CHILD DEFENDANTS AND THEIR RIGHT TO A FAIR AND PUBLIC

HEARING IN THE PHILIPPINES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM

By: Maria Cecilia Kristina Africa1

I. Introduction

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates that in

determining a criminal charge against anyone, he or she is entitled to a “…fair
and public hearing…”2 The article goes on to say that when a child is accused of
committing a criminal offense, the manner in which his or her guilt is ascertained
shall consider the child’s age and geared towards his or her rehabilitation.3

The right to a fair and public hearing implies that the defendant is entitled
to a hearing that will encourage his effective participation in major decisions
pertaining to his defense.4 Hence, to protect this right, a hearing which involves a
child defendant may not be conducted like that of an adult defendant. It may be
safe to say that the same set of rights of any accused are applied differently to
child defendants, due to their circumstances and particularities as minors.
Children who find themselves in a criminal trial are often confused with what is
going on in court. Many of them are actively disengaged in the proceedings.5
Further, these children are left to deal with emotional and psychological trauma
caused by their unattended exposure to the harsh conditions of criminal trial.

While the provisions of Article 14(1) of the ICCPR and its counterpart
provision in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, Article 6(1) guarantees an array of other rights of a defendant or
accused, such as the right to be heard by an independent and impartial tribunal,
his or her right against publicity, if interests of justice so require and the right to
be tried within a reasonable time, this paper seeks to focus on the right of the
defendant to participate effectively in the criminal proceedings, as a integral
component of the right to a fair trial. In the course of the discussion of this
specific topic, this writing will take a comparative look at how two countries with
different types of criminal justice systems endeavor to protect this right, as
applied to child defendants. By looking at domestic laws enacted, international
treaties ratified and case law decided by these two countries, this writing aims to

1 Maria Cecilia Kristina Africa is a lawyer admitted to the Philippine Bar. She obtained her Bachelor of
Laws Degree in San Beda College, Manila. She worked as a legislative officer in the Senate of the
Philippines before she took up her LL.M. in International Law of Human Rights and Criminal Justice in
Utrecht University in The Netherlands. She undertook internships in the International Criminal Court in
The Hague, The Netherlands, and the International Service of Human Rights in New York, USA.
2 Article 14(1), Ibid.
3 Article 14(4), Ibid.
4 European Court of Human Rights, Stanford v. United Kingdom, Application No. 16757/90, promulgated
23 February 1994.
5 Woolfson, R., The Treatment of Young People in Court,
http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/thematiques/Citoyens/woolfsonE.pdf, last visited 31
October 2007.
 establish if these similarities or differences in protective measures arise from the
inquisitorial nature of the system of criminal justice in the Philippines and the
adversarial English criminal justice system.

I. Brief Description of the Criminal Justice Systems

A. Philippines

The Philippines operates under a predominantly inquisitorial criminal

justice system. The process of truth finding is entrusted to the State and its agents.
Preliminary investigation, from the time of arrest, is conducted by government
officials, in the person of the prosecutor, in coordination with police officers. It is
upon the prosecutor to safeguard the interests of both the state and the accused
during the investigation stage. All pieces of evidence gathered from the
investigation are compiled in a case file or a dossier which shall be subject to
verification in court. There is a heavy reliance on written documents found in the
dossier. The trier of fact and law is a professional judge, appointed by the
President of the Philippines. The judge, who plays an active role in establishing
the truth during trial, issues a reasoned decision after trial. The right to appeal is
available to both parties, except in cases where double jeopardy will attach.

B. United Kingdom

The criminal justice system of the United Kingdom is the classic example
of the adversarial type. The functions of investigating and judging are clear cut.
Truth finding is left to the opposing parties, the prosecution and the defense, to
establish which version shall be the relevant truth. Their separate versions of the
truth shall be heard by a group of lay persons composing a jury. The judge takes a
passive role during trial, acting merely as a referee to ensure that procedural
guarantees are observed. Oral evidence by witnesses is presented by the
prosecution and the defense at first instance before the jury at a public trial. The
decision of the jury need not be supported with reasons thereof, since there is no
right to appeal.

