justice processes such as
family conferencing and mediation. The dearth of trained local
officials to handle cases of CICL undermines the restorative
justice principle, which undermines the successful
implementation of the law.
While trainings have been conducted to various key stakeholders,
only a handful have been reached by government-sponsored
training program due to the sheer number of people that needs
to be trained. For instance, there are more than 42,000 barangays
that require such training. As it is, the barangay officials,
particularly those involved in the BCPC, are the ones who need
to be trained in conferencing and mediation skills and in crafting
appropriate diversion programs for children.
While guidelines in the law’s implementation have already been
approved and disseminated by the JJWC, BCPC members are
finding it difficult to translate it into actual practice because one
really needs practical guided experiences in implementing this
especially because it involves child-friendly processes. The BCPC
is also tasked to ensure that the child is properly assisted and
monitored as he/she undergoes the diversion program.
38 SEEDS OF HOPE
For many barangay officials, diversion is tantamount to indemnifying the victim/

s of the CICL, which is the prevalent practice in settling disputes at the barangay
level. This is done in the belief that it is the most crucial step to resolve the case.
Melanie Ramos-Llana of the John J Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues
(JJCICSI) drives home an important point:
You just don’t ask, “Magkano ba ito?” (How much is this?). We should
be more concerned about the healing of the relationship not just how
much it would cost to settle this matter. (Unfortunately), barangay
officials do not know how to properly conduct conferences or mediation
proceedings when children are involved. Interviewing children requires
proper training. Not everyone can do this. One needs to have a thorough
knowledge of children’s rights and must also possess the right attitude
and skills to be an effective facilitator. We need to talk about the impact
and the consequences of the crime. The victim should be given the
chance to tell his/her story and to be asked what he/she wants to happen
regarding the case. The offender also needs to admit his accountability
for the offense and maybe even offer his solution to repair the harm
done.
Without a children’s rights framework, BCPC members treat the children like
adult perpetrators without regard of the privacy of the children and often
unconcerned about child-friendly processes.
All these can be considered a set back to the whole process because the law’s
potential to work and to achieve its ends will only be attained if the processes are
carried out properly.
The Response
The JJCICSI, specifically its Church and Family Life Program, trains local officials
on the principles and processes of the JJWA to address these needs. JJCICSI’s
role is important because it covers processes that have not been extensively
covered by the JJWC-sponsored training or by other NGOs like mediation and
conferencing.
The JJWC guidelines on conferencing and mediation enumerate the steps
facilitators have to follow in conducting conferencing and mediation. Though
the JJWC ensured that the guidelines were disseminated to stakeholders, the
Council did not conduct training courses in the implementation of the guidelines.
In 2008, the training program for barangay mediators on Conferencing and
Mediation was formally launched. Llana explains:
We saw that (training in conferencing and mediation) as a real need of

the barangays, even though they know the law and a lot of them have
already been trained on the law. But the application, what to do when
the victim and the CICL meet and how you can ensure that you can
address all the needs of those attending the conferencing, that was
lacking. There are procedures in the implementing guidelines like
meeting the victim, talking to them… [but it] does not tell you what
you should do before the conferencing, how to plan for the meeting, the
physical arrangement of the people attending the meeting, and ensuring
the atmosphere of the conference is conducive for dialogue. It also does
not say anything about the parameters that are crucial to make the
conferencing and mediation successful.
40 SEEDS OF HOPE
The Process
The training program covers both the theory and practice of restorative justice.
However, it puts emphasis on providing practical exercises in conferencing and
mediation. While the main beneficiaries of the training program are barangay
officials, JJCICSI also responds to requests for training by government institutions
and NGOs.
Barangay beneficiaries are chosen based on the prevalence of CICL-perpetrated
offenses and barangays they thought needed the most help. The barangay, in
turn, is tasked to send representatives to the training, with preference to the
person in charge of mediation. Below is the flow of the training program:
• Pre-test to gauge the participants’ level of knowledge on the law. The
scores serve as baseline information to gauge the learning level of the
participants;
• Film showing on the
documentary Bunso , a
poignant story of a boy
and some friends who
languished in a Cebu jail.
The film documents
their experiences in jail
and their life after their
release. The film is
shown because it
provides a visual
experience of how it is to
be jailed as a child in the
Philippines. It serves as
an effective eye opener
on the condition of
children in jail and gives the
context of the CICL—the
family situation of the child,
the abuses they experience,
and the environment where
they stay and live;
• Introduction to the JJWA. Discussion on the law is done in a simple,

straightforward, and non-technical manner to ensure it is understood.
Numerous examples are also provided to illustrate its principles and
provisions;
• Discussions on restorative justice and diversion;
• Conferencing and mediation. There are discussions on the principles of
Restorative Justice and guidelines on diversion and conferencing drafted
by the JJWC and some from the training on Restorative Justice that Llana
attended in Canada. Discussions in conducting the pre-conference
meeting, the conference proper, and drafting the diversion agreement
are also done. Practical tips in handling conference participants are also
discussed;
• Situations are provided and participants would engage in a role play to
show how they would handle the case if they encounter this in their
community. A critique session is conducted afterwards;
• Action planning session the output of which the participants will present
to their respective barangay captains. The action planning usually has to
do with how to make their barangays child-friendly and how they can
apply what they have learned from the trainings in their own communities.
The discussion on Conferencing and Mediation is based on the guideline on

conferencing and mediation drafted by the JJWC and the Scripted Model from
Canada. The Scripted Model was adapted from Canadian NGOs.
The Conferencing and Mediation component covers the following:
• Preparation for the pre-conference meeting;
• Techniques in talking to the CICL (prior to the conference) that includes
what you can and cannot say when you call/see the CICL. Conferencing
and mediation facilitators are also encouraged to speak to the victims
before the CICL and his/her victim faces off. Hearing both sides before
the actual conferencing helps the conference facilitators to successfully
direct the mediation and conferencing;
42 SEEDS OF HOPE
• Proper questioning techniques (i.e., asking open ended questions that

have already been tested to elicit the responses they would need for the
conferencing and mediation, being friendly in asking the questions, etc.).
For instance, participants are encouraged to ask questions from the CICL
such as: “What happened?”;“What were you thinking when this
happened?”; “Who were affected by what you did?” This is to find out
whether the child has feelings of remorse and accountability and has
realized the repercussions of the actions to his/her victims, the
community, and himself/herself. This is an important process because
conferencing and mediation cannot be conducted if the CICL has not
admitted the wrongdoing;
• The procedures of the actual conference are also discussed: the

introduction of all participants; the laying down of the purpose to help
participants open up because people only express themselves fully when
they understand what is happening and what they are getting into; the
discussion of the ground rules; and then interviewing and facilitating
discussions among the participants;
• Interview or conference proper. A script to be followed by the mediators
based on the Scripted Model from Canada is given. The script is translated
into Filipino. Situations are given to participants involving various CICL-
perpetrated cases. The objective is for the participants to show, through
role play, how they would process the case should they encounter this in
the community. The role play shows how much they have understood
the discussion and whether they are prepared to handle conferencing
and mediation. It opens the opportunity to correct and ingrain important
lessons to the participants. For instance, Llana shares that participants
commonly commit mistakes with this situation: A child commits a
murder. Under the law, the barangay officials are not supposed to mediate
because the case should be handled by the prosecutor. However, Llana
notes that the officials they have handled usually try to mediate the case;
• JJCICSI stresses to participants that the end goal of the conferencing is
for the CICL and the victim to agree as to how the victim should be
indemnified. According to Llana, traditionally, indemnification for theft
is monetary. However, under the law, stakeholders are encouraged to
think of alternative methods of diversion where the CICL learns the
impact of his deeds and the need to mend his relationship with the victim
and the community;
• For instance, the child can be made to volunteer in an organization.
Vandals can be made to go through art workshops or they can be made to
paint a mural in the community. Llana shares that there are a hundred
and one ways to atone based on what she has learned in Canada.
44 SEEDS OF HOPE
Outcomes
• JJCICSI has filled in an important need—to train stakeholders in two of
the more crucial processes of the law: conferencing and mediation, which
is not done before by government or non-government organization. One
of the more substantial outcomes of this project is the modules being
used for the training program. Another is JJCICSI’s partnership with key
government organizations such as the JJWC in the delivery of the training.
• At the time of the interview, JJCICSI has conducted trainings in 13
barangays in Quezon City and Manila, some of which are Barangays
Pansol, Batasan, Culiat, Payatas, Holy Spirit, and Bagbag.
• The training has helped the participants improve their knowledge of the
law. This is evidenced by improvements in the pre- and post-tests
conducted by JJCICSI. Llana shares that at the start participants would
score eight or nine points out of 30 points in the tests, but after the
discussions their scores would significantly increase between 20 and 25

points. Barangay officials said they have put to good use what they have
learned from the training.
• Improvements in the practical knowledge of the participants are also
tested through role playing, which are based on actual situations. To
ensure learning, JJCICSI chooses tricky and difficult situations that may
be encountered in the communities. The role play also allows JJCICSI to
correct the responses and procedures in the process.
• One of the more tangible accomplishments of the training is that barangay
officials who once had negative view of the law changed their hearts after
a better understanding of its principles. Llana cites the case of a barangay
kagawad in Culiat who attended the training. Initially, the man was averse
to the law but later realized its importance. Better understanding of the
law translates to more support and commitment from stakeholders.
• Although the training is only conducted for a few days, the participants
have kept in touch with JJCICSI on how to improve their practices in
their communities. This shows the interest of barangay officials in
improving their services. Some barangays such as Pansol and Culiat even
requested JJCICSI to conduct additional intensive training for its
mediators.
• The training paved the way for officials from Barangay Pansol to activate
their Child Justice Board, which shows the barangay’s new found
commitment to CICL. The Board is part of the BCPC and devotes itself
to handling cases of CICL.
• The initial training has resulted to a more advanced training program for
local officials, specifically on becoming an effective mediator (the first
training program concentrated on procedures). For this purpose, Llana
adapted the training manual provided by the Child Justice Initiatives of
Canada entitled “Inviting Dialogue.” This training helps mediators
reflect on their skills, abilities, and attitudes as mediators to make them
more effective on their roles. The module starts by having the participants
look at themselves and how qualified they are as mediators. It also helps
the participants reflect on their anger management skills and hone their
interviewing skills and capacities in summarizing the points raised during
the conferencing, among others.
46 SEEDS OF HOPE
• JJCICSI has strengthened its partnership with various organizations such

as: Philippine Action for Youth Offenders (PAYO), a coalition of more
than 20 NGOs and government agencies working with CICL;
Humanitarian Legal Assistance Foundation (HLAF) – whose thrust is
capability building of barangay officials and social workers on matters
pertaining to CICL; and JJWC. PAYO, HLAF, and a staff from JJWC
assist JJCICSI in the training. The shared expertise improves the training
even more.
Ongoing Challenges
• Elected local officials hold office for three years and are eligible to seek
reelection for a maximum of three terms. Newly elected officials would
again be trained and convinced of the value of restorative justice and
trained in the Juvenile Justice processes in every three years. While this
is electoral democracy, government should allot resources to sustain the
implementation of the JJWA. Unfortunately, resources are not always
available. To address this situation, the Barangay Council for the
Protection of Children (BCPC)x can ideally lead in handling diversion
cases and uphold restorative justice. Since its membership should be
composed of individuals who represent government and non-government
agencies and the youth, they could stay on even when the barangay’s
administration changes after an election. However, new barangay
administrations prefer to appoint their own people on key positions in
the barangay. Thus, training needs to be done all over again.
• Trained barangay officials need to be constantly followed-up to ensure
they are able to practice what they have learned from the training.
However, JJCICSI may find difficulties in doing this as it does not have
enough staff to perform follow-up visits. They cope with this by calling
the barangays by phone. It should be noted too that some barangays
have gone out of their way of keeping in touch with JJCICSI not only to
update but also to consult about their concerns regarding the handling
of CICL. JJCICSI, on its part, has been more than willing to impart
technical assistance to them. Plans were underway at the time of the
interview for JJCICSI to visit barangays to observe them conduct actual
conferencing and mediation.
te the
t o promo
ted s, and
i s manda th e ir right
CPC ph o ld It is
The B o f ch ildren, u e x p lo itation.
ment use and
develop m f rom ab
t h e
protect
s ed of: ngay
com p o
: P u n o ng Bara C
person the BCP
• Chair : (Members of elves)
• Co-c
hair
a m o n g thems
ct from
shall ele )
bers: uncilor
• Mem y Kagawad (Co ily)
a ra nga o m e n and am
f
• B nw
erson o holar
(Chairp u t rition Sc
ng ay N orker
• Bara y Care W e
nga y D a Midwif
• Bara H e a lth /Nurse/
ngay orker
• Bara ealth W arge
ara n ga y H
e a ch er in-ch
• B al / T
d Princip the
• DepE nod (Chief of
fT a
• Chie tch)
nity Wa
Co mum
son
hairper tative
• SK C ’s R epresen
r en er
• Child sident or his/h
P re
• PTA
ntative
re se
p r e ntative
O /P O represe
• NG
rs
• Othe
• Political support is also essential to the success of the program. Because

