Philippine school shooting 'planned for weeks' — guns traced to police officer and security agency
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344) discussed by suspects while plotting attack
Manila: The fatal shooting inside a high school in Tacloban City had allegedly been planned weeks in advance, according to the Police Regional Office in Eastern Visayas (PRO-8).
The attack unfolded Monday morning at San Jose National High School, where two Grade 9 students, aged 14 and 15, allegedly opened fire on campus, killing at least three students and wounding several others.
Initial police findings indicate the suspects had been plotting the attack as early as April or May.
"Based on our information, as early as May 1, if I'm not mistaken. They've been planning this since April or May," PRO-8 Director Brig. Gen. Jason Capoy said in a phone interview with reporters.
Republic Act No. 9344 in focus
Capoy also addressed online reports claiming the two suspects had coordinated how to smuggle firearms into the school and were familiar with the provisions of Republic Act No. 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.
While he neither confirmed nor denied the claims, he expressed concern over the level of preparation allegedly shown by the teenagers.
"It's worrisome because it seems they know a lot. They've studied it. They've read the law," Capoy said.
WHO OWNED THE GUN: One of two guns used in the school shooting that killed three teens and wounded seven on Monday belonged to a police officer, an official said. The 9mm Glock (pistol) belongs or was issued to a policewoman assigned in (the Eastern Visayas region), national police spokesman Allen Rae Co said, adding that the officer had been taken into custody and is now under investigation. The other weapon, a .38 calibre pistol, was registered to a security agency in Cebu City.
What the law says
Republic Act 9344, or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, establishes the Philippine legal framework for handling youth who commit crimes. It prioritises rehabilitation, restorative justice, and reintegration over penal punishment. The law exempts minors from criminal liability and mandates community-based intervention programs instead of incarceration.
The law establishes specific guidelines for handling children based on their age and their capacity to understand the nature of their actions (discernment):
15 years old and below: Completely exempt from criminal liability. They are instead subjected to community-based intervention or rehabilitation programs.
Above 15 but below 18 (without discernment): Exempt from criminal liability and undergo intervention programs.
Above 15 but below 18 (with discernment): Exempt from criminal liability and subjected to diversion programs unless a court or social worker determines they acted with discernment. If they acted with discernment, they undergo appropriate child-appropriate proceedings, but still receive preferential treatment, rehabilitation, and non-adult penal confinement.
(Source: Philippine Supreme Court e-Library)