III. Who is a child defendant?

A. Philippines

According to Republic Act No, 9334, otherwise known as Juvenile Justice

and Welfare Act, enacted on 28 April 2006, a child defendant is any person over
fifteen (15) years but under eighteen (18) years old who commits a criminal act.
To be criminally responsible for his or her acts, the child defendant, or child in
conflict with the law, (CICL)6 must be proved to have acted with discernment.

6 Defined in Section 4(e), Republic Act No. 9334 as “a child who is alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
having committed an offense under Philippine laws.”
 Discernment is defined as the “… mental capacity to understand the difference
between right and wrong…” (Emphasis supplied)7 Prior to the enactment of the
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines pegged the minimum age of criminal responsibility at nine (9) years.8
An offender aged above nine (9) years, but below 15 years, acting with
discernment shall not be exempt from criminal liability.9

B. United Kingdom

According to the Child and Young Persons Act of 1933, the minimum age
of criminal responsibility in the United Kingdom is ten (10) years. A later
enactment, the Child and Young Persons Act 1969, provided to increase the age
of criminal responsibility from ten (10) years to fourteen (14) years. However,
due to the subsequent change of government before the implementation of this
Act, the new government decided not to implement it.10

Until the enactment of the Crime and Disorder Act of 1998, the common
law doctrine of doli incapax or ‘incapable of forming a guilty mind,” was a
presumption that the prosecution needed to rebut in order to impute criminal
responsibility to child defendant aged ten to fourteen years. The prosecution
needed to present clear and convincing evidence that not only did the child have
criminal intent, but that he or she knew that the act committed was seriously
wrong.11 However, this presumption was abolished by the Crime and Disorder
Act of 1998.12 Currently, a child over 10 years of age is irrebutably presumed to
have the capacity to form a guilty mind.

III. Domestic and International Law Governing the Protection of the

Right to a Fair and Public Hearing of Child Defendants

A. Domestic Law

1. Philippines

The 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes, as a matter of policy, the

role of the youth in nation-building. Therefore, it endeavors to protect their well-
being and foster their development in all fronts.13

7 Supreme Court of the Philippines, People of the Philippines vs. Doquena, 68 Philippine Reports 580
(1939).
8 Article 12(2), Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, enacted 08
December 1930.
9 Article 12(3), Ibid.
10 Crofts, T., The Criminal Responsibility of Children and Young Persons: A Comparison of English and
German Law, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Hampshire, England, 2002, page 31.
11 Bradley, L. The Age of Criminal Responsibility Revisited, Deakin Law Review, Issue No. 4, 2003.
12 Section 34, Crime and Disorder Act of 1998.
13 Section 13, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
 The most recent piece of legislation protecting the right to a fair and
public hearing of child defendants is the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of
2006. Apart from increasing the minimum age of criminal responsibility, it
enumerated a set of rights of children in conflict with the law. This list is separate
from the rights of the accused listed under the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.14 One of the rights guaranteed under this act is the right to be treated
with humanity and respect, for the inherent dignity of the person, and in a manner
which takes into account the needs of a person of his or her age. Other special
rights afforded to child defendants under this Act is the right to be separately
conveyed to and from court, a right to a separate holding area while waiting for
his or her case to be called, and the right to maintain contact with family through
correspondence and visits.15 All these procedural measures are aimed at
encouraging the child defendant to effectively participate in the proceedings in
court and to feel less threatened by the fact that he or she is being tried for the
alleged commission of a criminal offense. Further, this Act makes available a
system of diversion, wherein the child defendant will no longer undergo court
proceedings, if the maximum imposable penalty for the act alleged to have been
committed does not exceed six (6) years imprisonment.