the barangay captain is the head of the community, his/her support is
crucial in ensuring a functional BCPC. Without the support of the
barangay captain, there would be no program to speak of. While some
barangays have been actively seeking out JJCICSI to learn more, other
barangays are passive and have not actively sought out JJCISI for
consultation.
• Barangays need to map out persons and institutions they can tap for
other services, which they cannot provide to CICL. This is crucial in the
success of the law’s implementation. Because of their lack of expertise or
manpower, there is a need to develop a referral system for the barangays
48 SEEDS OF HOPE
where they can refer CICL cases to (should there be a need). Llana says:
“We need to teach them what they need to do and show them the
resources they can tap. There should be a mapping of the resources they
have and the persons and institutions they can contact for services to
CICL. For instance, what are the NGOs near them? What can these NGOs
do for the barangay?” JJCICSI, with the assistance of Cordaid, has
published a directory of services for children on 8 December 2009.
• Llana also points out the need to train barangays in coming up with an
effective diversion programs. This is one of the bigger lapses of the
barangays because their diversion programs merely focus on community
clean-up and sports. The worth and usefulness of these programs are
being questioned.
• The effectiveness of the scripted model has yet to be validated. Because
it was still being pre-tested as of writing, mediators are encouraged to
follow the script en toto. There is a need for a pre-test because while the
script worked in Canada, it does not mean that all the questions are
culturally acceptable in the Philippines.
• Since the program is new, it still has to be tested in the next few years if it
has a long term potential. But the prospects are positive. The mediators
share that the training has helped them a lot in improving their knowledge
on the contents and the processes of the law and the scripted model has
worked so far.
Lessons Learned
• The Church and Family Life Program has only two staff members but
they have accomplished a lot already. Given the scope of their work,
however, a lean staff could only do so much. While the program is still
ably run by the two staff with the assistance of their partner organizations
in the trainings, the size of the team is stalling the expansion of the
program. However, Llana points out that this is the reason why they are
forging partnership with other organizations to share what they know
because they can only do so much in terms of reaching the barangays.
• With limited resources, JJCICSI chose the barangays that need the
training most based on the high incidence of CICL-perpetrated offenses.
JJICSI worked around the limitation by making adjustments and
prioritizing its target barangays. JJCICSI also tapped the barangays it
has previously worked with since they have already established rapport
with them.
• Due to JJCICSI’s maximization of its resources, it has even expanded the
target number of barangays from five to 13 and explored the development
of a new module on the intensive training of mediators. JJCICSI has
been able to use its resources to good use.
• JJCICSI also ensures that the barangays will have a sense of ownership
of and active participation in the training program by having the
participating barangays shoulder part of the costs of the training. For
instance, while JJCICSI pays for the materials, training kit, honoraria for
the speakers, lunch, and other expenses, the barangays shoulder expenses
for the snacks. Some barangays have pledged to shoulder the expenses
for lunch.
• An important learning is that follow-up is a continuous process. Follow-
up also allows the participants to fine tune their practices and to consult
JJCICSI for whatever concerns they may have.
• The critique and feedback sessions are conducted after the role play
reinforces learning. Participants evaluate their pre-conferencing and
conferencing techniques. JJCICSI and its training partners provide their
own critique and expert opinion on the steps taken by the participants.
The critique sessions allow the participants to validate their practices,
learn from their mistakes and from the mistakes of their fellow
participants.
50 SEEDS OF HOPE
• JJCICSI realized that involving barangays that do not have or have

inactive BCPCs in the training can serve as a venue to activate their
BCPC. Llana says: “This [training] can be a venue to activate the BCPC
or to set it up in case there is no existing structure in the barangay. In our
experience, most of the barangays that joined the training have BCPCs.
If they are active or how active it is, that is the question. For instance,
Project 6 has BCPC only on paper. It is not functional. We invited them,
too, since it might actually be a catalyst to start their BCPC and because
they become more accountable to implement the law. If they start working
with CICL, maybe they can expand this to include
other programs for children later on. It would
also be good if JJCICSI will find a way to work
with the National Barangay Operations
Office (NBOO), the office which oversees
the barangays all over the country.”
• A lesson that JJCICSI learned from
its contact with NGOs from
Canada is the possibility of
NGOs conducting the
mediation and conferencing
between the offenders and
their victims rather than
the BCPC. This is
something that can
be explored by
the national and
local governments.
Chapter FIVE
Rescue and Rehabilitation

of CICL
PREDA’s Program on Rescuing Children from Prisons,
Giving them a Temporary Home and Rehabilitating Them
The Context
CICL are often denied of their rights as children and as human beings. In a study
conducted by PREDA in 2002, it showed that: (PREDA, 2006)
• Children are not transferred to juvenile centers upon their arrest by
arresting officers or jail authorities even though the Child and Youth
Welfare Code (the law that preceded RA 9344) mandates this. Instead,
they are transferred to juvenile centers only upon “their first appearance
before the proper judicial authorities.” Thus, they remain in detention
anywhere between 12 and 40 days without the benefit of a legal counsel.
Based on documented cases, a legal counsel is usually appointed several
weeks after the minor’s detention;
• Children have been kept in jail despite court orders for their release or
transfer to a juvenile center. The BJMP did not either “receive or act
upon the court order;”
51
52 SEEDS OF HOPE
• The Public Attorney’s

Office (PAO) fails to
inform children of
their rights and
the status of their
cases. Assigned
public lawyers also
forego pre-trial
meetings with the
children;
• Some judges
have set
“inordinate and
unreasonable”
bail, which the
children from
poor families
cannot afford;
• Children are
detained with
adult inmates
for the most
minor offenses.
Although adult
inmates have
separate cells with the
children, adult prisoners
freely interact with
detained minors;
• There is a dearth of
rehabilitative
programs in prison. Jail sentence remains punitive. The PREDA Jail
Monitoring Team underscored that the “actual physical and mental
conditions in the jails amount to torture, cruel and inhuman or degrading
treatment of the minors” because the “jails were overcrowded and dietary
provisions were basic, as were sanitary conditions.” Torture instigated
by adult inmates and fellow children is also very common;
According to a PREDA study, children are left in penal institutions

because of inefficiencies in “processing their legal cases,” as well as the
general “disregard for their legal and human rights. (PREDA, 2006)
According to Bert Garcia, PREDA’s Rescue Team Head:
The police arrest children for the most minor of infractions like
loitering in the city, begging, and rugby (addictive adhesive)
use. Once they have rounded them up, they lock up the children
and their work ends there. When we ask them why didn’t they
inform the CSWDO (City Social Welfare and Development
Office), they would say no one would be left to man the desk.
The social workers also do not conduct jail visits.
The failure of social workers to conduct jail visits means the CICL have
little chance of being released. This is because social workers prepare the
children’s case study and recommends the release on recognizance of the
child to the custody of his/her parents or to a rehabilitation center. If the
social worker fails to process the case of the child, then the child remains
in prison indefinitely. Garcia said:
We realized that when the social worker visits the child’s

home and does not find the child’s parents, she would only
come back after a week. She also handles other children’s
cases such as adoption. With this, there is constant delay in
the preparation of the case study and later in the processing
of the child’s release from prison.
The protracted court proceeding in the country and the arbitrary

detention of children is another reason for the increase in the number of
CICL to tens of thousands in the 1990s up to around 2008.
Two years after the JJWA was passed, not much has changed according
to PREDA Foundation, Inc., which conducted another study on the
situation of CICL in December 2008. In the study, PREDA asserts “the
principles in RA 9344 remain, to a large extent, on paper.” (PREDA,
2008) The study reports that PREDA still encounters detained minors
during their jail visits and the conditions in jails remain essentially the
same.
54 SEEDS OF HOPE
Marion and Les Derbyshire, founders of the NGO Kids Go Free:

The Global Consultation Group on Children in Conflict with the
Law, confirm PREDA’s findings: (Derbyshire & Derbyshire, 2008)
As it stands, in March 2008, there are still children behind

bars and in conditions that vary greatly from one region
to another. For the most part, children are no longer
detained with adults although in some cases this merely
means not actually sharing the same cells. Where
completely separate facilities have been introduced they
are often still run by the BJMP and staffed by uniformed
prison guards.
However, the experience is hardly rehabilitative as the prison does

not provide programs for the rehabilitation of the children. The
Derbyshires (Derbyshire & Derbyshire, 2008) noted:
It was evident that, other than the confinement they

suffered, their treatment was not harsh but totally
lacking in any form of stimulus.
Interestingly, although some aspects of the law are being

implemented such as the turnover of CICL to rehabilitation centers,
the situation of the children in the centers closely mirrors the
situation of Philippine prisons.
PREDA says the conditions of two of the biggest government-run
rehabilitation Centers for children in the country, namely, the Center
for Restorative Activities, Development and Learning Activities
(CRADLE) and the Manila Youth Reception Center (MYRC)
mirror the situation of adult prisons. The Centers are congested.
There are no beds and decent beddings. Sanitation of the toilets is
deplorable. Health care is almost non-existent with the rampant
spread of skin diseases and other health problems. There are also
no programs to rehabilitate the children. In short, the Centers are
hardly conducive to the rehabilitation of children.
According to Cullen, “It (MYRC) is not a home for children. It is a
detention center. The Manila Youth Reception Center is a horrible
sub-human jail.”
The Response
As early as 1983, PREDA, which was founded in 1974 as a drug rehabilitation
center but later evolved to do work for street children, started to encounter children
in conflict with the law. In 1986, the jail visit program was instituted but was not
yet the main focus of PREDA. It was only in 2000 that PREDA intensified its jail
visit program as a response to a Newsweek article, which reported that 20,000
children were languishing in Philippine prisons. This resulted to the Philippine
government releasing CICL en masse after embarrassing stories about CICL in
Philippine jails were released by the international news media. Efforts of
government and non-government organizations to expedite the release of children
were just not enough.
Seeing this need, PREDA instituted its rescue program to complement its jail
visitation program. Presidential Decree 603 served as the primary basis for the
rescue program as the law states children should not be kept in detention for
more than 48 hours or should not be kept in jail with adult prisoners.
However, PREDA found out that it was not enough to get the children out of jail
because they were just transferred to government-run rehabilitation centers where
conditions closely resemble those of adult jails. The conditions are subhuman
and violate the rights of children. Moreover, the rehabilitation centers hardly had
rehabilitative programs. Some were also released prematurely to their families
and communities. In response to this situation, PREDA opened its Home for
Boys in December 2003.
The Process
The rescue program principally entails legal assistance to the CICL. At the first
contact with the CICL in jail, essential documentary evidence such as birth
certificate are secured to prove the age of the child. These documents along with
interviews with the child serve as the principal sources of information for the case
studies written to facilitate the CICL’s release. The legal counsel is also identified
to help the children. PREDA staff also gets in touch with the parents of the CICL.
Moreover, they contact victims or the adverse party to encourage and convince
them to withdraw their case against the CICL. In some cases, they contact
witnesses who can prove the innocence of the CICL.
56 SEEDS OF HOPE
At the start, there were only a few referrals to the Home for Boys but after a few
months later, an “avalanche of referrals” was received. Although PREDA had no
license or accreditation yet to operate, the DSWD turned over the CICL to the
Center because the courts were already referring the children to the Home. That
was how bad the situation was when the CICL started to be released from jails.
Garcia shares:
The Center was up and running but it did not have a license or
accreditation from the DSWD. We temporarily used the license of
the Center for Girls. Despite the absence of a license and
accreditation, the DSWD and the municipal and city social welfare
offices of Metro Manila referred children to us because there was
not enough room in the government-run centers. There were also
few NGOs providing rehabilitation facilities for CICL. We had a
soft opening on 23 September 2003 but our very first client came
in February 2004 from the Malabon City Jail.
The situation changed after the Home for Boys was established. It serves as a
temporary shelter for the boys while their cases are still ongoing. It provides
continuing legal assistance to those who have pending cases in court and also
provides rehabilitation programs for the children.
Many of the children who are turned over to PREDA have ongoing court cases.
These children remain in the Home while awaiting conclusion of their court
cases. The Child Rescue Program paralegal staff secures counsel for the child
from the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). While the case is being heard, the staff
accompanies the CICL to Metro Manila every time there is a trial. The purpose
of the legal assistance is to have the case eventually dismissed. The other half of
the program entails the rehabilitation of the children to prepare them for their
eventual reintegration with their families and communities.
The Home for Boys uses “affirmative, encouraging, supportive, and educational”
programs for children for their rehabilitation. (McCarthy, 2007) It works in the
belief that the behaviors of CICL stem from their lack of self-worth, self-esteem,
and a sense of dignity, and the lack of proper positive guidance. Thus, the program
attempts to build those very traits in the children.
The Center shuns punitive forms of punishment, which research has repeatedly
validated does not work in changing the behaviors of CICL. PREDA veers away
from the use of “harsh punishments and verbal or psychological abuse,” which
they may have suffered at home. Instead, PREDA teaches discipline by persuasion,
counseling, and the performance of light extra duties. (McCarthy, 2007) Francis
Bermido who heads the Home shares their use of dialogue whenever a child
becomes unruly or commits violations of regulations in the Center.
The PREDA staff also practices fairness and justice in dealing with the children
to instill these very virtues. When a child violates Center regulations, he and his
victim are made to face off to hear each other’s side.
Witnesses are also called to corroborate the statements of each party. When the
misdeed is uncovered, the erring boy is given extra household duties as penalty.
The program of recovery is based on acceptance, the provision of support and
affirmation, and the provision of their material needs.
58 SEEDS OF HOPE
PREDA offers the following programs to children:

• Children inclined to academic work are sent to elementary or high schools
in Olongapo, Zambales;
• Those not inclined to academic work attend the Alternative Learning
System (ALS) at the Center;
• Spiritual formation;
• Family therapy;
• Vocational training.
According to Deirdre McCarthy, an Irish volunteer, “(T)he overarching theme is

to restore the lost elements of childhood and to provide a system which will
avoid further conflict with the law.”
PREDA subjects children to emotional release therapy or what was then called
as primal therapy, which was intended for drug dependents but was modified for
CICL to help them get over painful and traumatic experiences. The objective is
to help them get over anger, aggression, and other anti-social feelings and
behaviors. PREDA claims this helps calm children and lessens their anti-social
behaviors.
The Home is an open center since it does not have bars, cells, or guards. Despite
its open center policy, most children decide to stay and complete the program
because it provides a safe place and a stable environment. Children stay on their
own will, a mark of the participative nature of the rehabilitation program.
Although some children choose to leave the Home, very few actually do according
to Francis Bermido, who heads the Home for Boys. In fact, some boys do not
want to leave even though they have already graduated from the program. One of
the boys said, “I do not want to go back because there is really no home to go
back to. We live in a shack. There is no food. I cannot even go to school.”
For those who miss their family, PREDA has a home stay program where children
with minor offenses are allowed to spend a few days of vacation with their family.
Before this is done, PREDA social workers conduct home visits to verify the
parents’ capacity and willingness to care for the child and assess the possible
effects of the community on the child (i.e., will the community no longer push the
child to engage in criminal activities?). Once found safe, they allow the children
to go home temporarily.
In 2008, PREDA unveiled the “Bukang Liwayway” (New Dawn), which serves as
the new home for boys. Bukang Liwayway can initially accommodate 54 young
children and expanded to as much as 100 children later on. The home is located
at Nagbayan, Castillejos, Zambales. Bukang Liwayway is set in “an organic farm
surrounded by fields and bordered by a stream and hills,” according to a PREDA
staff. At the time of the interview, 10 older boys were being transferred from the
old detention center to the facility.
Children are prepared for reintegration into their community by equipping them
with skills needed for employment. Children, for instance, are taught farming,
livestock raising, and hollow blocks making. The trainings have already started
to bear fruit. Former PREDA wards have been employed in the construction of
one of the buildings that would comprise the Bukang Liwayway.
60 SEEDS OF HOPE
Outcomes
• The program started as a jail monitoring program, progressing to become
a rescue, then rehabilitation program for CICL. Changes were made to
the program to respond to concrete needs. For instance, the Home for
the Boys was established as a response to the lack of institutions to refer
the children after their release.
• PREDA developed a questionnaire (a product of its constant contact
with children), which it used to interview children to write their case
studies and to craft appropriate services and programs for the children.
• The Home for Boys offers rehabilitation programs for the eventual
reintegration of children to their families and communities. The changed
lives of their former wards attest to the effectiveness of their program.
Some of the children have finished high school and have enrolled in
vocational programs. Some have acquired college degrees.
• The Primal Therapy or Emotional Release Therapy helps children
unleash their aggressive and anti-social behaviors. Children who have
gone through this have become more manageable and cooperative with
Center staff and peers, according to PREDA.
• PREDA introduced novel programs to discipline children who violate
Center regulations. The “Long Walk Home” gives the children the choice
to remain in the Center or go back home. They are brought to Subic Bay
where children could either walk back to PREDA or go home. This,
Bermido says, allows the children to think about what they did and mull
over what they want to do in life and set their priorities in order. Should
they go back to their former life or complete their rehabilitation program?
Bermido shares that all the children who went through the exercise have
gone back to the Center. Asked whether this puts the children in danger,
Bermido replies that the children are street smart enough to survive
since most of them were street children to begin with.
• Even with its open center policy, most children decide to remain in the
Center. While some have decided to leave, the retention rate remains
high. The Center is far from Manila making it difficult for children to
easily go back home or to regroup with their peers not to mention they
have developed friendships with other CICL in the Center.
Challenges
• A continuing challenge is the growing number of people who want the
JJWA repealed. The challenge for PREDA and other children’s rights
advocates is to show that these children can be rehabilitated as PREDA
has been successfully doing.
• Although police and social workers are starting to enforce the JJWA,
some concerned authorities fail to do their job. According to a PREDA
staff: “When you ask the CICL if they know the prosecutor and the social
worker, they say they don’t. The social workers only conduct jail visits
when we inform them there is a child in jail. Most of the time, they don’t
visit them and just rely on the information we give. When we inform
them there is a child in jail, they would reply, ‘Is that true?’ There are also
a few policemen who inform them there are children in the jail.”
• Garcia recounts cases of children who would escape when they are picked
up by PREDA staff from Metro Manila jails. The children would flee
while they are on stop over on their way to Olongapo. Unlike the DSWD,
PREDA is answerable to the courts for such eventualities and can be
charged for contempt of court. When this happens, they are required to
find the children.
• While the Center has a high retention rate, some children still insist on
going home even though they are completing a diversion program or has
a suspended sentence with PREDA. Garcia says, “Since PREDA is an
open center, the children can freely go home any time. Sometimes on our
way to check on to jails or conduct home visit, we pass by their
communities and see them there. The courts think they are still with us,
but in reality they are already back home. What we do is we allow them
to stay home, but we tell the children that they should go back to the
Center before their court hearing so the Court would know they are still
under our care.” This prevents the courts from issuing warrants of arrest
against the children.
62 SEEDS OF HOPE
• A potential problem is PREDA’s open center policy especially to children

who have been charged of heinous crimes and are spending suspended
sentences. Although studies show that the most effective rehabilitation
centers are those that have an open center approach and those who allow
the children to commit to stay in the Center and go through its programs,
this might not be appropriate to children serving suspended sentences.
This is because it will be detrimental to the child’s rehabilitation should
he decide to just go home and forego the program.
• Although the majority of the children in the past have already been
released from jails, there are still a number waiting to be release. The
cases that the children face are no longer status offenses but a number of
them are facing heinous crimes such as murder, rape of a minor, robbery,
and other similar crimes. Such cases are more complicated to handle.
Lessons Learned
• PREDA did not just provide services of monitoring the cases of the
children. When it saw the need to get the children released, it expanded
its services to include Jail Rescue. When it succeeded in getting the
children released but encountered problems in placing them in
rehabilitation centers, it set up its Home for Boys. Indeed, PREDA, went
extra lengths in addressing the needs of its clientele.
• PREDA recognizes the importance of developing cooperation with local
social workers who facilitate the release of children. Garcia shares their
experience with a social worker from the Malabon and Navotas areas:
“We offered to write and submit the social case study report (to speed up
the release of the child). But when we submitted the document to the
judge, the document was rejected because the case study should have
been prepared by the court social worker. We had to strategize. We
proposed to conduct the home visit and prepare the case study report,
after which the social worker would just sign it. She agreed and trusted us
enough we would do it.” The PREDA Rescue Team interviews the child,
conducts home visit to the child’s house (with or without the social
worker), and accomplishes the case study. This sped up the release of the
children and unburdened the social worker of some of her work. The
team up of PREDA and the social worker ensured that the best interest
of the child was placed above everything else.
• PREDA’s initial work in the jails visiting the children and providing them
with basic necessities served as a good introduction and rapport building
exercise for PREDA with BJMP officials. Rapport facilitated their work
with children in the jails. Garcia says: “The arresting officers are now the
ones who give us the birth certificates when we visit the jails because
when the parents of the CICL visit them, they make sure to get the birth
certificate from the parents.”
• One of the strengths of the Center is its open center policy, which foregoes
the use of bars and guards. Children stay because they are not forced to
but rather they agree to stay and go through the rehabilitation program.
Such commitment from the personal decision of the child is an indicator
that the rehabilitation will succeed. Studies in the United States show a
low rate of children escaping centers that use an open center policy, and
there is also a higher chance of success in rehabilitation. This is the
experience of PREDA that prides itself of having a high retention rate
and a high success rate in rehabilitating children.
• There is a need to make the
children admit their offense
because only then will true
rehabilitation come.
Admitting their
mistake makes them
responsible in turning
their life around. Garcia
recounts: “All the
children who come
here do not admit
what they have done.
Everyone says they
are not guilty. But
within a few days
or weeks, we are
able to make
them admit
their crime. We
tell them that
there is no way
they can win the case.
64 SEEDS OF HOPE
We will not help them get off the hook. If they really did the crime, they
have to admit it and be answerable for it. We tell them: ‘If you really did
it, then, we have to tell the court. You will be going through rehabilitation
here because we will try to change you.”’ PREDA also gives them the
possible scenarios when they admit their crime. They tell the CICL, for
instance, they can have a suspended sentence where they will be allowed
to stay in the Center until they reach maturity age.
• There is a need to make children realize they, too, can change. Bermido
says: “Actually in rehabilitation, we make the children realize they have
a responsibility to the community for what they have done. In the Center,
they have the chance to redeem themselves and to be trusted by people
once again. Once they realize this, it inspires children to change their
ways.”
• With perseverance and constant pressure from NGOs, government
workers can work and cooperate for the child’s best interest. PREDA has
succeeded in getting key government stakeholders to prioritize and
promote the CICL’s best interests. For instance, PREDA has convinced
the court to schedule trials of
children under their
care on the same day
to minimize trips
from Olongapo to
Manila. PREDA also
convinced the court to
hold trial in absentia.
Thus, even if the child
cannot appear
personally during
arraignment, the
court can still proceed
with the trial as long as
the child is still under
PREDA’s custody.
Chapter SIX
Strengthening Community
Structures
Strengthening the Barangay Councils for the
Protection of Children (BCPCs) in communities
The Context
Structures and organizations whose functions are to uphold children’s rights
have powerful influence on the lives of CICL and children at risk of coming in
conflict with the law. Philippine policy frameworks provide for the establishment
and strengthening of such structures. The Juvenile Justice Law stipulates that:
Local Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC) shall be

established in all levels of local government, and where they have already
been established, they shall be strengthened within one year from the
effectivity of this Act.... The local council shall serve as the primary agency
to coordinate with and assist the LGU concerned for the adoption of a
comprehensive plan on delinquency prevention, and to oversee its
proper implementation. One percent of the internal revenue allotment
of the barangays, municipalities and cities shall be allocated for the
strengthening and implementation of the programs of the LCPC. xi
65
66 SEEDS OF HOPE
This applies to the smallest units of local government such that each barangay
shall have its own Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC). The
BCPC is a council organized at the barangay level to serve as the primary
institution for all children’s concerns, and is mandated by law to advocate
children’s rights and implement all children’s programs. As early as 1974,
Presidential Decree 603 already mandated that every barangay council are
encouraged to establish such institution. Republic Act 8980xii, which was legislated
in 2000, made it mandatory for all barangays to have their own BCPC. RA 8980
also states that the BCPC should be composed of the following: xiii
• Barangay Captain
• School head/s in the barangay
• Barangay health midwife
• Barangay health worker
• Barangay nutrition scholar
• Day care worker/s
• Parents
• Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman
• Representative from child-focused nongovernment organizations/
people’s organizations
Since the enactment of RA 9344 in 2006, the BCPC is expected to play a central
role in handling cases of CICL within the communities. The mandate of the
BCPC includes the provision of case management, treatment, diversion, and
reintegration services for CICL, as well as the implementation of preventive
programs for children at risk. Title V, Chapter 2 of RA 9344 describes the diversion
system and the role of the BCPC in formulating it. CICL who are above the age of
15 but below 18 xiv have to undergo the diversion process without undergoing
court proceedings. xv In these cases, the CICL “may undergo case conferencing,
mediation or conciliation outside the criminal justice system or prior to his entry
into said system”xvi to be conducted by the law enforcement officer or the Punong
Barangay with the assistance of the local social welfare and development officer
or other members of the BCPC. Moreover, the formulation of the diversion
program should be done by the local social welfare and development officer in
the presence of the child and his/her parents or guardians, and in coordination
with the BCPC.
Despite the a legal framework delineating the existence and functions of the
BCPCs, their actual presence is not strongly felt in many barangays all over the
Philippines. According to a study conducted by Childhope Asia Philippines in

