The proposal to lower the age of criminal liability to 12 aims to introduce younger children into the criminal justice system by sending them to rehabilitation shelters or "Houses of Hope" in an attempt to address more serious crimes committed by those aged 12 to 15 . This change would shift the focus from protective and rehabilitative measures to holding younger children criminally accountable, effectively reducing the age threshold for legal responsibility . Additionally, the proposal includes having the national government manage and fund these rehabilitation shelters, potentially improving their current conditions and ensuring better compliance with the standards meant to rehabilitate rather than punish .

Arguments against detaining younger children in Houses of Hope include concerns about children's developmental stages and the ability of such centers to provide adequate care given their current state. Experts assert that younger children are not developmentally prepared for such environments as they lack mature judgment and impulse control . Increasing the number of children detained could lead rehabilitation centers to become overcrowded and comparable to the country's overcrowded jails, thus negating rehabilitative efforts . Child advocates also argue that implementing such measures would violate children's rights as outlined by international standards, emphasizing the need for evidence-based protective interventions rather than punitive measures .

The implementation of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 faces significant challenges primarily due to the failure of city governments to fund and manage rehabilitation services effectively. Despite the target of establishing 114 rehabilitation shelters, fewer than half have been built, and many existing centers suffer from substandard conditions, lacking adequate staff, food, and basic facilities . Furthermore, the societal tolerance of certain juvenile crimes and the lack of actionable intervention plans contribute to the recurring criminal behavior among young offenders . These deficiencies result in the Act's intentions not being fully realized, as children often return to crime after brief periods of detention, exacerbating the juvenile crime problem .

The disparity between the goals of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006 and its actual implementation stems from several factors, including financial constraints and implementation failures. Although the Act aimed to provide rehabilitative support through adequate shelters and programs, many local governments have failed to comply due to budgetary limitations, leading to insufficient infrastructure and services . This gap is exacerbated by a societal indifference toward certain juvenile crimes and a lack of effective law enforcement, resulting in repeated offenses and continued criminal behavior among youth . Consequently, the good intentions of the Act are not fully realized on the ground, leading to a significant implementation gap where the effectiveness of rehabilitation efforts is severely compromised .

The juvenile crime problem in the Philippines has significantly influenced legislative actions and public opinion, leading to debates and proposals for lowering the minimum age of criminal liability. The increasing incidence of serious juvenile crimes has prompted some government officials, like Senate President Vicente Sotto III, to advocate for stricter legal measures by proposing legislation to lower criminal responsibility from 15 to 12 years old . Public opinion is divided, with some advocating for stricter measures due to rising crime rates, while others, including child advocacy groups, resist such changes, emphasizing children's rights and developmental psychology . The debate highlights the tension between the desire to curb juvenile crime and the need to adhere to rehabilitative justice principles .

Defenders of the current minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as child advocacy groups and psychologists, argue against lowering it by highlighting the developmental and psychological aspects of children. They point out that children, due to their undeveloped brains, lack mature decision-making abilities and impulse control, necessitating protection rather than punitive measures . Lowering the age could lead to an increased number of children in facilities that might not provide adequate care, further straining an already underfunded system . This approach contradicts the notion of rehabilitative justice intended to help youth reform instead of punishing them severely for crimes they might not fully comprehend .

Inadequate rehabilitation conditions have led juvenile offenders to continue their life of crime rather than receive the intended reform and guidance. Many rehabilitation centers lack basic necessities such as adequate food, staff, and programming, with some conditions described as subhuman . These centers, failing to provide a nurturing or educational environment, leave children abandoned, with no support or chance for personal development or correction . Such environments resemble punitive detention rather than a space for rehabilitation, causing children to return to criminal activities upon release, thus negating the rehabilitative purpose of these facilities .

The proposed legislative change to lower the age of criminal liability to 12, with suggestions to even detain children as young as nine in Houses of Hope, contradicts child development experts' recommendations because it overlooks the scientific understanding of child development. Experts like Dr. Salvacion Gatchalian emphasize that adolescents have developing brains with limited decision-making abilities, mature judgment, and impulse control . Lowering the age of criminal liability fails to recognize these developmental factors and risks violating children's rights by subjecting them to punitive environments instead of protective and rehabilitative measures . Furthermore, such a measure could lead to overburdened shelters, resembling overcrowded jails, thereby worsening conditions for rehabilitation .

Rehabilitation shelters in the Philippines are intended to provide juvenile offenders with an environment that facilitates reform and rehabilitation through personalized intervention plans, including counseling and education . However, the main critiques of their current operation include insufficient resources, inadequate facilities, and a lack of trained staff and programs to support the children. These shelters often lack basic necessities such as food, beds, and programs for the children's development, with some described as being worse than prisons . This failure in provision and management leads to the shelters being unable to meet their rehabilitative goals effectively, often resulting in a cycle of re-offense among the juveniles .

Social norms and law enforcement practices have inadvertently contributed to ongoing juvenile delinquency by normalizing certain criminal behaviors and displaying leniency towards young offenders. For instance, in some communities, being a "jumper boy"—a child who jumps onto trucks to steal goods—is socially acceptable, and both police and village councils often turn a blind eye to such activities . This social acceptance diminishes the perceived severity of these crimes and emboldens children to engage in such acts without fear of consequences . Additionally, law enforcement sometimes fails to enforce existing laws strictly, as seen when officers let juvenile offenders go without meaningful intervention, perpetuating a cycle of crime .