Years before the enactment of the abovementioned law, the protection of

rights of child defendants was guaranteed under the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure, which includes a general list of rights of an accused, applied
indiscriminately to both adult and child offenders. The Family Courts Act of 1989
created family courts in every province and municipality which have exclusive
original jurisdiction, among others, over criminal cases wherein one or more
accused is a child above fifteen (15) years but below eighteen (18) years of age. 16
The Child and Youth Welfare Code17 gave a child defendant found to have
committed a criminal offense the benefit of a suspended sentence. The Revised
Penal Code entitles child defendants, aged above fifteen (15) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age, found guilty of a criminal offense to the benefit of a
privileged mitigating circumstance, wherein the fact of the offender’s age shall
operate to lower the imposable penalty by one degree.18

The Supreme Court, using its rulemaking power concerning practice and
procedure in all courts of law,19 issued several administrative circulars to create a
more comfortable courtroom environment to children who appear in court.
Among them are the Rules on Examination of a Child Witness and The Rule on

14 Supreme Court of the Philippines, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, effective 01 December 2000.
15 Section 5(d), Ibid.
16 Section 5(a), Republic Act No. 8369, as amended, otherwise known as “An Act Establishing Family
Courts, Granting Them Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Child and Family Cases, Amending Batas
Pambansa Bilang 129, as Amended, Otherwise Known as Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980,
Appropriating Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes., enacted 28 October 1997.
17 Section 192, Presidential Decree No. 603, enacted 10 December 1974.
18 Article 68, Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, enacted 08
December 1930.
19 Section 5(5), Article VIII, 1987 Philippine Constitution.
 Juveniles in Conflict with the Law. The Rules on Examination of a Child Witness
shall govern examination of child witnesses in general, whether the child is a
victim, the accused in a criminal proceeding, or an ordinary witness.20 Under this
Rule, the court may appoint a guardian ad litem to assist the child during
procedures related to the criminal trial. He or she is tasked to accompany the child
in all processes which require the latter’s participation. The court expects the
guardian ad litem to uphold the child’s interests at all times and attend to his or
her special needs as a child. The Rule also allows a facilitator to interpose
questions to the child defendant during examination in open court. The facilitator
will aid the child to be able to understand and respond to questions raised.
Support persons shall also be allowed to accompany the child during trial to give
the defendant emotional support. The court shall provide the child defendant with
a waiting area exclusively for children. The courtroom may be arranged in such a
manner that will be most comfortable to the child. The public may be excluded
from entering the room and the judge may opt not to wear his or her own robe so
as not to intimidate the child. Harassment of the child during the course of
questioning shall not be allowed. Finally, leading questions may be permitted so
as to conduct the questioning in a manner most appropriate to the developmental
level of the child.

The Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law,21 reflecting similar

provisions as that of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act provides the procedure
that a child defendant or CICL shall undergo when he or she allegedly committed
a criminal act, from initial contact by police authorities, all the way to the trial
proper.

2. United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, all young persons above the age of ten (10) but
below eighteen (18) shall be tried before a youth court through a summary
procedure. The trial in a youth court is less formal than one conducted in an adult
court. Proceedings are generally held in private. If and when the press is allowed
to observe the proceedings, the name and identity of the child defendant shall not
be published.22 Proceedings in a youth court shall be conducted by three lay
magistrates, who are members of the local community, one of which shall be
designated as a chairperson. A clerk of the court, assigned to every court, serves
as the permanent adviser of these lay magistrates to guide them through legal
proceedings. In more complex cases, a district judge, who is a legal professional,
is tasked to take the place of the lay magistrates.23

20 Supreme Court of the Philippines, Administrative Matter No. 004-07-SC, effective 15 December 2000.
21 Supreme Court of the Philippines., Administrative Matter No. 02-01-18-SC, effective 15 April 2002.
22 http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section4/chapter_b.html#04
23 Pitts, J. Working with Young Offenders, Second Edition, Macmillian Press Ltd., London, 1999. pages
48-49.
 However, this rule is subject to several exceptions.24 When the child is
tried with an adult, or charged with violations of the provisions of the Firearms
Act of 1968, or a specified offense under Section 224 of the Criminal Justice Act
2003, or when the magistrates’ court (youth court) denies jurisdiction over the
case because it is a grave offense (i.e. homicide), these cases shall be heard by the
Crown Court. The Crown Court shall employ rules of procedure applicable to
adult defendants.