2004, a total of 26,002 (62%) BCPCs have been organized out of the 42,000
barangays in the Philippines. (Ruiz, 2004) However, only 17,465 of these BCPCs
(67% of the existing BCPCs) were active and functional at the time of the study.
Put another way, only about 42% of all the barangays in the Philippines have a
functioning BCPC. In a study on child-friendly cities in the Philippines, Racelis
and Aguirre (2002) found out that the existence and functionality of BCPCs
varies widely from city to city. According to the study, over half of the barangays in
Cebu City and DavaoCity have fully functioning BCPCs. However, they point
out that “Metro Manila BCPCs fall far behind their Davao City or Cebu City
counterparts.” For instance, in Quezon City, only 25 out of 142 barangays (18%)
have BCPCs. Racelis and Aguirre further lament that “most BCPCs in the cities
of Manila, Pasay and Quezon have hardly conducted a meeting.... Most BCPCs
have failed to deal effectively with their
youth constituencies.” (Racelis, 2002)
Even in places where BCPCs exist,
their function is hampered by the lack
of understanding of the processes in
handling CICL cases. Instead of
conducting case conferencing within
the barangay and trying to resolve
the case outside the criminal justice
system, some CICL are usually
referred to the courts right away.
When a child is required to undergo
a diversion program, it is usually
formulated by a single person —either
the local social welfare, development
officer, or the Punong Barangay.
Because diversion programs are
relatively new in these communities,
these are usually inappropriate. For
instance, some children are made to
sweep the streets for a whole day. In
these conditions, the rights of children
are not upheld making CICL vulnerable
to abuse by law enforcers. Also, the
“diversion programs” are not based on
principles of restorative justice, thus,
68 SEEDS OF HOPE
are not likely to achieve the objectives of conflict resolution, reparation for the
victim, reconciliation of the offender, the offended, and the community, and
reintegration of the offender into society.
The Response
FCED, a non-profit service foundation that promotes social and economic
development in depressed areas in Manila, has been implementing a program to
organize and strengthen BCPCs in communities in Paco and Pandacan, Manila.
Strengthening Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children (BCPCs) is a
community-organizing program that facilitates the development and
strengthening of effective community structures that initiate, implement, and
evaluate community programs and projects that address the concerns of children
and families in urban poor communities. Through this program,
FCED helps set up BCPCs in the communities and provides
capacity-building in community work.
FCED’s work with BCPCs in Paco and Pandacan has a
long history, having started in 1992 as a
community-based program in
organizing and strengthening
BCPCs in 13 selected barangays.
Utilizing the community
organization strategy, this
program includes advocacy work
and capacity-building to inform
community leaders and members
about children’s rights, relevant
laws, and the nature of the BCPC,
and to empower them in
organizing their own BCPCs
capable of initiating and
implementing programs that
address the concerns of children.
The first phase of this initiative
ended in 2002 and since then 12 out
of the 13 pilot barangays have
organized and sustained fully-
functioning BCPCs. In 2002, FCED
began the second phase of the program that focused on further strengthening
the existing BCPCs and expanding to 27 additional barangays in Paco (San
Andres, Malate) and Sta. Ana, Manila.
The Process
At the start of the project, FCED conducted advocacy activities for the barangay
council and tanods. They provided basic information on children’s rights and the
UN CRC, relevant laws, forms of child abuse, and the BCPC. Through these
activities, the leaders of the communities became aware of the BCPC and its
mandated functions.
After these advocacy activities, FCED conducted community organization training
that provided the participating barangays with the input they needed to organize
and maintain their own BCPCs. The training consists of three
modules, each includes a few days for the sharing of technical
input and a longer “practicum” period where participants
apply in their barangays what they have learned.
• Module One focuses on awareness and
commitment-building ,
which provides
participants with
information about the
BCPC, why they need
to organize the BCPC
in their community
and what the
organizational
structure of the
BCPC should be like.
After this, they are
given time for a
“practicum” that
includes conducting
their own advocacy
session on children’s
rights and relevant
policies and laws in
70 SEEDS OF HOPE
the Philippines, and conducting a baseline study on the situation of

children in their barangay. The results of the practicum are then presented
and used in succeeding modules.
• Module Two deals with organization and leadership development skills.
The participants are trained to analyze their data on the situation of
children and to develop strategic plans based on these data. This module
also includes input on the community organizing approach and
organizational development mechanics. Participants then hold a second
practicum that requires them to identify and invite potential BCPC
members, present their baseline study results to these individuals, and
work with them in establishing the priority needs of children in the
community.
• Module Three tackles project development and
management of the BCPC, that includes
resource mobilization and networking. The
practicum involves working with the potential
BCPC members who were invited in the
previous module.
As the BCPC becomes organized and the members

learn to conduct these processes, FCED becomes
less involved in the BCPC work. They continue
to visit the functioning BCPCs for monitoring and
to give technical support and advice when needed.
A notable strength of FCED’s program is the
development of its own tool to monitor the
functionality of the BCPCs that have been
organized.
The BCPC Functionality Assessment
Form specifies six key result areas
(KRAs) with corresponding performance
indicators and specific information. The
KRAs that are evaluated by FCED are
organizational maturity, institutionalization
and enforcement of plans and policies,
quick response to child abuse,
mobilization of resources, capability
building, and development and replication of programs/projects (See Appendix

2 : BCPC Functionality Assessment Form). The indicators and information that
they look for are specific and are based on FCED’s experiences in organizing
BCPCs.
ility by
se s s u stainab the
addres n g t h e n se
FCED o s t r e
uing t here th
e
contin ba ra ngays w n d a r e
BCPCs
in zed a
b e e n organi l. FC
ED
have f u n ctiona with
curren
tly
l a r m eetings as
ts reg u as well
conduc ional BCPC ings,
each fu
nct
r a n g a y meet
inter-b
a cuss
regular v e n u e to dis ,
sa ments
serve a mplish
which c o
hare a c do rthe
and s c o u n tered, an
ges en
challen
nces. and
experie e ntified
i d
has al
s o GOs
FCED p a r t ner N
d seve
n his
traine e s e a reas. T
th tions ca
n
ing in rganiza
operat lo c a l o e d e d
that vide n
e
ensures p r o C D
E
ue to s after F
contin B C P C
t to the
suppor gram.
in a te s its pro
term
The role of BCPCs in dealing with cases of CICL

An important aspect of FCED’s work in organizing and strengthening BCPCs is
the provision of information and technical support needed to enable them to
perform their mandated functions in handling cases of children at risk and CICL.
FCED conducts seminars and training sessions for BCPCs on RA 9344, restorative
justice, and the system of diversion. Through these activities, the members of
the BCPCs gain a clearer understanding of their roles in the processes of handling
CICL cases as stipulated in the JJWA. They are also encouraged to develop and
implement their own projects for the prevention of children at risk from coming
72 SEEDS OF HOPE
in conflict with the law, ensuring that the principles of restorative justice are
upheld, and facilitating the reintegration of CICL into their respective
communities. The training of the BCPCs ensures that these projects are based
on the needs and issues of children in their barangays.
With the support of barangay leaders and the participation of committed BCPC
members, the BCPCs that were organized and supported by FCED have initiated
several projects that focused on addressing the concerns of CICL in their
communities. One such project was based on the observation that many of the
cases of CICL in their area involved “riots” or “gang wars” among children and
youth in their respective barangays. With the assistance of FCED, the BCPCs
discussed the situation. They agreed to have BCPC members continuously
monitor the tambayan (hang out) of the gangs in their respective barangays.
They kept tabs on the gangs’ activities and intervened when conflicts arise.
Eventually, the BCPCs facilitated “inter-barangay reconciliation” where rival
gangs were encouraged to resolve their conflicts in a non-violent manner. The
BCPCs in these areas reported a decrease in the cases of CICL and fewer
incidences of “gang wars.”
Other successful BCPC projects include:
• Provide training on becoming caregivers to CICL who have finished
their diversion process. Through this, former CICL gain skills to provide
useful services in their communities, which they can also use as a source
of income.
• In coordination with the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) in their barangay,
film-showing with themes such as child abuse, substance use, and gang
violence is conducted for at-risk youth dealing. The films provide a starting
point for children and youth to discuss their experiences and the
consequences of risky behaviors.
In some of FCED’s expansion barangays, the organization of BCPCs started as

recently as 2008 but has already led to changes in the way CICL cases are dealt
with. A BCPC member from Barangay 834 shared that when RA 9344 was passed
in 2006, they did not really understand what it entailed. Barangay tanods
(Community Watch) stopped taking children into custody even if they were
engaged in criminal activities for fear they would be accused of violating the
JJWA.
When FCED started organizing the BCPCs in their areas and conducted seminars
and training sessions on the JJWA, they were able to clarify that the law stipulates
the proper process of taking children into custody. Thus, FCED’s program became
effective in providing the much-needed information about the processes involved
in implementing the juvenile justice and welfare system.
Outcomes
• Twelve of the 13 pilot barangays in Paco and Pandacan, Manila, continue
to have functional BCPCs based on FCED’s assessment data. These
BCPCs conduct regular meetings, have an updated data on the situation
of children, and plan and implement activities for children in their
communities. These include activities intended to prevent children from
coming in conflict with the law and projects for the reintegration of CICL
into their communities. Other BCPCs regularly conduct their own
seminars on the UN-CRC, on relevant laws such as the JJWA, and on
parenting, which are attended by community members (adults and
children).
• In areas where the BCPC is
active, barangay leaders
observe improvements in the
handling of CICL cases. As
one barangay captain says:
“hindi nabara-bara” (The
process is no longer
unsystematic). Cases are
properly documented
on a BCPC logbook,
which is monitored
by the barangay
captain, and are kept
strictly confidential.
74 SEEDS OF HOPE
• In barangays where there are organized and functioning BCPCs, CICL

