THE SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH – DIOCESE OF
MARBEL POSITION REGARDING ON THE PLANNING OF MAGUAD FAMILY FOR PLANNING FOR THE
REFORMING OF JUVENILE JUSTICE LAW & REVIVAL OF THE DEATH PENALTY
MAY CHRIST
PRINCE OF PEACE AND JUSTICE TO ALL PEOPLE!
The
sentence of the case against two minors who are offended by the killing of
Maguad Siblings on the decision of the court, unfortunately, Ma’am Lovella
Maguad & Sir Cruz Maguad they cannot deserve that decision for the calling
of the Maximum Justice and also for the reforming of the Juvenile Justice Law
that their goal is probably to change the decision from the decision of the
Kabacan Trial Court.
I.
On Juvenile Justice Law (Criminal Liability)
On
the other hand, we are curious and concerned regarding the Juvenile Justice Law
that was probably issued regarding the reforming of that law due to the events
of the killing of the Maguad Siblings. We doubt that the circumstances will
lead to them being able to lower the age of incarceration to thirteen and
fifteen instead of the legal age. The intention of reviewing the Juvenile
Justice Law ensures that it is better to listen to what the Catholic Church
says about the Juvenile Justice Law, together with the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines.
As per the statement of the
Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines on Juvenile Justice Law:
POSITION PAPER ON BEHALF OF
THE CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF THE PHILIPPINES
ON LOWERING THE AGE OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
The present
provision of Republic Act No. 9344 reads:
SEC. 6.
Minimum Age of Criminal Responsibility. – A child fifteen (15) years of age or
under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt from
criminal liability. However, the child shall be subjected to an intervention
program under Section 20 of this Act.
A child above
fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age shall likewise be
exempt from criminal liability and be subjected to an intervention program,
unless he/she has acted with discernment, in which case, such child shall be
subjected to the appropriate proceedings by this Act.
The exemption
from criminal liability herein established does not include exemption from
civil liability, which shall be enforced by existing laws.
But because
it has frequently been complained that criminals and criminal syndicates use
children old enough to be able to accomplish criminal assignments efficiently
but below the threshold of criminal responsibility, they get away with crime
and can perpetrate crime. There is therefore the proposal to lower the age of
criminal responsibility.
The Catholic
Bishops Conference of the Philippines strenuously objects to the proposal and
maintains that the present threshold of criminal responsibility is correct and
is consistent not only with international law but also with the Church’s
teaching on the welfare of children.
The
Convention on the Rights of the Child, of which the Philippines is a state
party, provides:
Article
37
States
Parties shall ensure that:
(a) No child
shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without the possibility
of release shall be imposed for offenses committed by persons below eighteen
years of age;
(b) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily.
The arrest, detention, or imprisonment of a child shall conform with the law
and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest
appropriate period;
(c) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect
for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner that takes into
account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child
deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in
the child’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain
contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in
exceptional circumstances;
(d) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt
access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to
challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court
or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt
decision on any such action.
The African
Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child requires:
Article 17:
Every child accused or found guilty of having broken the law should receive
special treatment and no child who is imprisoned should be tortured or
otherwise mistreated.
And the
Charter defines a child as a human being below eighteen years of age.
In an
essential Annex to the 1985 UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of
Juvenile Justice, one reads:
4. Age of
criminal responsibility
4.1 In those
legal systems recognizing the concept of the age of criminal responsibility for
juveniles, the beginning of that age shall not be fixed at too low an age
level, bearing in mind the facts of emotional, mental, and intellectual
maturity.
Commentary
The minimum
age of criminal responsibility differs widely owing to history and culture. The
modern approach would be to consider whether a child can live up to the moral
and psychological components of criminal responsibility; that is, whether a
child, by her or his discernment and understanding, can be held responsible for
essentially anti-social behavior. If the age of criminal responsibility is
fixed too low or if there is no lower age limit at all, the notion of
responsibility would become meaningless. In general, there is a close
relationship between the notion of responsibility for delinquent or criminal behavior
and other social
rights and responsibilities (such as marital status, civil majority, etc.).
Efforts
should therefore be made to agree on a reasonable lowest age limit that is
applicable internationally.
The Salutary Purpose
of Present Provisions of Law
One principle
stands out very clearly under existing Philippine legislation: No to burden a
person with the faults of one’s childhood and not to prejudice the future by
the offenses of one’s minority.
There can be
no doubt that this is an important principle fully consonant with a present-day
understanding of human rights and a scientific understanding of the
psycho-emotional development of the human person.
The Catechism
of the Catholic Church teaches:
2223 Parents have the first responsibility for the education of
their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a
home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested
service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues.
This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and
self-mastery – the preconditions of all true freedom. Parents should teach
their children to subordinate the “material and instinctual dimensions to
interior and spiritual ones.”31 Parents have a grave responsibility to give a good
example to their children. By knowing how to acknowledge their failings to
their children, parents will be better able to guide and correct them: He who
loves his son will not spare the rod. . .. He who disciplines his son will
profit by him.32 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them
up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.33
2224 The home is the natural environment for initiating a human
being into solidarity and communal responsibilities. Parents should teach
children to avoid the compromising and degrading influences which threaten
human societies.
If the Church thus enshrines the home as the haven of protection, nurture, and
formation, it cannot, at the same time, consent to snatch children from the
home, under the pretext of the criminal process, to be incarcerated, detained,
or confined to some facility, in many ways resembling if not identical to
prison!