B. International Law Applicable to both States Parties

The Philippines is a State Party to the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, ratifying it without reservations in 1986. The United Kingdom
ratified the Covenant in 1976.25

Apart from the pertinent provisions of the ICCPR mentioned in the

introduction of this paper, the Philippines and the U.K. are likewise bound by the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, which both states ratified in 1990 and
1991, respectively. Several provisions contained in the Convention on the Rights
of the Child are relevant to this discussion.

Article 3 mandates that the best interests of the child are the primary
consideration in all actions involving children, whether these are brought forward
before courts of law, administrative authorities, legislative bodies, public or
private social welfare organizations. Meanwhile, Article 12 directs State Parties to
give the child an opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative
proceeding concerning the child, either on his own, or through able
representation, and to be able to express his or her own views. His or her views
must be given due weight, taking into account the age and maturity of the child.
In Article 40, where the bulk of the rights of a child while participating in a
criminal proceeding can be found, states that the matter involving the child must
be decided without delay by a “…competent, independent and impartial authority
or body in a fair hearing…”

Both States are likewise bound by the Beijing Rules, adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations.26 The General Assembly, in Article 5
thereof, states that the well-being of juveniles shall be given utmost consideration,
not only in family tribunals or administrative bodies, but also in jurisdictions and
proceedings that follow the criminal court models. In Article 7, the right to having
the child’s parents or legal guardian present to provide emotional and moral
support during the proceedings was included as one of the basic rights of a
juvenile. The Beijing Rules go further in saying that in the event that a case of a
24 http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/Courts/YouthCourt.htm, last visited 27 October 2007.
25http://www.billofrightsforum.org/uk_ratification_status_of_international_human_rights_and_echr_instru
ments.pdf, last visited 27 October 2007.
26 United Nations General Assembly Resolution 40/33, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the
Administration of Juvenile Justice, adopted 29 November 1985.
 child defendant does not qualify for diversion proceedings, the criminal trial shall
proceed, respecting the right of a defendant to a fair trial, and that it shall be
conducted in a non-threatening manner, to encourage the child to participate
freely and express his views.27

IV. Practical Application of the Protection of the Right to a Fair and Public
Hearing of Child Defendants – A Comparative Look at Case Law and Related
Literature

A. Philippines

Since the enactment of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, the
Supreme Court has yet to promulgate a decision on the right of a child defendant
to a fair and public hearing, on the basis of the provisions of this new law.
However, several of these provisions concerning the manner by which criminal
proceedings are to be conducted may be found in Supreme Court circulars on the
Rules of Examination of Child Witnesses and Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with
the Law. A look into recently decided cases will reveal the lack of implementation
or perhaps, inadvertence to put these safeguards in place.

In the case of People of Larranaga, et.al., 28 several accused were found by

the Regional Trial Court guilty of kidnapping with serious illegal detention. One
of the accused, was a minor. This case, under Section 5(a) of Republic Act No.
8369 or the Family Courts Act of 1989, was to be heard by the Family Court.
However, no mention was made of this fact. It can be gleaned that the case was
heard in a regular trial court. The decision did not reflect the adherence of the trial
court to the rules protecting the child defendant during the hearing. The child
defendant was treated in a like manner as his adult co-defendants. He was,
however, sentenced with a lower penalty, on the basis of the privileged mitigating
circumstance on the basis of his being a minor.29

In the case of Niel Llave v. People of the Philippines,30 the child accused,
twelve (12) years of age, was convicted of raping a seven (7) year old girl. The
decision was focused almost entirely in determining whether the accused had
acted with discernment in the commission of the offense. As with the Larranaga
case, it falls within the jurisdiction of the Family Court, yet was tried in a regular
Regional Trial Court. A reading of the decision will show that despite the special
circumstances of the accused as a minor, the proceedings was not conducted in a
manner that will facilitate the effective participation of the accused in the hearing.

27 Rule 14.1, Ibid.

28 Supreme Court of the Philippines, People of the Philippines v. Francisco Juan Larranaga, et.al.,
Judgment of 31 January 2006, G.R. No. 138874-75.
29 Section 68, Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
30 Supreme Court of the Philippines, Niel Llave v. People of the Philippines, Judgment of 26 April 2006,
G.R. No. 166040.
 The case of Alvin Jose v. People of the Philippines was similar to that of
Larranaga as Mr. Jose was charged with the possession and sale of illegal drugs
alongside an adult defendant. 31 The case was heard by a regular Trial Court and
among the contentious issues was whether the said accused acted with
discernment.

It may be observed that in cases where diversion proceedings can not be

resorted to, as in instances where the offenses charged may be meted out a penalty
exceeding six (6) years imprisonment, the courts focus their attention on the
finding of discernment in the acts of the accused. The procedure by which the
court establishes that the defendant had the mental capability to understand the
gravity of the wrong that he committed, is governed by the ordinary rules in truth-
finding used with adult defendants. If it is proved that the accused did not act with
discernment, he is acquitted and subjected to diversion proceedings. Otherwise,
the trial will proceed. Upon a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the child
accused may be given the benefit of a privileged mitigating circumstance on
account of his minority which will lower the imposable penalty. The special
treatment of children, accused of committing a criminal offense, is confined with
according them the presumption of acting without discretion, but subject to
rebuttal, and in sentencing, where mitigating circumstances may apply. No
mention is made in these above-mentioned, or in other related cases, of measures
and procedures to facilitate the general understanding of child defendants of the
criminal proceeding, despite the constant reminders of treaty monitoring bodies to
include the implementation of these rules in the crafting of domestic
jurisprudence. These measures have long been recognized in national law,
through the rules of procedure established by the Supreme Court of the
Philippines but implementation seems to be lacking, up to this point. This obstacle
disables them to freely express their views regarding their case. On this basis,
effective participation of child defendants in these criminal proceedings was not
guaranteed.

B. United Kingdom.

The case of T v. United Kingdom,32 decided by the European Court of

Human Rights changed the view on how the right of effective participation as an
essential component to the right of fair and public hearing of child defendants
must be protected.

The applicant was a ten (10) year old boy who, together with another ten
(10) year old boy V, was charged with the murder of a two (2) year old boy. Due
to the gravity of the offense charged, the case was tried before the Crown Court.
The trial ensued, attracting the attention of the mass media as well as the general
31 Supreme Court of the Philippines, Alvin Jose v. People of the Philippines, Judgment of 13 January 2006,
G.R. No. 162052.
32 European Court of Human Rights, T v. United Kingdom, Application No. 24724/94, Judgment of 16
December 1999.
 public. The trial followed the procedure of a regular criminal trial of adult
defendants. The judges wore their robes and wigs. To make the courtroom
environment less stressful to the child defendants, several measures were put in
place. The parents and legal counsels of both child defendants were seated near
them. Hearing times coincided with school hours. Several breaks were spread
throughout the hearing, giving time for the children to rest in the playing area.

