MANILA — Senator Panfilo “Ping” Lacson said the country’s Juvenile Justice Law should be reexamined following recent violent crimes involving minors, including the deadly shooting at a school in Tacloban City.

In a post on X, Lacson said the law’s provisions on criminal responsibility warrant further discussion, arguing that age should not automatically shield offenders from accountability.

“Our Juvenile Justice Law may really need revisiting and further discussion. The February 12, 1993 Liverpool, England case of 2-year-old James Patrick Bulger who was abducted and murdered by two 10-year-old boys may convince us to reconsider age as an automatic exemption from criminal liability. Discernment to be proven beyond reasonable doubt by state prosecutors as per the latest SC ruling should be safeguard enough to serve justice to all concerned,” he said.

Lacson cited the 1993 murder of two-year-old James Patrick Bulger in Liverpool, England, by two 10-year-old boys. The case gained international attention and sparked debate on balancing accountability, public safety, and the rehabilitation of young offenders.

His remarks came after a shooting at San Jose National High School in Tacloban City on Monday that left at least three people dead and several others injured.

Authorities said two male students, aged 14 and 15, allegedly opened fire inside the school. One reportedly used a 9-mm pistol owned by his aunt, a police staff sergeant, while the other allegedly used a .38-caliber revolver registered to a Cebu-based security agency where his grandfather supposedly worked.

Police investigators were quoted as saying the suspects had planned the attack as early as May 1 and had discussed the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act while preparing for the shooting.

Juvenile Justice and Welfare Council Executive Director Tricia Clare Oco said the law already provides mechanisms that ensure minors are held accountable while also supporting their rehabilitation.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled that a different standard applies in determining the criminal liability of minors, prompting the need for guidelines that would streamline the process of assessing discernment in cases involving children in conflict with the law.

In its ruling, the high court said there is no presumption that a minor acts with discernment and that prosecutors must establish it as a separate element of the case.

“For a minor at such an age to be criminally liable, the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt, by direct or circumstantial evidence, that he or she acted with discernment,” it said.