cases are usually resolved at the barangay level through community-
based diversion. The number of CICL cases that enter the formal justice
system are minimized. These outcomes are in keeping with the principles
of restorative justice and with international and local legal frameworks
for the administration of juvenile justice such as the Beijing Rules,xvii the
Tokyo Rules,xviii the Family Courts Act of 1997,xix and the rules on juveniles
in conflict with the law that was issued by the Supreme Court in 2002.
• Parents or guardians of CICL are immediately informed and made aware
of their child’s case. The BCPC ensures that they are involved in the case
conference and in the formulation of the diversion program that their
child will undergo. The BCPC members and leaders feel that this
encourages parents to take more active roles in preventing their children
from committing further offenses.
Ongoing Challenges
• According to FCED, one of the biggest challenges that they face in this
program is the structure of the BCPC . The law stipulates that the
barangay chair is automatically a co-chair of the BCPC, which affects its
functioning and sustainability. One reason why FCED finds this
problematic is the turnover of barangay chairs every three years. This
means that the leadership of the BCPC changes frequently, in case the
barangay chair is not reelected, creating a need to train the newly elected
chair at the start of every term. There are also instances where the newly
elected chair is not supportive of the BCPC or has political or personal
conflicts with existing BCPC members. For example, some barangay
chairs have a perception that the BCPC “competes” with the barangay
council and refuse to allocate funds for the BCPC. In cases where the
BCPC is hindered from performing its functions in this manner, FCED
turns to people’s organizations and parents’ associations to spearhead
the advocacy and protection functions of the BCPC. It also help BCPCs
in lobbying for the release of their allocated funds.
The manner where the other BCPC co-chair is selected in a

number of barangays remain unclear. While the law states
that the co-chair should be elected by the members of the
BCPC, it is usually the barangay chair who appoints the co-
chair from among the barangay council members (kagawad).
Because the council members already have mandated duties
as barangay officials, they may not have the time to devote in
leading the BCPC.
• The existing beliefs and attitudes of barangay leaders on
children’s rights and CICL can greatly influence the
functionality of the BCPC. Barangay leaders and law
enforcers who hold negative attitudes towards CICL tend to
resist adopting the processes prescribed in the JJWA when
dealing with CICL. For instance, community advocates from
one barangay in Manila shared that their barangay captain
treats CICL abusively—“nananampal (siya) ng mga bata” (She
slaps the children) and “ginagamitan (niya) ng kamay na
bakal” (She wields an iron fist). Their BCPC exists but,
according to the community
advocates, no longer
functions at the same
level that it did under 0 7, FCED
n 2 0
I PCs in
their previous barangay
cilit a ted the BC
fa ys in
captain. On the other baranga
selected t h e ir
hand, BCPCs in g for
lo b b y in This
d funds.
barangays where mandate ponse
the barangay a s d o n e as a res
w ome
r e p o r t s that s
captain is highly to le a d e r s
y
supportive of baranga ate funds
r e fu se d to alloc e
children’s rights tend e s p e c t iv
t o t h e ir r lt, the
to flourish because the As a resu
C P C s .
B ese
barangay captain meets
P C s in t h
BC ed 1%
them regularly and monitors ys receiv
baranga .
their activities. ngay IRA
ofthe bara
76 SEEDS OF HOPE
Lessons Learned
• The design of the training on community organizing has to take into
consideration the constraints on the time and resources of the
participants. The training was originally designed to have a duration of
30 days, with 10 days allotted for each module. However, many
participants cannot spare that much time for training. Since then, FCED
has shortened the training to 12 days or even eight days if needed.
• Networking and forming partnerships with other NGOs that are already
active in FCED’s target areas have contributed to the sustainability of
the program. Although there are many NGOs in these areas, FCED
originally found it challenging to find groups that they could work with
because most of them focus on very specific aspects of service delivery
unlike FCED’s integrated, holistic approach. As of now, FCED has formed
partnerships with seven NGOs. Representatives from these groups have
undergone training on BCPC and community organizing and are
equipped to continue strengthening the BCPCs in the area.
• The presence of barangays with functioning and effective BCPCs can
encourage other barangays to organize their BCPCs. They can serve as
“model” barangays in terms of upholding children’s rights and handling
cases of CICL in accordance with the JJWA. In some cases, the members
of the functioning BCPCs also have a sense of responsibility in upholding
the rights of children not just in their own barangays but in neighboring
barangays as well by taking time to talk to barangay council officers on
policies that they think violate children’s rights and offering suggestions
about changes that can be made.
• It may be important for NGOs and other concerned community members
to lobby for a review of the current BCPC structure. For example, some
of the BCPC members who were interviewed suggested that the BCPC
should elect its chair or co-chair from among themselves such that
community members and representatives of people’s organizations can
have the opportunity to lead the BCPC. In this way, the positions of the
BCPC chair and co-chair do not have to be filled by the barangay captain
and kagawads but by leaders who can coordinate closely with the
barangay captain and the barangay council.
Chapter SEVEN
Reflections on Why
Programs for CICL Work
There are numerous misconceptions about CICL and the ways these children
can and should be disciplined, as well as misapprehensions about Republic Act
No. 9344 or the JJWA. People wrongly interpret the law as tolerant of the anti-
social and “criminal” behaviors of children. It is believed that since children will
no longer be jailed under the law, children will not learn accountability for their
anti-social behaviors because they were not punished. To restore “social order”
and to put the “proper” disciplining mechanisms for CICL, a growing number of
critics are calling for the repeal of RA 9344.
This publication hopes to address some of these misconceptions and show that
the law works.
While the law has its flaws, it provides an important framework for rehabilitating
CICL and in preventing children from coming in conflict with the law. The law
also has the best interest of children in mind as it recognizes that CICL may have
committed their crimes at an age they have yet to develop full discernment of
their actions and the full realization of the implications of their deeds. Instead of
resorting to punitive measures, the law resort to restorative justice, which research
has shown is more effective in rehabilitating children when carried out properly.
77
78 SEEDS OF HOPE
s ttee m
d W e l f a rree Sy
e Justic
e an children
J u venil a li ng with
o a syste
m d e ith the
“refers t e n in conflict w iate
r r
nd child approp
at risk a r o v id e s child- m s and
, w h ich p in g p r ogra
la w d on,
c e e d in gs, inclu t i o n , d i v e r s i
pr o reve n d
s for p n, an
service r e i n t egratio o w th
, gr
litation normal
rehabi ur e t h e ir
ect n
io
e to ens 9344, S
aftercar ent ” ( R A
velopm
and de
4[m]) hich
“ is a p r inciple w ts
tice conflic
tive Jus esolving of the
Restora es s o f r
s a proc ement
require a x im u m involv munity.
with th
em n d the com
nd e r a or the
the offe r ation f
victim, tain r e p a
r, the
s e e k s to ob o f th e offende
I t tio n and
tim ; re concilia c o m m unity;
vic the e
ed and at he/sh
offend ff e nder th
t h e o It o
a ls
reassur
ance to in t o society.
at e d g the
reintegr y activatin
can be c sa fe ty b unity
h a n c es publi n d t h e comm
e n tim a 44,
n d e r , the vic g i e s .” (RA 93
of f e strat e
ention
in prev
4[q])
Section
Restorative justice practices in other countries have shown that these children
can be rehabilitated using alternatives to a jail sentence. xx Philippine based-NGOs
also attest to the effectiveness of restorative justice in rehabilitating children.
These NGOs have also shown prevention programs are more effective than
rehabilitation.
The NGOs experiences brings hope that the principles of the law can be translated
into actual practice and that they do work. They have also contributed to ensuring
the implementation of the law and bridging the service delivery gaps of
government. This study aims to document practices and experiences in the hope
that the following questions will be answered: What are the factors that make an
program or intervention works? When can we say that a program or intervetion
for CICL works? When can we say that the practice should be replicated because
it has been proven to work for CICL? What criteria can we set to judge the worth
of programs for these children?
What makes a Juvenile Justice Program effective?

For this documentation we have adapted the IPEC’s Criteria for Determining
What Makes a Practice Good (IPEC, 2007)xxi as the basis to judge the effectiveness
of the program. The Guidelines have been fleshed out by Cordaid partner
organizations in a day long workshop before the start of the research. This was
done to ensure that the instrument is more responsive to their respective contexts.
The criteria include the following: impact, relevance, replicability, sustainability,
innovativeness, adherence to ethics, networking, and participation. The examples
of best practices from the Cordaid partners that were earlier presented were in
fact chosen to be included in this document because these fit the criteria. It must
be stressed that the term “best practices” was deliberately used in this
documentation despite the discourse on its
use to describe practices that work. It is to
give recognition to the
efforts of the partners to
provide support to and
improve the lives of
CICL.
The following
discussion will help in
better understanding
how these practices are
indeed effective. Each
section presents an
example from one or
two organizations.
However, this does
not imply that the
organizations that
were not mentioned
in the section are not
practicing the
interventions and
principles.
80 SEEDS OF HOPE
Impact
Impact looks at the positive and measurable effects of the methods or programs
to the beneficiaries and the community. These programs ensure improvements
in the situation of CICL either by providing useful intervention programs that
change the CICL’s situation or behavior or by preventing children from coming in
In the case of PREDA, it saw the need to assist in the release of CICL when RA
9344 was passed into law and detention centers and jails were tasked to release
children either in the communities or in rehabilitation centers. PREDA stepped
up its rescue program for children and assisted government social workers who
could not keep up with the demands of releasing thousands
of children in Metro Manila jails.
PREDA provided help in facilitating
the release of children and in
expediting the processing of their cases.
For those who needed rehabilitation,
PREDA opened up a center for CICL.
The impact of the program of PREDA
can be gleaned in the hundreds of
children who were released from jails
and those who came in to be
rehabilitated in PREDA’s Home for
Boys.
• One of the lessons PREDA has
learned from its rescue and
rehabilitation program is that
it should be open to the
possibility of expanding its
programs especially if the
programmatic changes are seen
as necessary responses to
problems encountered in the
field. This ensures that the
impact of the program on the
beneficiaries is maximized.
• The rescue of children in jail should be complemented by an effective

rehabilitation program. This is to ensure that after the release of the
child from jail, he/she goes through the restorative justice process that
allows the child to realize his/her mistakes, admit them, and go through
the process of reforming his or her behavior.
Tambayan Center has been working with gangs of street girls to strengthen their
collective capacities for self-help and to promote children’s participation. The
Street Organization program is based on the belief that gangs need not only be
seen as a negative influence on the girls’ lives. The program seeks to address the
violent and harmful nature of gangs, transforming it into a positive support
system. The program offers a lot of potential in terms of preventing children from
coming in conflict with the law. While gangs by nature promotes violence, they
can also serve as a potent support mechanism for children faced with the
uncertainties of the streets. This can only be done if an institution, like Tambayan
Center, utilizes proper programs and mechanisms to counter the violent
tendencies of gangs and inject proper directions to its members. Tambayan Center
acknowledges that involvement in gangs make the girls vulnerable to various
forms of violence but it believes that through its programs and processes, the
gangs can be guided and, thus, prevented from engaging in anti-social and criminal
behaviors.
To reach the girls, Tambayan Center establishes rapport with the gangs through
regular visits and activities. Once that initial rapport is established, the needs,
issues and goals of the gang and its members are established. Each gang develops
its own group-building intervention plan with the help of Tambayan Center. The
group is also taught to monitor their progress and to decide when to dissolve
their gangs and go their separate ways. This is an important process because
leaving the gang allows children to be reintegrated with their families and to
make the conscious decision to leave the streets and lead the “normal” life of a
child.
The effectiveness and impact of the program can be seen in self-reported changes
in the girls’ behaviors. Some have in fact left the streets to devote more time with
their families or go back to school to finish their education. For those who have
stayed with the gangs, their violent clashes with rival gang members have been
minimized. There are even times when rival gangs find themselves working on
the same activity or project.
82 SEEDS OF HOPE
• An important feature of the program is that the girls are made to identify
their needs and goals, participate in planning their own intervention
activities, and monitor their own progress. This ensures that the
programs respond to actual needs of the children. They also have a sense
of ownership and accountability
because they themselves drew up the
intervention program. They are
taught to be responsible over
themselves. This also drives
home the message that change
cannot be imposed from
outside. It has to
be the conscious
decision of the
individual to
change. With this,
the girls feel in
control of their own
lives. They realize that
their decisions should
not be dictated by
anyone but themselves
and that they are solely
responsible for any harm
that can result from any of
their decisions. Given this, the
positive change in their
behavior has more chances of
becoming permanent as the
children make the conscious
decision to change their lives.
Relevance
Relevance of the program has to do with the appropriateness and timeliness of
the programs for CICL. When can we say that a program is relevant? Cordaid
partner organizations agreed that a program for CICL is relevant when it addresses
the four basic rights of children: survival, development, protection, and
participation.
Pangarap Foundation focused on working with street gangs in Paliparan that
were constantly engaged in gang wars. The principal goal was to “break the cycle”
of violence by lessening the conflicts between gangs through their involvement
in non-violent and productive activities. The ultimate goal is to persuade
individual gang members to leave their gangs and lead normal lives out of the
streets.
The impact of the program can be seen in the decrease in the number of children
joining street gangs in the community and in the number of former gang members
who have gone on to complete their elementary or high school education. For
those who have remained with the gangs, they have started to engage in youth-
focused activities that veer them away from violent collisions with other gangs.
The program is relevant because it addresses the multiple rights of the gang
members. For instance, involving them in non-violent activities protect them
from the dire consequences of violent gang wars. Providing them the opportunity
to go back to school, on the other hand, helps them enjoy their development
rights. Giving the children the right to decide when to leave the gang and not
forcing them to do so allow them to benefit from their participation rights. Lastly,
the provision of livelihood programs opens up for them alternative means of
earning, which would ensure their enjoyment of their survival rights.
• Pangarap Foundation’s experience shows the importance of a holistic
approach to working with street children and youth gangs. A holistic
approach is preferable because this increases the possibility of greater
impact on the target beneficiaries. The programs of Pangarap are
connected to their other programs and services such as educational
assistance, livelihood projects for youth and adults, legal assistance, and
family therapy as recognition of the multiple factors that lead children
and youth to join gangs. Having this multi-pronged approach allows
them to address the various needs of the children and, therefore, increases
the possibility of targeting the problem that has driven the child to join
youth gangs.
84 SEEDS OF HOPE
Replicability
The possibility of adopting or adapting the programs of other organizations in
another context is the third criterion for a program to be considered a viable
program for CICL. One of the marks of replicability, according to Cordaid partner
organizations, is the training and involvement of community members in the
projects for children primarily because community involvement ensures that
community members will manage the program in their own communities with or
without the assistance of NGOs.
FCED’s program Strengthening Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children
(BCPCs) is a community-organizing program that facilitates the development
and strengthening of effective community structures that initiate, implement,
and evaluate community programs and projects in urban poor communities. The
program ensures that BCPCs in the communities are set-up and its leaders have
the capacity to engage in community work. This is important because the BCPC
is in the forefront of protecting the rights of
children in the local communities,
for both ordinary children and
CICL.
In 2002, 12 out of the 13
pilot barangays of FCED
have organized and
maintained their own
fully-functioning BCPCs.
The following year,
FCED started the
second phase of its
program, which
focused on further
strengthening the
existing BCPCs and
expanding to 27
barangays. According to
an FCED staff, xxii as of
2010, out of 35 target
barangays, 33 had functional
BCPCs. However, after
the local elections on
October 2010, half of
the barangays changed leadership. FCED is now prioritizing its

