I.

Background

The Correctional System in the Philippines is composed of three different

departments of the national government: (1) Department of Interior and Local

Government (DILG); (2) Department of Social Welfare and Development

(DSWD); and (3) Department of Justice (DOJ). Offenders serving light

sentences are detained in city, municipal, or district jails under the Bureau of

Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) of DILG. While juvenile delinquents

are sent to youth rehabilitation centers handled by DSWS unless one committed

a grave offense who will then be confined at the national penitentiary. Lastly,

offenders convicted of more than three years are kept at the prison of Burau of

Corrections (BuCor) as they are identified as national prisoners. Several

functions of the government are to prevent prisoners from committing crimes,

provide inmates basic needs, ensure rehabilitation programs are made available

to the inmates for their physical, intellectual and spiritual development, and

develop livelihood programs to assist inmates earn a living and develop their

skills while in prison.1

The government plays a role in the correction and rehabilitation of

offenders2. According to Executive Order No. 292, otherwise known as the

Administrative Code of 1987, BuCor has its principal task to rehabilitate

national prisoners.3 It has progressed from reprisal of criminal offenders to

humanizing and enriching convicts by rehabilitating, treating, and guiding

1 Bureau of Corrections, http://www.bucor.gov.ph/about.html

2 Supreme Court of the Philippines, National Survey of Inmates and Institutional Assessment, 2004
3 Sec. 26, Chap. 8, Title III, Book IV of Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987
 inmates to become productive and responsible members of the society once

released.4

A. Statistics

Year on year since 1998, number of prisoners are increasing on an average

of 6% per annum or 115% in a span of two decades. In fact, with the latest data

gathered as of September 2019, there are 47,326 inmates nationwide which is 6.6%

increase from the same month of previous year. The normal capacity of prison

facilities in the Philippines can only accommodate 12,299 inmates however given

the count, occupancy rate on average, yielded to 385%. Also considering the 1:23

4
THE PHILIPPINE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM: CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES, Mildred
Bernadette Baquilod Alvor, State Counsel, Department of Justice, Republic of the Philippines, 2003
ratio of custodial person per inmate which is one of the resources which decreases

for every additional inmate.

I. Good Conduct Time Allowance

Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) refers to the deduction of

days from the sentence granted to prisoners for each month of good behavior

while inside the National penitentiary. Such sentence is computed starting

upon conviction and serving in the national penitentiary. The Director of

Corrections may grant GCTA to a prisoner who exhibits good behavior

while inside the prison in exchange of participating with the rehabilitation

programs which will eventually resylt to early release of the subject.5

II. Issue

Whether or not Good Conduct Time Allowance should be allowed for

persons guilty of heinous crimes.

III. Legal Basis

REPUBLIC ACT No. 10592

AN ACT AMENDING ARTICLES 29, 94, 97, 98 AND 99 OF ACT NO. 3815,

AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines

in Congress assembled:

5 Integrated Jail Management System for the Bureau of Corrections, Ma. Bernadetter B. Bautista
Section 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the

Revised Penal Code, is hereby further amended to read as follows:

ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of

imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive

imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of

deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone

preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in

writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of

counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted

prisoners, except in the following cases:

1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice

or more times of any crime; and

2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence

they have failed to surrender voluntarily.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary

rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the

assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence

with four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive

imprisonment.

Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion

perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years.1âwphi1

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period

equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to

which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
 released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial

thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review.

Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release

under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good

conduct time allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent

without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may motu

proprio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists,

habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are

excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum penalty to

which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be released after

thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment."

Section 2. Article 94 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as

follows:

ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal liability is

extinguished partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of the sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he

is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence."

Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as

follows:

ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender

qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of

this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation

 or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following

deductions from the period of his sentence:

1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a

deduction of twenty days for each month of good behavior during

detention;

2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he

shall be allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of

good behavior during detention;

3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his

imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for

each month of good behavior during detention;

4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he

shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good

behavior during detention; and

5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed

another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four

hereof, for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service time

rendered.

An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above

allowances for good conduct."

Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as

follows:

ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of

the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having
 evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence under the

circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the

authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation

announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in

said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be

granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement

notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in

Article 158 of this Code.

The Implementing Rules and Regulation (IRR) of Republic Act 10592 defines

good behavior as:

"the conspicuous and satisfactory behavior of a detention or convicted

prisoner consisting of active involvement in rehabilitation programs,

productive participation in authorized work activities or accomplishment of

exemplary deeds coupled with faithful obedience to all prison/jail rules and

regulations”

Under Republic Act 7659 or the Death Penalty Act, heinous crimes are:

“grievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent

or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversity are repugnant

and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality

in a just, civilized and ordered society.”

