Minimum Age of Criminal Liability in the Philippines: A Comprehensive 2025 Legal Overview

1. Concept and Policy Rationale

The minimum age of criminal liability (MACL) is the statutory threshold below which a child cannot be held criminally responsible. It rests on the presumption that very young offenders lack the physiological and psychological maturity (“discernment”) required for culpability and must therefore be dealt with through welfare-oriented, not punitive, measures. Philippine lawmakers anchored the present 15-year threshold on local medico-legal studies of brain development and on the State’s obligations under the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and General Comment No. 24, both of which urge States to set the MACL no lower than 14 and to maximize diversion from formal courts.citeturn3search5turn5search0

2. Current Statutory Framework

Instrument	Key Provision on Age	Status (April 24 2025)
Republic Act 9344 – Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006	Sec. 6: children 15 years or younger are exempt from criminal liability; those >15 but <18 data-preserve-html-node="true" are likewise exempt unless prosecution proves discernment.citeturn7view0	In force
Republic Act 10630 (2013 amendment)	Retained the 15-year MACL, strengthened diversion, created Bahay Pag-asa youth centers and clarified procedures for children aged 12–15 who commit “serious” offenses.citeturn0search1	In force
Revised Penal Code, Art. 12 (old rule)	Before 2006, absolute exemption was at 9 years; 9–15 with discernment were liable.citeturn12search4	Superseded by R.A. 9344

The law also guarantees automatic suspension of sentence, prioritizes restorative justice, and separates children from adult detainees.citeturn7view0

3. Age Bands and Legal Consequences

Age at time of offense	Criminal liability	Typical disposition
0 – 15 (inclusive)	None	Mandatory intervention program delivered by LGU, DSWD or Bahay Pag-asa (e.g., counselling, education).
>15 to <18, data-preserve-html-node="true" no discernment**	None	Same intervention program.
>15 to <18, data-preserve-html-node="true" with discernment**	Subject to juvenile proceedings in Family Court; entitled to diversion, suspended sentence, probation, and other restorative measures.
18 and above	Regular adult liability applies.

The Supreme Court in 2023 issued guidelines detailing how prosecutors and judges must weigh discernment—considering the child’s intelligence, intent, and appreciation of wrongfulness at the moment of the act.citeturn3search0

4. Institutional Mechanisms

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council (JJWC). Leads policy-making, monitoring and statistics.citeturn7view0
Bahay Pag-asa youth care facilities. As of December 2023, 108 centers served 2,359 residents nationwide.citeturn4search7
Intervention & Diversion Programs. Community-based services, family conferencing, restitution agreements, skills training, drug treatment, and educational support.

5. Empirical Snapshot (latest published figures)

Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) recorded by the PNP, 2023: 7,512 incidents nationwide; theft and violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act were the most common offenses.citeturn4search0
Profile trends (JJWC FOI releases 2017-2023): majority are male (≈90 %); peak offending age is 16–17; common risk factors include out-of-school status, family breakdown, and community poverty.citeturn4search1

6. Historical Evolution

Period	Governing Law	MACL
Spanish & early American era	Codigo Penal & Act 3815 (1932)	9 years absolute; 9–15 with discernment liable.citeturn12search7
1974	Presidential Decree 603 (Child & Youth Welfare Code)	Retained 9-year rule but introduced the concept of a “youthful offender” up to 21 and emphasized rehabilitation.citeturn11search0
2006	R.A. 9344	Raised to 15 years; aligned with CRC.
2013	R.A. 10630	Fine-tuned but did not lower the age.

7. Repeated (Unenacted) Attempts to Lower the MACL

House Bill 8858 (2019) – proposed 12 years; passed House 146-34 but stalled in Senate.citeturn1search5
Senate Bill 2026 / 2021-2022 – sought 13 years.citeturn2search6
Earlier House Committee draft (2019) – controversially set age at 9 years.citeturn1search8

Intense opposition by UNICEF, local academics, faith-based groups and the CRC Committee emphasized lack of evidence that lower ages reduce crime and warned of rights violations.citeturn12search8turn5search3 No proposal became law; the statutory MACL remains 15 years as of 24 April 2025.citeturn2search5

8. International Law Context

CRC articles 37 & 40 require MACL to “not be too low” and mandate detention as ultima ratio.
General Comment 24 (2019) urges States to move “towards 14 years or higher.”citeturn5search0
U.N. Beijing Rules & Riyadh Guidelines are expressly incorporated in R.A. 9344.citeturn7view0

The Philippines’ decision not to reduce its MACL in 2019-2025 drew praise from the CRC in its 2022 concluding observations.citeturn5search3

9. Key Doctrines and Jurisprudence

Case / Issuance	Principle
People v. Balderama, G.R. 174656 (2009)	Discernment must be proved by the prosecution; doubt favors the child.
SC Administrative Matter 22-10-01-SC (2023)	Uniform criteria for assessing discernment; courts must cite specific behavioral indicators.citeturn3search0
DSWD Legal Opinion LO-2024-079	Reiterated exemption from criminal but not civil liability for children below 18.citeturn3search1

10. Implementation Challenges

Facility Gaps. Bahay Pag-asa centers exist in only 56 % of LGUs mandated to build them; overcrowding and funding shortfalls persist.citeturn4search7
Law-enforcement Practices. Studies in 2024 documented instances of police mistreatment and failure to use child-sensitive procedures during arrest.citeturn4search6
Resource Constraints. JJWC–PNP data show only one social worker per 80 CICL cases in some regions, far from the recommended 1:25 ratio.citeturn4search1
Public Misconceptions. Survey evidence reveals a widespread but incorrect belief that children “get off scot-free,” fueling punitive bills.

11. Comparative Perspective (selected ASEAN peers, 2025)

Country	MACL
Indonesia	12
Malaysia	10
Singapore	10
Thailand	12 (custody measures), 15 (full liability)
Philippines	15

The Philippine threshold is the highest in Southeast Asia, broadly consistent with CRC guidance.

12. Policy Options Moving Forward

Strengthen diversion by fully funding Comprehensive National Juvenile Intervention Program (CNJIP 2023-2027) and replicating evidence-based projects such as family group conferencing.
Scale up Bahay Pag-asa to all provinces/cities and upgrade staff ratios, mental-health services, and after-care.
Close data gaps by institutionalizing a unified CICL database (JJWC, PNP, courts).
Invest in prevention—keep children in school, expand Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) conditional cash benefits to at-risk teens.
Public education campaigns to correct myths linking juvenile delinquency to MACL.

13. Conclusion

As of April 24 2025, the Philippines maintains a minimum age of criminal liability of 15 years, a standard crafted in R.A. 9344 (2006) and reaffirmed in R.A. 10630 (2013). Despite periodic political pushes to cut that age to 12 or even 9, none succeeded. The existing regime blends exemption from criminal prosecution with mandatory intervention, conditional liability for older minors based on discernment, and a full suite of restorative measures. While challenges in implementation, funding and public perception remain, the Philippine model broadly comports with evolving international norms that favor higher ages and child-centered justice. The next frontier lies not in lowering the MACL but in deepening the systems—social, educational, and rehabilitative—that make juvenile justice both protective of children and responsive to victims and communities.

Prepared for legal researchers, advocates, and policy-makers seeking an authoritative 2025 snapshot of the Philippine Minimum Age of Criminal Liability.