work with these barangay leaders to orient them on the importance
of sustaining the efforts of strengthening the BCPCs and are
encouraging them to keep the trained people in place. This may
prove to be a challenge because the practice of new leaders –
chairpersons and councilors – is to remove those appointed by the
previous administration and appoint their own people.
The purpose of the training is to make the BCPC more independent
once it is organized and the members learn to conduct the processes
involved. As the BCPC is equipped with the know-how and skills
they need, FCED becomes less involved in the BCPC work since
the BCPC can already manage its own programs. In this sense, the
training program is replicated in various places.
An important aspect of FCED’s work in organizing and
strengthening BCPCs is the provision of information and technical
support needed to enable them to perform their mandated
functions of handling cases of children at risk and CICL.
• FCED learned from experience that the presence of
barangays with functioning and effective BCPCs can
encourage other barangays to invest in organizing their
own BCPCs. Those with functioning BCPCs can serve as
“model” barangays whose work can be replicated by other
barangays. This is important especially in the case of CICL
because there are very few existing models that can be
replicated at this point. This has to be coupled with effective
training that shows how things can be done and by
equipping stakeholders with the necessary skills to run
programs and respond to the actual needs of the CICL.
With the dearth of models, people easily dismiss RA 9344
as impossible to translate into actual practice. The
existence of model barangays will show that programs for
CICL, especially those that involve diversion programs,
can and do work.
86 SEEDS OF HOPE
Sustainability
One of the perennial challenges is the shortage of funds, especially when donor
agencies have withdrawn their support to the program. Thus, the challenge lies
in coming up with ways to continue the program even when outside help is no
longer available. One of the strategies is to involve the community members in
the programs and in the process ensure that the community owns the program
by cultivating their support and commitment even if the NGO leaves the
community.
The John J Carroll Institute of Church and Social Issues’ (JJCICSI) Church and
Family Life Program ensures the sustainability of the program for CICL by
investing in the training of members of the BCPC who would carry out diversion
programs and restorative justice
processes. Rigorous training would
produce “cadres” who have the
necessary skills, knowledge, and
commitment to carry out the task.
As with replicability, community
support should be one of the
foremost considerations.
One of the early signs that
JJCICSI’s program would
succeed is that local officials
who joined their training have
been contacting them to
consult cases they handle. Some
barangay captains have also
thrown their full support in
carrying out child-friendly
conferencing and mediation in
their barangay. This shows that
the training has engendered
commitment among the
trained officials, which can be
considered an early sign that
the program will be
sustainable.
• Since elected officials only hold office for three years, and are eligible for
reelection for a maximum of three terms, there is a possibility that
barangay officials need to be trained every three years if the incumbents
are not reelected. The programs for CICL need to adapt to this context
and consider the needed resources. This includes developing a strategy
for ensuring that the BCPC remains functional even if the barangay
leadership changes. Ideally, the BCPC has to be co-led by the ordinary
citizens. In reality, this is not often the case as there is low awareness on
how the BCPC should function. There is also a tendency for barangay
officials to appoint friends and relatives. Thus, there is a need to
encourage the participation of community volunteers and ordinary
citizens in the BCPC. Identifying able citizens to join the BCPC would
ensure the continuity of the program despite the election of new local
officials. This would help ensure the sustainability of the program.
• There is a need for community members to feel a certain sense of
ownership over a particular program. Handing out the program to the
community on a platter without the community feeling any sense of stake
and participation in running the program is a potent predictor of failure
of programs, especially if the NGO is no longer as involved.
Innovation
Innovation involves the introduction of new methods, techniques, systems,
models, and processes in answering the needs of the target clientele. The
prevention or intervention program can make use of new but effective procedures,
techniques, systems, models, processes, and structures that other organizations
have not yet tried. Or it could be an improvement of past practices to make it
more responsive to the actual needs of its clients.
For its prevention program, FCED has embarked on a strategy that one would
not normally think to have any bearing on preventing children from coming in
conflict with the law: It trains parents in the community on responsible parenthood
and effective parenting practices. It highlights abusive disciplinary practices that
should be discontinued by parents. They are taught positive disciplining
techniques instead. In these trainings, parents realize that their parenting practices
may drive their children to misbehave and commit anti-social activities. FCED’s
program is innovative because effective and responsible parenthood is now seen
as a key strategy in preventing children from coming in conflict with the law.
88 SEEDS OF HOPE
• In designing prevention strategies for children, one has to come up with

the out-of-the-box strategies. Usual preventive programs involve
provision of sports activities, anger management, etc., that are usually
directed to children. The program of FCED is innovative in the sense
that it recognizes the important role parents play in instilling discipline
to children and in socializing them into good behavior. Because of this,
they should be equipped with the necessary skills to effectively discipline
them, which entail avoiding disciplinary practices that may actually drive
children to misbehave and engage in anti-social behaviors.
• Parenting is no longer the sole province of women. It
should be gender fair and sensitive. Hence, FCED
not only reaches out to mothers; it also trains
fathers on effective and responsible
parenthood. Parents must jointly
raise their children using effective
child rearing and disciplinary
practices.
The Conferencing and Mediation

Program of JJCICSI was adapted
from the Guideline on Conferencing
and Mediation by the JJWC and the
Scripted Model of Canadian NGOs.
JJCICSI revised the scripted model to
respond to the cultural practices of
Filipinos and the actual situation of the
BCPC leaders and the CICL in the
country. In addition, the JJCICSI
training gives participants an
overview of the situation of CICL,
teaches participants relevant
provisions of the new law, discusses
the principles of restorative justice,
provides examples of possible
diversion programs, and teaches
the theory and practice of
conducting conferencing and
mediation using child-sensitive
processes. Role play is also used as a strategy to help participants learn better
the principles and practices that were taught to them. Thus, JJCICSI has tailor-
made the training to respond to the needs of BCPC members in the Philippines.
• Participants attest that the training has allowed them not only to learn
the processes of restorative justice particularly mediation and
conferencing but also the principles behind the practice. The principles
allow them to gain a better appreciation of the process and why
restorative justice is preferred over punitive disciplining practices.
• JJCICSI’s program is the first program of its kind that is provided to key
stakeholders concerned with providing initial services for children who
have just come in conflict with the law. Thus, by itself, it is already an
innovation of sorts. It is an important program because it equips
stakeholders with the skills to effectively manage conferencing and
mediation between the accused and the victim. This is an important
first step in the healing of relationships between the CICL and their
victims and in rehabilitating the CICL. From this, the children can realize
the negative impact of their behavior and are taught ways to “repair” or
at least atone for the harm they have inflicted on their victims.
Ethical
Any good program for CICL should adhere to ethical rules or standards. The
programs of the Cordaid partner organizations are ethical since they adhere to
the principles of the UN CRC. The principles of the UN CRC serve as a standard
to gauge whether the programs for children address the rights of children.
Hence, many of the programs start with the discussions of the rights of children.
For instance, it is a staple for training programs of Cordaid partner organizations
to start with the discussion of rights. FCED and Tambayan Center provide training
programs on children’s rights. FCED teaches disciplining techniques that do not
violate the children’s protective and development rights.
JJCICSI’s and Pangarap Foundation’s adherence to the principles of the UN
CRC are rather implicit compared to the FCED and Tambayan Center’s. JJCICSI’s
adherence to the principles can be seen in its programs of training BCPCs using
the children’s rights framework. The idea is to help the BCPC members learn
ways of protecting CICL and treating them as children and not as adult
perpetrators. Thus, JJCICSI teaches child-friendly ways of dealing with CICL
90 SEEDS OF HOPE
such as respecting the privacy of children, practicing confidentiality of personal

information, and being more cognizant of child-friendly processes in dealing with
CICL. Pangarap Foundation, consciously allows its children beneficiaries to
practice their participation rights by helping the children in making plans for
their intervention.
PREDA, on the other hand, wages an active campaign to free and rehabilitate
CICL to ensure that their rights are duly upheld. The rescue program, in particular,
helps in the release of children from adult prisons and detention centers where
their rights are flagrantly violated by the police and adult inmates.
Another ethical consideration is the adherence to gender sensitive and non-
discriminatory policies and practices. Tambayan Center’s program for girls is one
of the programs that illustrate the importance of a gender-sensitive program.
Many programs of NGOs address the needs of male CICL because there are a
greater number of males who come in contact with the law. However, Tambayan
Center realized that girls need to equally receive prevention programs because
of the increasing number of girls that join gangs, which increases the risk of coming
in conflict with the law.
• While adherence to the UN CRC entails teaching children and adults
about children’s rights, it goes hand in hand with teaching children and
adults the responsibilities of children. While parents are responsible for
ensuring the rights of children, it must be stressed that children also have
responsibilities and this entails realizing that they cannot do whatever
they want to do. Responsibility entails a behavior that will not impinge
on the rights of others and will not compromise one’s welfare. This is a
constant message that is driven by Cordaid partner organizations when
they provide training to stakeholders in communities.
• Almost all of Cordaid partner organizations follow a Code of Ethics in
dealing with their children clients. This is important since it serves as a
standard to the staff in ensuring that the rights of children are upheld at
all times and that erring staff are held accountable for their improper
behaviors towards their clients.
Networking and Involvement of Stakeholders