The Death Penalty Act, which was repealed in 2006, classified murder and

rape as “heinous crimes” that may be punishable by death.

 IV. Considerations

According to Senate Minority Leader Ralph Recto, flushing out

inmates who can be freed on humanitarian and legal grounds will lead the

government to save money and space.

Annually, the budget for every inmate is Php 73,910.00 to guard and

feed him. That is three times the budget of Department of Education

(DepEd) for every one student in basic education. In addition to that, a Php

1,825 medicine allowance per annum is beyond the Php 96.00 budget of

Department of Health (DoH) per capita.6

On the other hand, Senator Leila de Lima who supervised the drafting

of IRR she is not disposed to exclude heinous crimes from GCTA as there is

a possibility to defeat the intent of the government which is to rehabilitate,

treat, and guide prisoners even those who committed heinous crimes.

Nevertheless, recidivist or convicts who have violated rules even inside the

penitentiary shall be disqualified as it good behavior cannot be an on and

off.7

6 Recto: P74K yearly budget per prisoner is thrice bigger than gov't spending per student, Senate of the
Philippines, 2016
7
Beyond Sanchez: How to improve the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law, Lian Buan, Aug 6, 2019.
 III. ARGUMENTS

3.1. ISSUE ON RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE RA 10592

SC Rules In Favor of Prisoners and Inmates

July 1, 2019

The Supreme Court in their En Banc session on 25 June 2019 and in a decision

penned by Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, declared invalid Section 4, Rule

1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (“IRR”) of Republic Act No. 10592

(“R.A. 10592”) in so far as the said IRR provided for the prospective application

of the grant of time allowance of prisoners for: i.) good conduct, ii.) study,

teaching, and mentoring service, and iii.) loyalty.

As a consequence, all prisoners regardless of whether already serving his/her

sentence or undergoing preventive imprisonment may qualify for the reduction of

their sentence pursuant to the time allowances under R.A. 10592.

The decision was in connection with the following consolidated cases:

Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; Atty.

Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; William M. Montinola,

et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R. No. 212719).

Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R. No. 214637)

R.A. 10592 which was passed into law on 29 May 2013 amended Articles 29[1],

94[2], 97[3], 98[4], and 99[5] of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815 or

“RPC”). The important amendments under RA 10592, among others, are as

follows:
1.) It expanded the application of the good conduct time allowance for prisoners

even during preventive imprisonment.

2.) It increased the number of days that may be credited for good conduct time

allowance.

3.) It allowed additional deduction of 15 days for each month of study, teaching, or

mentoring service.

4.) It expanded the special time allowance for loyalty and made it applicable even

during preventive imprisonment.

On 26 March 2014 an IRR was jointly issued by the Secretary of the Department

of Justice, Leila H. De Lima, and the Secretary of the Department of Interior,

Manuel A. Roxas II. However, Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR directed the

prospective application of the grant of good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time

allowance for study, teaching, and mentoring (TASTM) and special time

allowance for loyalty (STAL) to prisoners. Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR reads:

Section 4. Prospective Application. – Considering that these Rules provide for

new procedures and standards of behavior for the grant of good conduct time

allowance as provided in Section 4 of Rule V hereof and require the creation of a

Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) as provided in

Section 3 of the same Rule, the grant of good conduct time allowance under

Republic Act 10592 shall be prospective in application.

The grant of time allowance of study, teaching and mentoring and of special time

allowance for loyalty shall be prospective in application as these privileges are

likewise subject to the management, screening and evaluation of the MSEC.

The petitioners assail the validity of the said provision of the IRR on the ground

that it violates Article 22 of the RPC, which provides:

Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws shall have a retroactive

effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of the felony, who is not a habitual

criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at

the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and

the convict is serving the same.

In the decision, the Supreme Court took note of the definition of “penal laws” to

be: “Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions

defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation.”

Thus Justice Peralta, in granting the petition and declaring the IRR invalid in so far

as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of GCTA, TASTM, and

STAL, stated in the decision:

“While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or provide/prescribe a

penalty as it addresses the rehabilitation component of our correctional system, its

provisions have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to

the crime. The further reduction of the length of the penalty of imprisonment is, in

the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the detention and convicted prisoners alike;

hence, calls for the application of Article 22 of the RPC.

“The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592

actually works to the disadvantage of petitioners and those who are similarly

situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty attached to their respective

crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, making more onerous the punishment

for the crimes committed. Depriving them of time off to which they are justly
entitled as a practical matter results in extending their sentence and increasing

their punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of

the RPC.”

With the said ruling of the Supreme Court, and considering the increased time

allowances for GCTA, TASTM, and STAL under R.A. 10592 given to qualified

inmates, there will be a substantial reduction in their respective penalties; which

eventually will result in the decongestion of the jail system in the country.

The court voted as follows:

The following Justices voted to grant the petition –

1. Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin

2. Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio

3. Justice Diosdado M. Peralta

4. Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo

5. Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe

6. Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen

7. Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Cagouia

8. Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr.

9. Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo

10.Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr.

11.Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando

12.Justice Rosmari D. Carandang

13.Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier

14.Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting

The following Justice took no part –

 1. Justice Francis H. Jardeleza (on official leave)

(G.R. No. 212719, Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De

Lima, et al.; Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.;

William M. Montinola, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al.; G.R. No.

214637, Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. June 25, 2019)

In the case of ANTONIO L. SANCHEZ, vs. The Honorable HARRIET

O. DEMETRIOU, et al., SC Rules for the Retroactive Application of R.A.

10592

Sanchez, a former mayor of Calauan, Laguna, was sentenced in 1995 to 7

counts of reclusion perpetua (or 40 years imprisonment) over the murder of

University of the Philippines Los Baños students Eileen Sarmenta and Allan

Gomez. Sarmenta was also found raped.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra:

Sanchez might be released because of a 2013 law increasing good conduct

time allowance and a Supreme Court (SC) decision applying this law

retroactively.

Although sentenced to 7 counts of reclusion perpetua, Sanchez stands to benefit

from the 3-fold rule under the Revised Penal Code, which limits the service of

sentence to a maximum of 3 times the harshest penalty but in no case more than 40

years.

The Revised Penal Code also allows the application of good conduct time

allowances, which reduces the years and days spent in prison.

The periods for good conduct time allowance were increased in a 2013 law,

Republic Act 10592, which expanded the application of good conduct time
allowance for prisoners even during preventive imprisonment and increased the

number of days that may be credited for good conduct.

News of Sanchez's release has caused widespread outrage, with close to 63,000

netizens on signing an online petition demanding that the government stop the

impending release of the convicted rapist and murderer.

Despite the widespread and extraordinary outrage emanating from the people,

Supreme Court grants the petition and makes the GCTA law retroactive.

Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court grants the petition and makes the

GCTA law retroactive.

SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen:

“The prospective provision of the 2014 IRR “implies that all inmates

detained or convicted prior to its effectivity can no longer be rehabilitated

for a successful reintegration into society, effectively trampling upon their

dignity as human beings.”

The Supreme Court relied on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code.

[1] ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of

imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive

imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of

deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they have undergone

preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in

writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of

counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners,

except in the following cases:

 1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or

more times of any crime; and

 When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they

have failed to surrender voluntarily.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary

rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the

assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with

four-fifths of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.

Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be

deducted from thirty (30) years.

Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period

equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he

may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released

immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the

proceeding on appeal, if the same is under review. Computation of preventive

imprisonment for purposes of immediate release under this paragraph shall be

the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance: Provided,

however, that if the accused us absent without justifiable cause at any stage of

the trial, the court may motu propio order the rearrest of the accused: Provided,

finally, that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with

heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the maximum

penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be releases

after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment. (Amendments in bold,

italicized, and underlined words)

[2] ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal Liability is

extinguished partially:

1. By conditional pardon;

2. By commutation of sentence; and

3. For good conduct allowance which the culprit may earn while he

is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence.

(Amendments in bold, italicized, and underlined words)

[3] ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender

qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this

Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or

detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the following

deductions from the period of his sentence:

1. During the first two years of (his) imprisonment, he shall be allowed a

deduction of twentydays for each month of good behavior during

detention;

2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall

be allowed a deduction of twenty-three days for each month of good

behavior during detention;

3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his

imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for

each month of good behavior during detention;

4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be

allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good

behavior during detention;

 5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed

another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four

hereof, for each month of study, teaching, or mentoring service time

rendered.

An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above

allowances for good conduct. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and underlined

words)

[4] ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the

period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his

preventive imprisonment orthe service of his sentence under the circumstances

mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives himself up to the authorities within 48

hours following the issuance of a proclamation announcing the passing away of the

calamity or catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the

period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner chose to stay in the

place of his confinement notwithstanding the existence of a calamity or

catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.

This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive

imprisonment or serving sentence. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and

underlined words)

[5] ART. 99. Who grants time allowances – Whenever lawfully justified,

the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of Bureau of Jail

Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district,

municipal, of city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances

once granted shall not be revoked. (Amendments in bold, italicized, and underlined

words)
 (Cite in the case of; Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, et al. vs. Sec.

Leila M. De Lima, et al.; Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr. vs. Sec. Leila M. De

Lima, et al.; William M. Montinola, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R.

No. 212719); Reynaldo D. Edago, et al. vs. Sec. Leila M. De Lima, et al. (G.R.

No. 214637))

3.1.2 PROPOSITION: We CONCUR to the ruling of the Supreme Court with

MODIFICATIONS.

R.A. 10529 should not be interpreted as to benefit all offenders

automatically and it should have a strict implementation in accordance with

the Implementing Rules and Regulation of GCTA to prevent politically

influenced offenders like ex-mayor Sanchez to get away with the law.

As a general rule, every new law has a prospective effect. However, a penal law

that is favorable or advantageous to the accused shall be given RETROACTIVE

EFFECT if he is not a habitually delinquent under the principle favorabilia sunt

amplianda adiosa restrigenda, likewise as expressly stated in Article 22 of the

Revised Penal Code.

Writ: Article 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. - Penal Laws shall

have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons guilty of a

felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5

of the Article 62 of this Code, 8although at the time of the publication

of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is

serving the same

8
G.R. No. 212719 and G.R. No. 214637 were consolidated per Resolution dated June 16, 2015 (Rollo [G.R. No.
214637], pp. 281-284)

R.A. No. 10592 took effect on June 6, 2013 (See Rollo [G.R. No. 212719], pp. 25, 29, 188, 623 and rollo [G.R. No.
214637], p. 415)
And lest it be doubted that article 22 of the Revised Penal Code applies to said

Code, Representative Quintin Paredes adds the following:

"The use of the words 'penal laws' in general, instead of 'this Revised

Penal Code and any other penal laws' in article 22, may give room for

a doubt as to whether said article meant to include in the phrase

'penal laws' the same Revised Penal Code that was establishing the

provision. But this doubt, I think, should not be entertained since the

Revised Penal Code is itself a penal law and the phrase 'penal laws' is

broad enough to include all laws that are penal in character."

Thus, it is clear that the policy landscape that we have in relation to convicted

criminals focuses on rehabilitation, development, reformation and social

reintegration. The IRR of RA 10575, in particular, as the law that governs the

penal institutions that administer persons convicted of more serious offenses,

including those convicted of heinous crimes, devotes several provisions detailing

the mechanisms focusing on rehabilitation and reformation.

NOW, THE AMENDED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION OF

REPUBLIC ACT 10592 OR THE GCTA LAW CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDES

HEINOUS CRIME CONVICTS LIKE SANCHEZ FROM THE BENEFITS OF

THE GCTA LAW.

AMENDED IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATION (IRR) OF R.A.

10592

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the Interior and Local

Government (DILG) have revised the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
of the Good Conduct Time Allowance law (GCTA law), responding to public

outcry over the near-release of high-profile convict Antonio Sanchez.

Here are the salient amendments in the new IRR:

1. Recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, those charged with heinous

crimes and an accused who, upon being summoned for the execution of his

sentence has failed to surrender voluntarily before a court of law, are

excluded from good conduct time allowance under RA 10592 (Section 2,

Rule IV)

2. Prisoners disqualified under RA 10592, such as heinous crime convicts,

but who were convicted before the law became effective in 2013 shall be

entitled to good conduct time allowance under the Revised Penal Code (2nd

paragraph, Section 1, Rule XIII)

3. Prisoners disqualified under RA 10592, such as heinous crime convicts,

and who were convicted after the law became effective in 2013, shall not be

entitled to any type of good conduct time allowance (3rd paragraph, Section

1, Rule XIII)

4. Heinous crimes are the same heinous crimes defined under Republic Act

7659 or the now-repealed death penalty law. It is the DOJ's view that RA

7659 was repealed only insofar as imposing the death penalty, but not the

definition of heinous crimes (Section 1n, Rule II)

5. To increase transparency, the Management, Screening and Evaluation

Committee (MSEC) shall publish the list of prisoners who may be qualified

for release on 3 conspicuous places within the jail premises and/or uploaded

in their respective websites subject to the Data Privacy Act (Section 3c, Rule

VIII)
 6. The MSEC shall invite representatives from accredited civil society

organizations to appear as observers during deliberations (Section 4, Rule

VIII)

7. To encourage sustained good behavior, the new IRR says accrued time

allowances shall be granted at the end of the prisoners' 2nd year, 5th year,

10th year, 11th year and every year thereafter (Section 2, Rule IX)

In the new rule, GCTAs accrue monthly to follow the law, but are granted at

the end of the 2nd year, 5th year, 10th year, 11th year, and beyond.

Justice Undersecretary Markk Perete:

"So therefore if a particular prisoner for example commits an offense, a

grave offense, within a 2-year period, then in the operational guidelines you

may have a basis to say that that particular prisoner, by virtue of his

commission of an offense, forfeits the entire accrued time allowance,"

8. The grant of time allowances to a disqualified prisoner, whether under the

previous or present Rules, shall not extinguish criminal liability (Section 1,

Rule X)

Following the amended IRR the Supreme Court decision in the case of

Antonio Sanchez vs. The Honorable HARRIET O. DEMETRIOU must be

modified.

The Supreme Court incorrectly argued that the law "automatically" benefits

everyone without consideration of the gravity of the offense and their actual
performance in jail or prison, suggesting that it is not their discretionary power to

release or detain, a very meek excuse on how they will professionally exercise

authority. Worse, they interpreted the law as that it was enacted to give "second

chance" for all offenders.

Although it should be applied retroactively, the Court should have

mentioned that the awarding of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), Time

Allowance for Studying, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM), and Special Time

Allowance for Loyalty (STAL) can be suspended if inmates are engaged in bad

behaviors, such as drug dealing, sneaking of contraband, and participating in

prison violence.

Furthermore, "heinous crimes" may not be covered by the law. There are

sufficient legal and procedural remedies to make sure that the law will not be

abused by the rich and powerful, such as the creation of the Management

Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC), which is composed of

BJMP/BuCor rehabilitation officers, and parole and probation officers, who will

evaluate the monthly awarding of the GCTA.

Moreoever, there are different ways to document actual behaviors such as

strengthening case management through computerization of the Carpeta System.

The public must be assured that the government are on top of the implementation

of the law in an efficient and equitable manner.

In conclusion, the court should’ve ruled that Mayor Sanchez and those

druglords who testified against Senator Leila de Lima should be denied GCTA

credits due to documented involvement in the drug trade while they were serving

sentence. And not because Section 4 Rule 1 of the IRR is invalid and that GCTA

should be applied retroactively, ex-mayor Sanchez is already and automatically

included among those who are qualified for good time allowances.
 The IRR of GCTA, even before it was amended, is already sufficient to rule

that Sanchez and the other prisoners similarly situated who are guilty for the

commission of heinous crimes and has been involved in illegal drug trade while

serving sentence will not be benefited by the implementation of the GCTA only if

the IRR of the R.A. 10529 has been deligently interpreted to enforce justice.

SANCHEZ ENGAGED IN DRUG DEALING

In 2006, during a surprise inspection, authorities found shabu and marijuana inside

Sanchez's jail. He was charged with possession of illegal drugs.

Again in 2010, Sanchez was caught again with P1.5 million worth of shabu

concealed in a statue of the Virgin Mary. An airconditioning unit and a flat-screen

TV were also seized from him during a raid in 2015.

Sanchez has been engaged in bad behaviors such as drug dealing, sneaking

contraband, and participation in prison violence while serving his sentence. These

acts constitute as sufficient ground for the suspension of the awarding of Good

Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), Time Allowance for Studying, Teaching and

Mentoring (TASTM), and Special Time Allowance for Loyalty (STAL).

IS RA 10592 IS A PENAL LAW?

According to the jurisprudences and decided cases by the Supreme Court, a

penal provision defines a crime or provides a punishment for one. Furthermore,

penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions defining

offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation. Properly speaking, a statute is

penal when it imposes punishment for an offense committed against the state

which, under the Constitution, the Executive has the power to pardon. In common

use, however, this sense has been enlarged to include within the term "penal

statutes" all statutes which command or prohibit certain acts, and establish
penalties for their violation, and even those which, without expressly prohibiting

certain acts, impose a penalty upon their commission

As opposing argument, R.A. NO. 10592 DOES NOT DEFINE A

CRIME/OFFENSE or provide/prescribe/establish a penalty as it addresses

the rehabilitation component of our correctional system. The provisions of

the said have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached

to the crime. The further reduction on the length of the penalty of

imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the detention and

convicted prisoners alike; .

Our counterclaim, the RPC makes the penalties more onerous or

prejudicial to the accused cannot be applied retroactively for being an ex

post facto law, a law that makes the penalties lighter should be considered

penal laws in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. Moreover, Article 22

of the Revised Penal Code is not the sole basis for the invalidity of Republic

Act No. 10592's prospective application. It also violates the inmates'

constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws 30 and against "cruel,

degrading , or inhuman punishment.

Equal protection is covered under the mantle of due process, as unfair

discrimination goes against the very nature of justice and fair play. Equal

protection demands that similar subjects be treated similarly; to do otherwise

would be to confer an unwarranted favor to some at the expense of others

who are similarly situated

Also, as stated by Chief Justice Manuel Araullo, the principle is "not as a right"

of the offender, "but founded on the very principles on which the right of the State

to punish and the combination of the penalty are based, and regards it not as an

exception based on political considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of

strict justice." Thus, depriving them of time off to which they are justly entitled as

a practical matter results in extending their sentence and increasing their

punishment. Evidently, this transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of the

RPC.

THEREFORE, WE STAND TO CALL FOR THE RETROACTIVE

APPLICATION OF R.A. 10592 WITH MODIFICATIONS UPON ITS

IMPLEMENTATION.

3.2 SECOND ARGUMENT: The creation of "creation of a Management,

Screening and Evaluation Committee as recommendatory body was not innovative

and not a sustainable solution.

The developmental annals of our criminal justice system provide certain

basic rules of governance in determining the fate of one caught in the toils of the
9
law. The awarding of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), Time

Allowance for Studying, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM), and Special Time

Allowance for Loyalty (STAL) can be suspended if inmates are engaged in bad

behaviors, such as drug dealing, sneaking of contrabands, and participating in

prison violence. They could have mentioned that ‘heinous crimes’ may not be

covered by the law. Likewise, the latter have mentioned that there are sufficient

legal and procedural remedies to make sure that the law will not be abused by the

rich and powerful.

With regards to the creation of the Management Screening and Evaluation

Committee (MSEC), which is composed of BJMP/ BuCor rehabilitation officers

and Parole and Probation Officers, who will evaluate the monthly awarding of the

GCTA10. The said committees might have different ways to document actual

9
People vs. Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484 (1977); People vs. Go Bio, Jr., 142 SCRA 238 (1986); People vs. Rojo, 175
SCRA 119.
10
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592 (2014)
behaviors such as strengthening case management, since the same were created as

separate and distinct from each other and that powers and duties can’t be

consolidate and harmonized as one, it will amount to an overlapping jurisdiction

and that might cause mismanagement reports, failure to comply with their

respective duties in accordance to the law and worst scenario future chaotic

liabilities of the state to its people.11 We appreciate and commend the initiative of

the authors of the creation of such committee, but the same is not the right time to

our present circumstances. There will be immediate danger in our justice system.

The entitlement to time credits is not automatic and is contingent upon the

Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee's positive assessment of an

inmate's application for time credits, the law's prospective application means that

an inmate's application for time credits will be dismissed outright and will not even

be considered by the recommending authority.

But, instead of focusing on how the law will be implemented efficiently and

equitably, the media has been enamored by gruesome examples, and this law will

be soon scrapped or will have limited application. The jail and prison officials will

be very afraid to exercise their professional discretion to release a reformed

offender simply because of the horrendous backlash that they will face from the

unenlightened media and the public.

Hence, for justice to prevail, the scales must balance; justice is not to be

dispensed for the society with band aid solutions alone and short cut system. The

interests of society and the people must be equally considered.

11
Association of Medical Clinics for Overseas Workers, Inc. (AMCOW) v. GCC Approved Medical Centers
Association, Inc., et al., 802 Phil. 116, 142 (2016) [Per J. Brion, En Banc]
3.3 THIRD ARGUMENT GCTA Law doesn’t automatically grants benefits to

those persons who are deprived of liberty as compare to Act No. 2489 “An act

authorizing special compensation, credits, and modification in the sentence of

prisoners as a reward for exceptional conduct and workmanship, and for other

purposes”

3.3.1 EXPLANATION: It is incorrect to argued that the law

"automatically" benefits everyone without consideration of the gravity of the

offense and their actual performance in jail or prison, suggesting that it is not their

discretionary power to release or detain, a very meek excuse on how they will

professionally exercise authority. Worse, they utilize a humanitarian narrative, that

this law is for a "second chance" for all offenders, which is a very hypocritical

stance given the current administration's bent of putting small-time drug offenders

behind bars and killing those who resist arrests.

While, Act No. 2489 of the Philippine Legislature authorizes special

compensation for exceptional conduct and workmanship. It provides that at least

fifty per centum of any amount that may accumulate to the credit of prisoners

under this Act shall be withheld until after final discharge, the remainder to be

subject to disbursement upon request of the prisoner for the support of dependent

members of his family or for such personal use as may be approved by the Director

of Prisons.

As we understand this law, the earnings of the prisoners are in the nature of

trust funds held for the benefit of the prisoners under the direction of the Director

of Prisons. It would, accordingly, appear appropriate for such funds, when

deposited in the Philippine Postal Savings Bank, to be so deposited by the Director

of Prisons for and on behalf of the prisoner. As a trust fund, a part held for an

indefinite period until the discharge of the prisoner and a part held for
disbursement from time to time, the money earned by the prisoner would not be

liable to garnishment. To hold otherwise would put at naught the purposes of Act

No. 2489, for all incentive for the prison inmate to work and save would be

removed.

Therefore, All the legal gobbledygook spun by these inept bureaucrats had

become cannon fodder for the devourous media which had utilized effectively

these responses to mock the spirit and letter of the law. And now that they are

cornered, they immediately changed tune, and are rediscovering the correct

answers.

3.4 FOURTH ARGUMENT: Lawmakers who were principally responsible for

moving the measure through the 15th Congress should be investigated and held

accountable.

3.4.1 Explanation:

Blaming the law as being defective is barking at the wrong tree, they say, because

the big foul-up occurred in the writing of the implementing rules and regulations

(IRR) for the law. the IRR of RA 10592 has now been drafted twice: first by the

Justice and Interior secretaries in the administration of former president Benigno

Aquino 3rd, and now, by the Justice and Interior secretaries of the administration

of President Rodrigo Duterte.

The problem starts from the fact that RA 10592 expanded the reduction of a

convict’s sentence based on good behavior while inside the prison. It states that

heinous crime convicts are not among those who can avail of GCTA, but its

subsequent IRR seemed to have included convicted heinous felons in the roster.

Section 7 of RA 10592 tasks the Justice and Interior departments with drawing up

the IRR. The first IRR was created during the time of former Interior secretary
Manuel “Mar” Roxas 2nd and then-Justice Secretary Leila de Lima in the previous

Aquino 3rd administration. RA 10592 was signed by Aquino 3rd in 2013.

Both Roxas and de Lima have been sent letters by Ombudsman Samuel Martires,

asking them to explain or clarify about the writing of RA10592’s IRR that was

drafted during their term. Roxas contended in his reply to the Ombudsman:

“I have gone over the IRR and found that the same faithfully reflects the provisions

of RA 10592 that are the subject of the letter. The IRR is worded, to the greatest

extent practicable, in a manner consistent with the law it implements.

“This being the case, allegations that the IRR has strayed from the law on which it

is based are unfounded.”

Additionally, the outrage over Sanchez exposed the hideous corruption within the

Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the national penitentiary at Bilibid. It has been

discovered that convicts’ releases and GCTA credits are regularly sold in our

correctional facility. It is now revealed that prostitutes are regularly trafficked at

Bilibid like merchandise or tilapia. Two former military officers who were

appointed by President Duterte as BuCor directors were found to have been

incompetent and inadequate.

Now, they are reportedly looking at a “killer” to head the bureau.

Prison guards, even those coming from the Special Action Force of the Philippine

National Police, have not passed muster. The problem in sum is systemic
 V. SIGNIFICANCE:

The judicial policy has been to entertain a direct resort to this Court in exceptional

and compelling circumstances, such as cases of national interest and of serious

implications, and those of transcendental importance and of first impression. 12As

the petitions clearly and specifically set out special and important reasons

therefor, We may overlook the Rules. Republic Act . No. 10592 and its IRR affect

the entire correctional system of the Philippines not only the social, economic, and

moral well-being of the convicts and detainees are involved but also their victims

and their own families, the jails, and the society at large. The nationwide

implications of the petitions, the extensive scope of the the subject matter, the

upholding of public policy, and the repercussions on the society are factors

warranting direct recourse to us.

Yet more than anything, there is an urgent necessity to dispense substantive justice

on the numerous affected inmates. It is a must to treat this consolidated case with a

circumspect leniency, granting petitioners the fullest opportunity to establish the

merits of their case rather than lose their liberty on the basis of technicalities. 13It

need not be said that while this case has been pending, their right to liberty is on

the line. An extended period of detention or one that is beyond the period allowed

by law violates the accused person's right to liberty.14 Hence, We shunt the rigidity

of the rules of procedure so as not to deprive such birthright.15 The Court zealously

guards against the curtailment of a person's basic constitutional and natural right

12
See Provincial Bus Operators Association of the Philippines v. Department of Labor and Employment, G.R. No.
202275, July 17, 2018; Clark Investors and Locators Ass'n., Inc. v. Sec. of Finance, et al., 763 Phil. 79, 94 (2015);
and Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Sec. Defensor, 529 Phil. 573, 586 (2006)

13
See Five Star Mktg Co., Inc. v. Booc, 561 Phil. 167, 184 (2007)

14
See Gov't of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Hon. Olalia, Jr., 550 Phil. 63 (2007) and Integrated Bar
of the Philippines Pangasinan Legal Aid v. Department of Justice, G.R. No. 232413, July 25, 2017, 832 SCRA 396

15
See Bongalon v. People, 707 Phil. 11, 19 (2013)
to liberty.16 The right to liberty, which stands second only to life in the hierarchy of

constitutional rights, cannot be lightly taken away.17 At its core, substantive due

process guarantees a right to liberty that cannot be taken away or unduly

constricted, except through valid causes provided by law.

16
See People v. De los Santos, 277 Phil. 493, 502 (1991). It is not amiss to point further that aside from being
constitutionally protected, the right to liberty is recognized by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which the Philippines is a signatory
(See Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo, et al., 589 Phil 1, 51 [2008] and Barbieto v, The Hon. Court of
Appeals, et al., 619 Phil. 819, 840 [2009])

17
Quidet v. People, 632 Phil. 1, 12 (2010); People v. Jesalva, 811 Phil. 299, 307 (2017); Rimando v. People, G.R.
No. 229701, November 29, 2017; People v. Gimpaya, G.R. No. 227395, January 10, and Villarosa v. People, G.R.
Nos. 233155-63, July 17, 2018 (En Banc Resolution)
 VI. CONCLUSION

Republic Act No. 10592 aims to uphold the State policy of restorative and

compassionate justice by promoting prisoner rehabilitation and successful

reintegration into mainstream society. But despite its avowed purpose, it

capriciously denies the same opportunity of rehabilitation and reintegration to a big

segment of the inmate population. GCTA is not a new concept. In fact, it is already

being implemented since 1915 or 15 years before the Revised Penal Code came to

being.

Act 2489 was mentioned in a Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling that allowed the

release of a prisoner who benefitted from GCTA. Under Section 4 of Act No.

2489, “prisoners receiving by executive approval the classification of penal

colonists or trusties employed at work without the surveillance of an armed guard,

in addition to the regular good conduct time credits…may be credited with five

days for each calendar month during which their work and conduct have been

exemplary and while they retain this classification.”

Section 5 of the law provides.. “ that prisoners serving life sentences

retaining their classification as penal colonists will have their sentences be

modified to 30 years upon executive approval after which, he or she is already

entitled to regular or special credit for good conduct”.

There are difference between Act 2489 and Republic Act 10592. Namely,

act 2489 authorizes special compensation, credits and modification in the sentence

of prisoners as a reward for exceptional conduct and workmanship while RA

10592 amended several provisions of the Revised Penal Code and increased the

time allowances given to convicts.

 While RA 10592 mentions recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and

persons charged with heinous crimes, it is included under Section 1 referring to

preventive imprisonment while the increased computation on GCTA did not

mention any exclusion. Unlike RA 10592, Act 2489 is more definite.

Section 8 provides that.. “ the benefit of time allowance and other compensation

“shall not be made applicable to any prisoner who has previously been convicted

twice or oftener of any crime or misdemeanor.”

Act 2489 specifically states that it should be applied retroactively while RA

10592 did not. While its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) said that the

implementation should be prospective, the Supreme Court, in its June 2019 ruling

said the law should be implemented retroactively–meaning it will apply to inmates

sentenced prior to the enactment of the law in 2013. A joint committee composed

of officials from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of the

Interior and Local Government (DILG) will review the IRR.

Under a joint memorandum by the DOJ and DILG, the committee has 10 days to

submit its report and draft revised IRR to the DOJ and DILG Secretaries.

Although not a penalty, the prospective application of Republic Act No.

10592 penalizes inmates by withholding from them the benefits of the good

conduct time credits without any justifiable reason, squarely placing it under the

constitutional ban for being "flagrantly and plainly oppressive[.]"

Thus, if the statute's intention was to "redeem and uplift valuable human

material towards economic and social usefulness[,]"40 there was no reasonable

basis to distinguish between the detained or convicted prisoners before and after

Republic Act No. 10592 took effect. Not only was the distinction irrelevant to the

statute's purpose, it also unjustly treats similarly situated prisoners under different
standards, all because it used the arbitrary metric of when they were detained or

convicted.

Finally, the prospective application of Republic Act No. 10592 does not

advance its guiding policy of restorative and compassionate justice. This is because

it implies that all inmates detained or convicted prior to its effectivity can no

longer be rehabilitated for a successful reintegration into society, effectively

trampling upon their dignity as human beings