They became the monsters

Herbie Gomez .

“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” –Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 1886

THERE’S a provision in the Revised Penal Code that gives septuagenarians and those much older immunity from imprisonment. Based on this, the age of an old criminal mitigates his criminal liability. If not a habitual criminal, a convict can be pardoned the moment he turns 70. This law basically reduces the line “I hope you rot in jail!” into a metaphor or makes it meaningless in the context of the Philippine justice system.

This explains why President Duterte thinks he can do anything as he pleases, including ordering murder, and get away with it. Fresh from his election victory in August 2016, Duterte said, “I don’t care about human rights. I said I have a problem to solve. I must first solve the problems of the country. I am already 71 years old and according to the Revised Penal Code, you have to be released once you reach 70.”

The Philippine Star continued to quote him in a report: “If I order the killing of someone, you cannot arrest me. I have immunity. I have this pardoning power and if I order you to carry it out, I will pardon you…

“After the end of my term, I’ll be 77. Where will you place me?

“Wala silang laban. (They cannot use anything against me).”

Age is the same reason why people like Juan Ponce Enrile who is 94 and the 89-year-old Imelda Marcos are being treated with kid gloves.

Lawmakers like House majority leader Fredenil Castro, a representative of Capiz, might as well work on ridding our law books of this imprisonment immunity clause for old people especially if those convicted used their positions in government to commit crimes. If not, they could at least fine-tune it so that it would make sense. Rationalize it.

This provision in the Revised Penal Code which is being invoked by Duterte clearly goes against the principle of accountability. In fact, it removes accountability and creates a friendly atmosphere for old criminals.

But instead of purging our law books of provisions that encourage and promote the impunity of criminals who knew what they were doing and the consequences of their actions, congressmen like Castro chose to force the issue that child offenders, as young as nine years, be treated like common criminals.

It is disturbing that congressmen like Castro have gone to the extent of rejecting science obviously because the President has declared time and again that he wants the minimum age of criminal responsibility lowered. But by rejecting science, it goes without saying that they also reject data, facts, expert opinion, and reason.

The Psychological Association of the Philippines (PAP) and the Philippine Pediatric Society (PPS) have given their expert opinion but Castro, et al., just wouldn’t listen.

The clinics of these doctors are where people like Castro go to when their babies get sick. And when pediatrists give prescriptions, we follow because we trust that they know the science behind it. So, why won’t Castro and Co. trust and listen to them now? The experts’ position: “To place such a young person, already victimized, into the hands of the criminal justice system further curtails his or her future prospects, and pushes them further towards a negative life trajectory.”

Scientific data support the psychologists’ and pediatrists’ collective position. It did not come out of thin air. Yet Castro and Co. have remained stubborn and adamant like they are experts on this field.

For Castro, expert opinion does not reflect realities. He said, “I see what is real evidence as distinguished from theoretical assumption or theoretical conclusion… I see a lot of children in the street… even in the tunnel… Ayala tunnel… you will see a lot of children in the morning. And in the news, mayroong rape doon, mayroong robbery doon. How could there be more probative than what you see as distinguished as the science as basis?”

It’s worrisome that Congress is populated and is even dominated now by science illiterates, the kind that would assert without shame that once upon a time, snakes had the ability to talk (preferably in Hebrew), that man reached the age of 930 years, and that climate change is fiction.

Castro’s big mistake is to dissociate science from reality and to peddle the absurdity that we should not rely on scientific data. On the contrary, science is based on things that can be observed and demonstrated — yes, reality! Now, if Castro disagrees, he can use the same science to show why he thinks the scientific experts are wrong. But in the absence of scientific data, it would be best for a science illiterate like Castro to shut up and stop making a fool of himself.

Politicians like Castro underscore the need for lawmakers who understand the need to use science in legislation, and not those who merely rely on impulse and gut feeling. Make no mistake about it, science is about what is real. Science is about finding out what is true, and scientific truths are not based on feelings and on what politicians want to hear.

In this particular case, science provides the answer to the question on whether or not the controversial proposal to lower the age of criminal responsibility to nine years is right or wrong. What does science say of the mind and psyche of a nine-year-old child? Or even that of a 12-year-old?

I worry that in their overzealousness to fight monsters and to pleasure an ogre, our legislators have become the monsters themselves. Pastilan.