*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
Every time a heinous crime involving a minor shocks the nation, one familiar phrase immediately dominates social media: “Pangilinan Law.” The anger behind those words is understandable. Families mourn, communities demand justice, and parents worry about the safety of their own children. In moments of grief, society naturally searches for someone to hold accountable.
But as I read countless comments after another tragedy involving young offenders, one question kept returning to my mind: Is that really the whole story?
This article is not written to defend Senator Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, nor is it intended to diminish his role in history. He was undeniably the principal author of Senate Bill No. 1402, the Senate version that eventually became Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006. As principal author, he became the public face of the measure and should be prepared to explain the philosophy behind it.
However, history also teaches us something equally important. No senator, regardless of influence, possesses the constitutional power to enact a law alone.
Republic Act No. 9344 became law because it passed through the constitutional process. After Senator Pangilinan introduced the bill, it underwent committee hearings, amendments, sponsorships, and plenary debates. It received the support of numerous senators and was approved on Third Reading by sixteen affirmative votes. The House of Representatives likewise passed its counterpart measure, House Bill No. 5065, principally authored by then Aurora Representative Juan Edgardo “Sonny” Angara. The two versions were reconciled by a Bicameral Conference Committee before the enrolled bill was transmitted to President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.
At that stage, the President possessed the constitutional authority to approve or veto the measure. President Arroyo chose to sign it into law on May 20, 2006. That signature was not a ceremonial act. It was the final constitutional step that transformed a legislative proposal into Republic Act No. 9344.
This is why reducing the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act to the phrase “Pangilinan Law” oversimplifies its legislative history. Senator Pangilinan authored the Senate version, but the law itself was the product of Congress, the House of Representatives, the Bicameral Conference Committee, and the President who constitutionally approved it.
To understand the law fairly, we must also understand the Philippines of 2006.
At that time, lawmakers were confronted with children who often entered the criminal justice system because of poverty, abuse, neglect, abandonment, or exploitation. The prevailing philosophy emphasized rehabilitation over punishment and believed that children possessed a greater capacity for change than adults. The law reflected both that philosophy and the country’s commitment to protecting children’s rights.
The intention of Republic Act No. 9344 was never to protect murderers or criminal syndicates. It was to prevent children from being permanently defined by mistakes committed during their formative years.
History, however, has a way of testing every law.
The Philippines of today is very different from the Philippines of 2006. Organized crime has become more sophisticated. Law enforcement authorities have repeatedly expressed concern that some criminal groups exploit minors because they know children are treated differently under the law. Social media has likewise transformed childhood itself. Young people today are exposed to violent online content, cyberbullying, criminal glorification, and digital influences that were barely imaginable when Republic Act No. 9344 was enacted.
These changing realities eventually prompted calls to revisit the law.
During the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte, several bills were filed seeking to amend Republic Act No. 9344, including controversial proposals to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, with one proposal suggesting that it be reduced to nine years old. Supporters argued that the law no longer reflected the realities confronting law enforcement and that criminal syndicates were exploiting its provisions. Opponents maintained that children should not bear the burden of society’s failures and that stronger families, education, rehabilitation, and social services remained the better response.
Regardless of where one stood in that debate, one historical fact deserves equal attention.
Despite the Duterte administration enjoying substantial support in Congress and despite years of public discussion, no amendment lowering the minimum age of criminal responsibility ultimately became law. The constitutional process simply did not produce the necessary legislative consensus. In other words, Republic Act No. 9344 remained in force not only because it was enacted in 2006 but also because succeeding Congresses, despite having the authority to amend it, left its core framework substantially unchanged.
This forgotten chapter reminds us that legislative responsibility does not end with the Congress that originally enacted a law. Every succeeding Congress inherits the same constitutional authority—and the same responsibility—to strengthen, revise, or repeal laws when changing circumstances require it.
The debate over Republic Act No. 9344 should therefore move beyond personalities. The real issue is no longer whether one senator should bear the blame for a law enacted nearly two decades ago. The more important question is whether the law continues to provide the proper balance between rehabilitation, accountability, justice for victims, and public safety in the Philippines of today.
History should never be reduced to a slogan or a single political name. It deserves to be remembered in its entirety. Republic Act No. 9344 was born from compassion, enacted through constitutional institutions, and implemented according to the realities of its time. If those realities have changed, then today’s lawmakers possess both the constitutional authority and the moral responsibility to improve the law—not through anger or political convenience, but through careful study, public consultation, and evidence-based reform.
History has already written the first chapter of Republic Act No. 9344.
The next chapter belongs to this generation.
The question is no longer who passed the law.
The question is whether we have the wisdom to improve it.
Because history deserves accuracy before accountability.
*****************************************
_______________________________________
Dear friends,
*About the author:
