It’s a sight that city dwellers have learned to live with: glassy-eyed children mindlessly sniffing glue on street corners, or dashing between vehicles selling flowers and sundries, or begging for alms.
In crime-prone areas, young people barely in their teens loiter in the streets for a chance to snatch mobile phones, jewelry and other valuables from distracted motorists. Others more desperate are easily recruited into trading drugs or sex.
So common are these squalid encounters with street children that presumptive President-elect Rodrigo Duterte’s announcement of a nationwide crackdown on unaccompanied minors roaming the streets past 10 p.m. seems timely and laudable. Duterte said the kids would be turned over for custody to government agencies, like the Department of Social Welfare and Development, and their parents arrested for abandonment. Such a curfew ordinance is in place in Davao City, his base.
According to the Council for the Welfare of Children, there were some 45,000 street kids nationwide in 2000. Surely the figure must have risen many times over since then. Of that number, 75 percent were known to wander the streets, while 20 percent practically lived in them—alone or with their families or friends. The rest could be considered abandoned, runaways or engaged in illegal activities.
For sure, the planned curfew is intended to take children off the streets where they risk life and limb in vehicular traffic, and where they are in danger of embracing a life of crime, thanks to syndicates that prey on the young, weak and vulnerable. For sure, the curfew for street children and the arrest of negligent parents are meant as a deterrent to street crimes and a means of getting more children into school. But the plan requires close scrutiny.
Last year, two women in Davao City were arrested for violating Republic Act No. 7610 which, among others, obligates parents to be the added layer of protection for their children against abuse. The two women were mothers of minors found sleeping in the streets. But one said she had to leave her children at home so she could work as a housemaid, while the other said she and her husband had tried, but failed, to find their child who ran away from home.
Why blame the women who were only trying to provide for their children? the party-list group Gabriela demanded to know. It added: “Most women are not given enough chances to get a decent job with enough pay that would provide for their family. Most women don’t even have access to government social services. It’s so unfair for mothers who have been desperately trying hard to provide for her children to get all the blame and be immediately dismissed as bad mothers just because they are poor.”
Indeed. It would be so easy to arrest negligent parents and sweep their kids off the streets and into DSWD custody—where they would likely be released back to the parents in a futile cycle of deferred accountability and dire straits.
What may be more effective in keeping children off the streets—but admittedly more difficult—is providing a whole package of services that can benefit families faced with having to make the heartbreaking choice of making a living or making a home.
For a start, the incoming administration, which has expressed support for the Reproductive Health Law, can provide basic family planning information and services in public clinics to make these accessible to families on the margins. After all, taking control of one’s life often begins with being able to plan one’s family.
Creating more jobs is part of the package, as crime in the streets is often propelled by extreme need. Providing people with jobs will keep them productive and busy as well, breed self-respect, and keep restless youth off mischief. So will education and a vigorous sports program in schools that should give young folk a handy outlet for all that excess energy.
Lastly, should certain street children prove to be repeat offenders and require being put in government custody, the incoming administration must endeavor to provide children’s shelters with rehabilitative services, counselors, alternative schooling opportunities, and on-site healthcare.
Because while being tough on hardened criminals may be a necessity, coaxing young offenders back into the fold is a better, and smart, alternative.