T and V were subsequently found guilty of murder. The applicants then

brought the case before the European Court of Human Rights, claiming, among
others, a violation of their right to a fair and public hearing, under Article 6(1) of
the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Commission, while recognizing the special concessions implemented

during the hearing to make the defendants feel less threatened by the intimidating
atmosphere inside the courtroom, ruled that the State failed to uphold the
guarantees of a fair and public hearing in Article 6(1) of the European Convention.
It explained that the age of the child defendant, his or her level of maturity as well
as intellectual and emotional capability must be given utmost consideration while
observing a procedure of truth-finding. It noted that the character of a public trial
in the Crown Court, in this particular case, proved to be too daunting to a young
person. In this regard, the discomfort and intimidation caused by the formality and
seriousness of a proceeding conducted in an adult court impaired the ability of the
child defendant to participate effectively in the hearing.
As a result of this decision by the European Court of Human Rights, a
Practice Direction was issued by the Lord Chief Justice of England and
Wales to govern criminal trials of child defendants in the Crown Court.33
According to this document, the young defendant is given the latitude to
choose where he would like to sit and where it is comfortable for him to
communicate with his legal representatives. The court is under obligation to
aid the child in forming a general understanding of what is going on inside
the courtroom. The number of people permitted to attend the hearing may
be controlled by the court so as to create a non-threatening atmosphere for
the child. Robes and wigs of judges should not be worn and no identifiable
police presence shall be allowed within the court premises, unless the judge
so requires.
This practice direction was later recognized in a later decision by the
European Court, S.C. v. United Kingdom,34 wherein it was decided that, although
the European Convention under Article 6(1) did not require that the child
defendant comprehend each and every segment of the criminal proceeding that
unfolds before him or her, it is required that the child is able to understand the
nature of the trial and his involvement therein, including the consequences of any
decision made in the process. In this manner, the child defendant is able to form an
33 Practice Direction (Crown Court: Trial of children and young persons) [2001] 1
Cr.App.R. 483.
34European Court of Human Rights, S.C. v. United Kingdom, Application No. 60958/00, promulgated 15
June 2004.
 accurate assessment of his case and be able to express his views regarding the
conduct of his defense.

V. Conclusion

The right of every defendant, whether a child or an adult, to put up a good

defense of him or her self in a criminal trial is recognized in all criminal justice
systems. In the trial of child defendants, it is seen as one of the aspects of criminal
procedures where inquisitorial and adversarial systems are converging. Over and
above the differences of inquisitorial and adversarial systems, there is a current
trend worldwide to harmonize national legislation with the provisions of the
Convention of the Rights of the Child and other related international instruments.
States are setting up courts that deal with offenses by children. These courts shall
be bound by rules of procedure, not focused on technical rules of evidence
applicable to adult defendants but instead, geared towards restorative justice.

It is a major concern, however, that a considerable number of criminal

proceedings involving child defendants are tried in adult courts, especially when
grave offenses are alleged to have been committed. This is an aspect of criminal
justice that States have overlooked in the recent past, as can be seen in the case of
the Philippines and the United Kingdom.

At present, these two countries find themselves in different levels in

improving their juvenile justice systems. The Philippines, on the basis of a newly
enacted law, is in the process of setting up a juvenile justice system based on
restorative justice, establishing a system of diversion and rehabilitation of
children in conflict with the law. Coupled with recent administrative rules set by
the Supreme Court, the judicial system aims to make criminal trials more
conducive to the participation of a child defendant. On the other hand, the United
Kingdom has taken a step further in the strengthening of the right of effective
participation of child defendants. Apart from the implementation of a practice
direction which mandates to observe rules to protect the interests of child
defendants in the courtroom, the European Court of Human Rights enjoins its
member states to facilitate the participation of child defendants in that they may
be able to express their own views in criminal proceedings. In sum, it is evident,
that regardless of the differences in the approach employed by both these States,
the common ultimate objective is to enable every child who finds him or her self
in a criminal trial to avail of the right to a fair and public hearing, according to his
or her needs and capabilities as a child.