Proposals:
Rather than
lowering the age of criminal responsibility, the CBCP proposes the following:
- Providing
the use of children in the commission and perpetration of a crime, in
whatever manner, shall constitute an aggravating circumstance increasing the
penalty for the adult perpetrator;
- Involving
Church social action desks and community service units in the diversion
programs on the barangay, police, prosecution, and judicial levels of the
administration of Juvenile Justice;
- Imposing
criminal liability on the parents of children who are conscripted by
criminal syndicates or individual offenders when it is proved that the
parents of such children were remiss in their duties of vigilance and
care.
Approved by:
+ SOCRATES B.
VILLEGAS
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President, CBCP
26 November 2016[1]
Statement on the Age of Criminal Liability
The
Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines implores Congress of the
Philippines to keep intact the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, especially
regarding the age of criminal liability. We are therefore opposed to lowering
the age of criminal liability. The purpose of the law is laudable, and its
present provisions, are beneficial. The sins and failings of the young and
immature should not mar the possibilities of one’s future or stand forever in
the name of an honorable and noble reputation that can, in later years, be very
well built. The fact that criminal elements make use of youngsters up to
fifteen years old to commit crimes is no argument against the present
benevolent provisions of the law but about the resoluteness of criminals in
using even the young for their purposes. The correct response, we believe, is
vigilance on the part of parents and stiffer penalties for those who exploit
the young in the perpetration of crime.
For the Catholic Bishops’
Conference of the Philippines
+SOCRATES B. VILLEGAS
Archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan
President CBCP
January 30, 2017[2]
This is the updated statement of the Catholic Bishops Conference of
the Philippines regarding the Juvenile Justice Law, we know that the two
minors are convicted of the Murder Case of Maguad Siblings, but if we needed to
reform it, we make sure that the position of the Church and the CBCP will
prevail in what is right and just together with the Diocesan & Parochial
Social Action Center also and other organization for the Children. This is a
concerning problem if the two minors are transit their age unto 18 years old
may not probably to have a reforming of Juvenile Justice Law as long as it is
proper to change the sentence unto either Reclusion Perpetua or as long as unto
life imprisonment as well, it depends to the lawyer or to judge who is handling
the Murder Case of the Maguad Siblings. Perhaps we are difficult to impose this
situation on the Justice of Maguad Siblings due to calling for Maximum Justice
for them as far as said in this position we make sure the position of the
Church should listen for the sake of the common good of every people. We are
calling to Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas and Bishop Pablo
Virgilio S. David of Kalookan for this issue together with Cardinal Quevedo and
Bishop Jose Colin Bagaforo of Kidapawan regarding the planning of the reforming
of the Juvenile Justice Law.
II.
Death
Penalty for the Predators of the killing of Maguad Siblings
Many
supporters of seeking justice for the Maguad siblings called for the return
and implementation of the death penalty against minors, and those convicted of heinous
crimes. As Catholics, it is good for us that we follow the authority of the
Catholic Church more simply because of the value of morality and leaning on the
presence for the good of all. As Church positioned the statement on the death
penalty under the Encyclical Letter of Pope Francis on ‘Fratelli Tutti’ it
says; “There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries
but individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and
firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no
longer necessary from that of penal justice.[246] There can be no stepping back
from this position. Today we state clearly that “the death penalty is
inadmissible” and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition
worldwide.” [3]
As Pope
St. John Paul II said; “The new evangelization calls for followers of
Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve
the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing
recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in
the case of someone who has done great evil. . . I renew the appeal I made . . . for a
consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”[4]
The Catechism of the
Catholic Church states also on death penalty; “Recourse to the death penalty on
the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered
an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable,
albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good. Today, however, there is
an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after
the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has
emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly,
more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due
protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the
guilty of the possibility of redemption. Consequently, the Church teaches, in
the light of the Gospel, that the death penalty is inadmissible because it is
an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, and she works with
determination for its abolition worldwide.”[5]
The current position of the Church is preferably against
the death penalty as far as it is a clear context that calling for the
abolition of the death penalty as far that we would be imposed for those who
are convicted heinous crimes it would be on life imprisonment. As far as the
supporters who are seeking Justice for Maguad Siblings, either probably
Catholics who are supporting this death penalty, it would be immoral as far as
the death penalty would be immoral and calling for the abolition of the death
penalty worldwide.
Conclusion
The position of that statement will regard the Justice to
the Maguad Siblings will remain in obey the stance of the Catholic Church
however the Justice to the Maguad Siblings would prevail for the good of their
soul inasmuch we will be pledging to support for seeking Justice for Maguad
Siblings as long as all the statements on these issues must be obeyed and
follow on what the Catholic Church stance on. In the reforming of Juvenile
Justice Law, we should need a prescription and the updating current position of
the Church. But for those supporters of Maguad Siblings, we will never support
people who are die-hard in support of the Death Penalty as the Church’s stance.
In this statement, we should aware of this as far as we
should do this for the good of the people and all as long as this position
helps us to insure our stance regarding the Maguad Siblings.
“I have come that they may have life, and have it to the
full.” (John 10:10)
Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!
Pro Deo Et Ecclesia!
Statement
from:
THE SPLENDOR OF THE CHURCH
ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF MARBEL CHAPTER
18
September 2022
[1]
[2]
[3] Fratelli Tutti # 263
[4]
Pope John Paul II Papal Mass, St.
Louis, Missouri, January 27, 1999
[5]
Catechism of the Catholic
Church # 2267