This criterion involves tapping the resources of other organizations and persons
who may have the capability to provide services that the Cordaid partners cannot
provide. NGOs admit that they do not have a monopoly of services that can be
offered to CICL, thus, they need to cooperate with other entities to complement
their own programs.
PREDA, for one, realized the importance of partnering with
social workers in processing the release of children in jail.
Although at the start, PREDA did not work well with
government social workers, it had to accept that it would be
more effective to work with social workers and ensure a
professional and cordial relationship with them.
The official administrative process
mandates that social workers
prepare and sign the case
studies of children. To expedite
the process, PREDA
volunteered to prepare the case
studies and the social worker
would only need to sign the
document. Such a cooperative
relationship has become
mutually beneficial to PREDA
and the social workers as it
facilitated the release of children
from prison.
Because JJCICSI’s Church and
Family Life Program has a lean
staff, it has partnered with other
NGOs and government agencies in
delivering the Conferencing and
Mediation training program.
JJCICSI has used its expertise and
experiences in crafting the
modules of the program,
which it adapted from
92 SEEDS OF HOPE
Canadian NGOs. However, because none of its staff is a lawyer, it has partnered
with HLAF to deliver the legal component of the training, particularly the
discussion on RA 9344. It also works with the JJWC, the government body that is
tasked to craft policies and procedures on CICL. JJWC leads the discussion on
the situation of children and also helps in the actual training of conferencing and
mediation.
• Networking with other organizations is a recognition that service delivery
cannot be monopolized by one organization since other organizations
may have expertise or resources that one may not have. Working with
other organizations ensures the maximization of resources.
• Cooperative relationship with
government agencies is
essential because
they have the
mandate and the duly
recognized entities in
many aspects of
upholding the rights
of CICL. NGOs are
there to assist the
government and to
bridge the gaps in terms
of service delivery.
Participation
Participation involves the conscious choice to have stakeholders
share in the activities of the program. It not only empowers
stakeholders but also engenders a sense of obligation and
responsibility to the program.
The programs of various Cordaid partner organizations encourage
the participation of the child in all phases of the program. This is
especially seen in the experiences of Tambayan and Pangarap
Foundation. Children are given the opportunity to participate in
decisions concerning their welfare, which is important because it is
their life and, therefore, they have more right to decide on how they
want to live it. However, it is equally important to give them
guidance in making their decisions. This is in recognition that
children have not yet developed their full capacity to make astute
decisions. The guidance of a mature adult will help in this process.
However, it must be clear that the guidance is not prescriptive.
Rather, it entails showing children options and telling them the
consequences of these options.
PREDA’s open door policy is also an exercise of the participation
rights of the children. Children stick with the program through their
own choice. This becomes a more potent and powerful tool for
change because the decision to change and be rehabilitated comes
from the children themselves. And because they are not forced, there
is more likelihood they will remain and stick to their rehabilitation
program. In other centers that lock up children, more children have
attempted to escape since they were held against their will. With
the open door policy, children stayed because they themselves have
decided to change by going through the rehabilitation program.
94 SEEDS OF HOPE
Challenges
All through the document we have shown several ‘seeds of hope’- practices that
contribute to an improvement in the situation of children at risk, especially CICL.
These practices work towards a better implementation of RA 9433 and the
prevention of children becoming in conflict with the law.
Considering the context in which the partners work, their interventions may
prove to one of the best in addressing issues as these have resulted to changes
and improvements in the communities and with the children themselves. This
does not imply that the identified practices are “perfect.” In working with children,
their families, and communities, strategies, approaches, and programs always
need to change to better address changing needs and
context. This means that new challenges will arise
and this may require a total revision of the program
strategies, tactics, and principles. A
program will only work if it allows
room for such changes because
changes mean that responses to
the challenges are being made.
With these changes in strategies
and approaches, the programs
become more responsive and
relevant to the needs of the clients
of the Cordaid partner organizations.
We hope to have contributed to a
continuous linking and learning
process, which leads to an
improvement of programs
directed to children at risk.
Works Cited
Arredondo, D. E. (2003). Child Development, Children’s Mental Health and the

Juvenile Justice System: Principles for Effective Decision Making. Child
Development, Children’s Mental Health.
Australian Institute of Criminology. (n.d.). National Community Crime Prevention
Programme: Young People and Crime Prevention. Australian Government.
Casiple, E. (2008, December 1). Tambayan Center for Children’s Rights, Inc. .
Retrieved from Why we work with street girls?: http://tambayancenter.com/
notes/index/show?noteKey=Why_we_work_with_street_girls%3F
Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2009, Oct 2). Committee on the Rights of
the Child 52nd (14 September - 2 October 2009). Retrieved December 23, 2010,
from Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: http://
www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/co/CRC-C-PHL-CO4.pdf
Derbyshire, M., & Derbyshire, L. (2008). Good law – poor implementation.
Retrieved from Kids Go Free: The Global Consultation Group on Children in
Conflict with the Law: http://www.kidsgofree.org/good_law.htm
Global Angels. (2009). Global Angels. Retrieved December 23, 2010, from Kids
Behind Bars: http://www.globalangels.org/angel-projects/causes/trafficked-
kids-child-slaves-child-soldiers/kids-behind-bars/kids-behind-bars-
philippines-2/
Human Rights Watch. (2009, April 6). “You Can Die Anytime”. Retrieved 27 2009,
November, from Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/ja/node/82034/
section/1
ILO-IPEC. 2003. Good Practices: Gender Mainstreaming in Action Against Child
Labor. Geneva: ILO Office.
95
96 SEEDS OF HOPE
IPEC. 2007. Consolidated Good Practices in Education and Child Labour. Geneva:
ILO.
McCarthy, D. (2007). Observations on the Open Home for Boys.
Napallacan, J. (2007). Inquirer.net. Retrieved from Amend, not repeal juvenile
justice: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/news/view/20070808-
81322/Amend-not-repeal-juvenile-justice
PREDA. (2006, September 6). Philippine minors in Jail: report 6th September
2002. Retrieved from PREDA Foundation, Inc: http://www.preda.org/main/
work/child%20rescue/minreport.html
PREDA. (2008, December 10). Preda Report on Juvenile Justice System
(December 10, 2008). Retrieved from PREDA Foundation, Inc.: http://
www.preda.org/main/work/child%20rescue/rep121008.html
Racelis, M. &. (2002). Child rights for urban poor children in child friendly
Philippine cities: views from the community. Environment and Urbanization
v. 14, 97.
Ruiz, H. (2004). A Study of Policies and Programmes in the Philippines Addressing
the Right of Street Children to Education. Manila: Childhope Asia Philippines.
SCPC. (2006). Protecting Filipino Children from Abuse, Exploitation and Violence:
A Comprehensive Programme on Child Protection, 2006-2010, Building a
Protective and Caring Environment for Filipino Children. Manila: Special
Committee for the Protection of Children.
Tambayan. (2003). Kuyaw! Street Adolescents in Street Gangs in Davao City.
Davao City: Tambayan Center for the Care of Abused Children, Inc., Save the
Children, Cordaid, kinder postzegels.
Tambayan. (2004). In the Shadows of Davao. Davao: Terres des Hommes
Germany, Save the Children UK, CordAid, SKN.
Tambayan. (2010). NAKAMATA. Retrieved from Tambayan Center for Children’s
Rights, Inc: http://tambayancenter.com/page/nakamata-2
Tambayan Center. (n.d.). Tambayan Center for Children’s Rights: An Orientation
(Brochure).
UN CRC. (2009, 10 22). Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Retrieved 30 2009, October, from United Nations Human Rights: http://
d a c c e s s - d d s - n y. u n . o r g / d o c / U N D O C / G E N / G 0 9 / 4 5 6 / 3 2 / P D F /
G0945632.pdf?OpenElement
Appendix 1
Framework for Effective Programs for

Children in Conflict with the Law *
IMP
IMPAACT — positiv
positivee effects of the methods or progr ams to the beneficiaries
programs
and the community
community..
Goals and Objectives

• The program has clearly stated and measurable goals and objectives.
• Plans are properly documented and regularly updated based on the goals
and objectives of the program or the case.
Monitoring and Evaluation

• There are assessment tools that could be used to identify the needs of
the clients and the proper intervention programs for them.
* Adapted from the IPEC Guidelines for Good Practices (2007)
97
98 SEEDS OF HOPE
• The program makes use of quantitative (statistical measures) and

qualitative (observable and felt changes) measures to review whether
the program has met its short, medium, and long term goals.
The program makes use of baseline data to compare the changes in
the situation of the program beneficiaries before and after the
beneficiary has received program intervention.
The program has built-in monitoring and evaluation tools to measure
the achievements of the program (performance evaluation, indicators,
monitoring tool, forms, etc)
The organization has tools to measure the positive and negative
changes among the beneficiaries.
• The program has a functioning feedback mechanism/system that allows
stakeholders such as the ones listed below to feedback on the quality of
service delivery:
staff and management
funding agencies
clients/program beneficiaries
children (children and children at risk)
parents
community
pillars of the justice system
network partners working in the same area/peers (government and
NGO, PO, community)
others
• The program uses a variety of methods to gather information about the
status of program beneficiaries.
Programs
• The program provides adequate information to its program beneficiaries
about available services.
• The program contributes to the holistic development of the program
beneficiaries.
• The organization has qualified staff members to run the program.

• While the program may have clear processes and procedures, the
procedures are open to change based on the contexts/situations of
beneficiaries.
• The program has plans for its eventual phase out in the community or
the graduation of levels of assistance.
• There are clear criteria in accepting beneficiaries.
Administrative Matters
• Records are managed systematically and kept confidential.
• The program has worked with minimal financial, human, and material
resources but still has delivered the intended results
RELEVANCE
RELEVANCE—appropriat
ANCE eness and timeliness of the progr
—appropriateness
—appropriat ams
programs
• The organization targets the survival, development, protection, and
participation needs of its program beneficiaries.
• The program is based on the analysis of the needs and situation of the
program beneficiaries and their families.
• The program has adapted processes, techniques, systems to fit the local
conditions and situations.
• The services are available for intended beneficiaries.
• The program regularly monitors the number of target participants vis-à-
vis the number being reached.
• The program contributes either to the prevention of delinquency or to
the reformation of the CICL.
• Effort is made to ensure that processes and practices are culturally-
sensitive/acceptable practices (e.g., use of vernacular language and respect
for diverse religious beliefs)
• The organization reaches out to beneficiaries regardless of their religious,
cultural, and economic backgrounds.
• The materials used (if applicable) are apt for the development stage and
interests of program beneficiaries.
100 SEEDS OF HOPE
• The materials used (if applicable) are reviewed and revised accordingly
to go by the needs of the beneficiaries.
• The program uses the data from the field to come up with apt intervention
programs for program beneficiaries.
REPLICABILITY
REPLICABILITY— —The possibility of adopting or adapting the programs by
programs
other organizations in another context.
• The institution has documented its procedures in publications, manuals,
code of ethics, manual of operations.
• The institution documents its experiences and shares the documentation
with interested parties.
• The institution participates in conferences, meetings, forums,
symposiums, etc., to share their experiences to the general public and
other key stakeholders such as NGOs, government organizations, and
the academe.
• The organization engages in advocacy programs to increase the general
public’s interest to help the programs of the institution.
• The organization trains and involves community members in running
its programs.
SUSTAINABILITY
SUSTAINABILITY —the possibility of sustaining or continuing the progr
AINABILITY—the am
program
• There are accessible human, financial, and material resources for the use
of the program beneficiaries
• The organization provides opportunities for capability and skills
development that would address the needs of program actors, including
staff members, volunteers, peer educators, etc., in terms of knowledge,
attitudes, skills, and habits.
The development of competency among program actors (staff,
counselors, PEs, volunteers) is programmatic.
The effectiveness of training modules for program staff is continuously
monitored.
The organization has mechanisms for handling issues of work
overload, morale, job satisfaction, burnout, and organizational
commitment.
• The organization enlists the help of the community it serves and

engenders a sense of ownership of the program.
The community or program beneficiaries actively participate in the
running of the program or the delivery of program.
• The organization engages the government to provide various forms of

support for the program (material and financial, and other resources)
• The organization has the capability to engage in resource mobilization
from both local and international donors.
• The organization provides program actors (staff, volunteers, peer
educators) with logistical support if necessary in carrying out their
functions.
INNO
INNOV VATION —introduction of new methods, ttechnique,
TION—introduction echnique, syst ems, models,
systems,
and processes
• The program makes use of new but effective procedures, techniques,
systems, models, processes, structures that have not been utilized by
other organizations in the area.
• The program encourages or employs strategies that are out of the box
but have been proven to work in the field.
ETHICAL —the practice is in accordance to rules or standards

ETHICAL—the
• The program conforms to UN Standards (CRC, Beijing, Riyadh, Tokyo, etc.).
• The organization has clear child protection policies (e.g., on corporal
punishment).
• The organization has a Code of Ethics that staff members are adequately
aware of.
• The organization regularly conducts an evaluation of the attitudes and
behavior of staff towards the program beneficiaries.
• The organization has gender-sensitive and non-discriminatory policies
and practices.
• Psychosocial interventions (i.e., counseling) are conducted in spaces
where the child’s privacy and the confidentiality of information can be
preserved.
102 SEEDS OF HOPE
NETWORKING AND INV OL