Efforts to direct attention in the protection of child defendants by pertinent

treaty monitoring bodies as well as the European Court of Human Rights are
credited for a renewed interest in this special group of defendants. Slowly, states
are realizing that the harsh conditions of an adult trial leave an indelible mark in
the psyche of a young child. This fact makes it more difficult for him or her to
fully develop as a law-abiding individual in the future. It is imperative that not
 only must young defendants be entitled to special concessions in the conduct of a
criminal trial, but legal professionals of the Bench and the Bar, must be trained to
deal with handling cases involving children. It is now a primordial consideration
that the child plays an active role in pursuing his or her case in court. The
decisions on how to pursue his or her defense cannot be left to the sole discretion
of the guardian or to the legal counsel. International law now requires the court to
afford the child with a general understanding of how the case proceeds. In this
manner, the right of the accused to effective participation as a component to the
right to a fair and public hearing, is respected, regardless of whether he or she is a
child or an adult.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Convention on the Rights of the Child

European Court of Human Rights, Stanford v. United Kingdom, Application No.

16757/90, promulgated 23 February 1994.

Woolfson, R., The Treatment of Young People in Court,

http://www.coe.int/t/dg1/legalcooperation/cepej/thematiques/Citoyens/woolfsonE.
pdf, last visited 31 October 2007.

Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as “An Act Establishing a

Comprehensive Juvenile Justice and Welfare System, Creating the Juvenile
Justice and Welfare Council under the Department of Justice, Appropriating
Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes.”
Supreme Court of the Philippines, People of the Philippines vs. Doquena, 68
Philippine Reports 580 (1939).

Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines,
enacted 08 December 1930.

Crofts, T., The Criminal Responsibility of Children and Young Persons: A

Comparison of English and German Law, Ashgate Publishing Limited,
Hampshire, England, 2002.

Bradley, L. The Age of Criminal Responsibility Revisited, Deakin Law Review,

Issue No. 4, 2003.

Crime and Disorder Act of 1998 of the United Kingdom.

1987 Philippine Constitution.

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
effective 01 December 2000.

Republic Act No. 8369, as amended, otherwise known as “An Act Establishing
Family Courts, Granting Them Exclusive Original Jurisdiction over Child and
Family Cases, Amending Batas Pambansa Bilang 129, as Amended, Otherwise
Known as Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, Appropriating Funds Therefor,
and for Other Purposes., enacted 28 October 1997, Philippines.

Presidential Decree No. 603, enacted 10 December 1974, Philippines.

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Administrative Matter No. 004-07-SC,

effective 15 December 2000.

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Administrative Matter No. 02-01-18-SC,

effective 15 April 2002.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section4/chapter_b.html#04, last visited 27 October

2007.

Pitts, J. Working with Young Offenders, Second Edition, Macmillian Press Ltd.,
London, 1999. pages 48-49.

http://www.yjb.gov.uk/en-gb/yjs/Courts/YouthCourt.htm, last visited 27 October

2007.

http://www.billofrightsforum.org/uk_ratification_status_of_international_human_
rights_and_echr_instruments.pdf, last visited 27 October 2007.

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 40/33, United Nations Standard

Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, adopted 29 November
1985.

Supreme Court of the Philippines, People of the Philippines v. Francisco Juan

Larranaga, et.al., Judgment of 31 January 2006, G.R. No. 138874-75.

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Niel Llave v. People of the Philippines,

Judgment of 26 April 2006, G.R. No. 166040.

Supreme Court of the Philippines, Alvin Jose v. People of the Philippines,

Judgment of 13 January 2006, G.R. No. 162052.

Practice Direction (Crown Court: Trial of children and young persons) [2001] 1
Cr.App.R. 483.

European Court of Human Rights, S.C. v. United Kingdom, Application No.

60958/00, promulgated 15 June 2004.

Jorg, N., et al. Are Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Converging? Comparing
Criminal Justice Systems Reader. 2007. pp.24-35.