INVOL VEMENT OF ST
OLVEMENT AKEHOLDERS
STAKEHOLDERS —acting in
AKEHOLDERS—acting
concert with other organizations and persons who may ha
may v e the capa
hav bility
capability
to help.
• The program has an established, function, and efficient referral system
to other service providers that are providing services that the organization
does not provide.
• Program actors/staff conduct information distribution and popularization
of the program within the community
• The organization is willing to work with government, non-government,
and people’s organization in the delivery of its services.
• The organization has partnerships with other organizations that provide
services that it cannot provide.
PAR TICIP
PARTICIP
TICIPA ATION —the conscious choice to ha
TION—the ve sta
hav keholders sshar
stak har
haree in the
activities of the program
• The program encourages the participation of the child in all phases of
the program (program planning, decision-making in interventions, etc.).
• Children are given the opportunity to participate in decisions concerning
their welfare.
• The program is facilitative, participatory and empowering to the child
rather than being one-sided or prescriptive.
• The program also encourages the participation of other key stakeholders
such as parents, social workers, etc., in the program.
• The organization has clear guidelines as regards the participation of the
child and other key stakeholders.
Appendix 2
FCED’s BCPC Functionality

Assessment Form
KEY RESULT
RESULT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION/
AREAS (KRA) INDICATORS DATA TO BE CHECKED
I. Organizational A. Multi-sectoral 1. Total number of member-

maturity membership and orgs/groups
members’ 2. Total number of
commitment member-representatives
3. Number of child/youth
representatives
4. Number of women
representatives
5. Number of child-focused
NGO representatives
6. Number of People’s
Organization (PO)
representatives
7. Number of Child/Youth
Organizations
represented
8. Number of government
offices represented
9. Number of active
members
- Specify why they are
considered active
103
104 SEEDS OF HOPE
KEY RESULT
a. Regularity of meetings 1. Number of BCPC

meetings conducted in a
year
- Meeting type/total
number of meetings/
average number of
participants
2. Frequency of meetings
per month
II. Institutionalization A. Barangay Data Bank 1. Presence of a

and Enforcement of on Children comprehensive situationer
Plans and P olicies
Policies of children in the
barangay
2. Agreed-upon prioritized
needs and concerns of
children in the barangay
3. Monitoring and
Evaluation System on the
needs and concerns of
children in the barangay
B. Strategic Plan 1. Formulated BCPC Vision

and Mission
2. Presence of a Barangay
Children Development
Plan for 3 to 5 years (BCPC
Strategic Goals)
C. BCPC Annual 1. Formulated a BCPC

Operation Plan Annual Plan and Budget
2. Presented the Annual
Plan and Budget to the
Barangay Council
3. Integrated the Annual
BCPC Plan to the
Barangay Council Annual
Development Plan of
Action with Budget
Allocation
4. Number/% of BCPC
members committed to
support the Annual Plan
KEY RESULT
5. Other resource generation

plan
6. Annual BCPC review and
planning session
D. BCPC resolutions 1. Number and types of

formulated and acted BCPC resolutions
upon formulated for the
previous year (if any)
2. Number and status of the
BCPC resolutions acted
upon.
E. Promulgated 1. Children’s concerns that

ordinances/policies were brought to the
re children’s concerns attention of the local
government and other
appropriate institutions
for action and policy
formulation
2. Ordinance or policy
passed by the local
government as a response
to the children’s concern
brought to their attention
by the BCPC
F. Sustained Compliance 1. Level of sustained

with BCPC policies compliance to the local
government ordinances/
BCPC policies formulated
to respond to children’s
concerns
2. Number of stakeholders
actively participating to
ensure that ordinances
and policies are
implemented.
106 SEEDS OF HOPE
KEY RESULT
III. Quick response A. Functional quick 1. Written BCPC quick

to child abuse response system set up response system to any
child abuse case
2. Continuously
implemented, evaluated
and enhanced quick
response system
B. Cases provided 1. Number of child abuse

assistance cases brought to the
attention of the BCPC in a
year
2. Number of cases provided
assistance versus number
of cases filed
IV
IV.. Mobilization of A. Institutionalization of 1. Percentage of child-related
resources children related budget budget vis-a-vis the over-
in the local budgets all barangay budget
2. Amount and percentage
released vis-a-vis allotment
B. Increased and 1. Amount of local/internal

sustained level of resources mobilized
resources mobilized 2. Amount of national/
external resources
mobilized
3. Amount of foreign
resources mobilized
4. Total amount of
investment for children in
the previous year.
5. Current BCPC available
investment
V. Capability building
Capability A. Community awareness 1. Number of trainings/
and interest in child orientations conducted in
the protection barangay re
children’s rights/concerns
2. Number of participants
(children and adults;
males and females) per
activity
KEY RESULT
B. Community 1. Number of families

involvement trained/oriented
2. Number of community
volunteers mobilized
C. Continuous training 1. Number and types of

for the officers and training programs
members of the BCPC participated by the officers
and members of the
BCPCs
2. Monitoring and
evaluation systems in
place of the training needs
of the members of the
BCPC
VI. Development A. Available children’s 1. Number of programs/

and replication of programs and projects projects initiated
programs/projects 2. Number of programs/
projects replicated
3. Priority programs/
projects
B. Effective program 1. Changes in the health and

interventions nutritional status of
(using the 24 child- children
friendly indicators) 2. Changes in the
educational status of
children
3. Initial increase in the
reporting of child abuses
and eventual reduction of
cases
SEEDS OF HOPE
Endnotes
i
Street children were labeled as “buntogs” (Translated as “quail birds.” These birds are
often observed to hop from one nest to another.) This implied that the children were
promiscuous and thus would easily engage in sex whether to earn money or for fun. The
social stigma went as far as calling the children health and moral risks to the society.
ii
Eliseo Braganza of the Cebu-based City Anti-Drug Council.
iii
From an interview with Melanie Llana.
iv
Tambayan Center for the Care of Abused Children’s documentation and statistics, 2007.
v
Definition by Consortium For Street Children, agreed to be adopted by the participants
of the “Regional Orientation. Planning/Meeting”, May 12-14 2004, Manila Philippines.
Cited in Ruiz, H. R.
vi
Inputs from Pilgrim Bliss Gayo-Guasa, former Executive Director of Tambayan Center.
vii
RA 9344. Title I, Chapter I, Section 4: Definition of terms.
viii
Aileen Dumacas, social worker of Tambayan, telephone interview on November 22,
2010.
ix
Pangarap Foundation notes that there is another kind of “gang” in the communities that
they work with. These are smaller and non-violent. The members call themselves “gang”
but they are focused on non-violent activities such as competing in dance contests. Pangarap
works with the problematic gangs.
x
According to Presidential Decree 603, Article 87. Council for the Protection of Children –
Every barangay council shall encourage the organization of a local Council for the
Protection of Children and shall coordinate with the Council for the Welfare of Children
and Youth in drawing and implementing plans for the promotion of child and youth
welfare. Membership shall be taken from responsible members of the community
including a representative of the youth, as well as representatives of government and
private agencies concerned with the welfare of children and youth whose area of
assignment includes the particular barangay and shall be on a purely voluntary basis.
108
xi
RA 9344. Title III, Chapter 1, Section 15. Establishment and strengthening of Local
Councils for the Protection of Children.
xii
Republic Act no. 8980. An act promulgating a comprehensive policy and a national system
for early childhood care and development (ECCD), providing funds therefore and for
other purposes.
xiii
RA 8980, Section 8(d).
xiv
In cases when the imposable penalty for the crime committed is not more than 6 years
imprisonment, and in cases of victimless crimes when the imposable penalty is not more
than 6 years imprisonment
xv
RA 9344. Title V, Chapter 2, Section 23. System of Diversion.
xvi
RA 9344. Title V, Chapter 2, Section 25. Conferencing, mediation and conciliation.
xvii
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.
Resolution 40.33, 29 November 1985.
xviii
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measles. General Assembly
Resolution 45/110, 14 December 1990.
xix
Republic Act 8369. The Family Courts Act of 1997.
xx
In the United States, 16 states “articulate balanced and restorative justice in statute or
code reference” and “eight states communicate restorative justice principles in statute or
code reference.” (Pavelka, 2008) In these states the offender works with the justice
system, the community, and the victim to repair to the greatest extent possible the damage
that has been done and for the young person to understand the consequences of his/her
actions. UNICEF documented a number in restorative justice in Cambodia, New Zealand,
Palau, Thailand, and the Philippines. (UNICEF East Asia and the Pacific, n.d.)
xxi
In IPEC’s Consolidated Good Practices in Education and Child Labour, “the following
were established as the main criteria of the selection of good practices: that it is innovative
or creative; that it has documented effectiveness and/or impact; that it is replicable; that
it is sustainable; that it is relevant to direct or indirect action against child labour; that it is
responsive and ethical; that resources (human, financial or material) are used efficiently
in its implementation.” Available for download at http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/
viewProduct.do?productId=6449
xxii
Interview with Lotus Cabrebra over the telephone, November 23, 2010.
SEEDS OF HOPE

Seeds of Hope Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seeds of Hope Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Learning from Programs for CICL of Cordaid Partner Organizations

CORDAID and the

This book may be reproduced, as a whole or in part,

Cordaid assisted in financing this publication

EDITOR: Johnifer G. Batara

1. Juvenile justice—Philippines. 2. Child welfare—

Chapter Four: Training Barangay Officials in the

BCPC Barangay Council for the Protection of Children

The Cordaid Project

The Best Practices Documentation

FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FOR EMPOWERMENT

Pandacan) in Manila. The programs are on community organizing, providing

JOHN J. CARROLL INSTITUTE ON CHURCH AND

PEOPLE’S RECOVERY, EMPOWERMENT DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (PREDA)

TAMBAYAN CENTER FOR THE CARE OF ABUSED CHILDREN, INC.

The restorative principles of the JJWA offer a lot of promise in rehabilitating

Important lessons learned

• Advocacy and awareness-raising activities should be gender-fair and

2. In the work with youth in the streets, especia

Outcomes of these experiences

5. On Strengthening Barangay Councils for the Protection of Children

The Juvenile Justice Welfare

Issues concerning the JJWA

Perhaps to underscore the issue on the implementation of the JJWA, the

Lack of Strong Supporting Mechanisms

A Myopic View of Children and their Rights

A beacon of hope for CICL

Responding to the needs of the communities

in committing illegal acts. In FCED’s experience, it was important to explain

As part of its psychosocial services, the Tambayan Center conducts

Pangarap Foundation in Paliparan, Cavite

pointed out, the residents came from different areas and

Tambayan Center in Davao City

that have recently been involved in conflicts. Full reconciliation or

• The girls also reported many changes in their behaviors. “Gi-

• One major concern is the continuing and increasing incidence of killings

The Committee reiterates its serious concern about patterns of

Training Barangay Officials

While barangay officials have experiences in mediation under

For many barangay officials, diversion is tantamount to indemnifying the victim/

We saw that (training in conferencing and mediation) as a real need of

• Introduction to the JJWA. Discussion on the law is done in a simple,

The discussion on Conferencing and Mediation is based on the guideline on

• Proper questioning techniques (i.e., asking open ended questions that

• The procedures of the actual conference are also discussed: the

discussions their scores would significantly increase between 20 and 25

• JJCICSI has strengthened its partnership with various organizations such

• Political support is also essential to the success of the program. Because

• JJCICSI realized that involving barangays that do not have or have

Rescue and Rehabilitation

• The Public Attorney’s

According to a PREDA study, children are left in penal institutions

We realized that when the social worker visits the child’s

The protracted court proceeding in the country and the arbitrary

Marion and Les Derbyshire, founders of the NGO Kids Go Free:

As it stands, in March 2008, there are still children behind

However, the experience is hardly rehabilitative as the prison does

It was evident that, other than the confinement they

Interestingly, although some aspects of the law are being

PREDA offers the following programs to children:

According to Deirdre McCarthy, an Irish volunteer, “(T)he overarching theme is

• A potential problem is PREDA’s open center policy especially to children

Local Councils for the Protection of Children (LCPC) shall be

Philippines. According to a study conducted by Childhope Asia Philippines in