Adamson University

College of Law

LEGAL RESEARCH WRITTEN REPORT

GCTA

Group 1:
Dacillo Jude
Maqui, Angelica
Monedo, Joie Elaiza
Ponciano, Darius
Ramos, Aedrian
Tan, Grace
 Is the order of arrest by the President valid for those who were allowed to enjoy the
benefits of the GCTA?

I. Legal basis of Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA)

Under the Revised Penal, Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) was discussed as a way
of partially extinguishing criminal liability through the reduction of the imposed sentence. This
was further strengthened under Republic Act 10592 in 2013 which amended the Articles 29,
94,97,98,99 that increased the number of creditable days and the arithmetical formula for
determining good conduct time allowances corresponding to the reduction of specific days for
specific periods of good behavior counted during the duration of the preventive imprisonment and
service of the sentence. GCTA are deductions from the term of the sentence for good behavior of
a convicted prisoner.

I-A. Comparison of the Old Provision and New Provision under GCTA Law
In order to elucidate the amended provisions and explain the difference and comparison of the said
laws, we compare it and differentiate it below:
Act No. 3815 RA No. 10592
Art. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from term of imprisonment. — deducted from term of imprisonment. –
Offenders who have undergone preventive Offenders or accused who have undergone
imprisonment shall be credited in the service preventive imprisonment shall be credited in
of their sentence consisting of deprivation of the service of their sentence consisting of
liberty, with the full time during which they deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
have undergone preventive imprisonment, if which they have undergone preventive
the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees
writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules voluntarily in writing after being informed of
imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the effects thereof and with the assistance of
the following cases: counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules

Group 1_GCTA Page 2 of 19

 imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in
1. When they are recidivists or have been
the following cases:
convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime; and “1. When they are recidivists, or have been
2. When upon being summoned for the convicted previously twice or more times of
execution of their sentence they have failed to any crime; and
surrender voluntarily.
“2. When upon being summoned for the
execution of their sentence they have failed to
If the detention prisoner does not agree to
surrender voluntarily.
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall be credited
“If the detention prisoner does not agree to
in the service of his sentence with four-fifths
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
of the time during which he has undergone
upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in
preventive imprisonment. (As amended by
writing with the assistance of a counsel and
Republic Act 6127, June 17, 1970)
shall be credited in the service of his sentence
with four-fifths of the time during which he has
Whenever an accused has undergone
undergone preventive imprisonment.
preventive imprisonment for a period equal to
or more than the possible maximum “Credit for preventive imprisonment for the
imprisonment of the offense charged to which penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
he may be sentenced and his case is not yet deducted from thirty (30) years.
terminated, he shall be released immediately
without prejudice to the continuation of the “Whenever an accused has undergone
trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the preventive imprisonment for a period equal to
same is under review. In case the maximum the possible maximum imprisonment of the
penalty to which the accused may be sentenced offense charged to which he may be sentenced
is destierro, he shall be released after thirty and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
(30) days of preventive imprisonment. (As released immediately without prejudice to the
amended by E.O. No. 214, July 10, 1988). continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. Computation of preventive

Group 1_GCTA Page 3 of 19

 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 destierro, he shall be released after thirty
(30) days of preventive imprisonment.”

Preventive Imprisonment is the practice of incarcerating accused individuals before trial

on the assumption that their release would not be in the best interest of society—specifically, that
they would be likely to commit additional crimes if they were released. It is imposed upon a person
before he/she is convicted, if he/ she cannot afford bail, or if his/her criminal case is non-bailable.

The old provision of RPC provides that one must voluntary submit, in writing, to abide by
the same disciplinary rules as those imposed upon convicted prisoners without informing the
effects of the preventive imprisonment. On the other hand, in the passage of R.A 10592 which
provides a condition that the detention prisoner should have been informed first about the effects
thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners.

Group 1_GCTA Page 4 of 19

 Under the old provision, the person that can benefit from the preventive imprisonment are
only the offenders. While in R.A 10592, it includes those who are accused who have undergone
preventive imprisonment. The difference between the accused and the offenders, is that an accused
is a person charged with a criminal offense, which means that they are merely charge or allegedly
charged or there is no final judgment yet. While the other, is a person who pleaded guilty or has
been found guilty after trial of an offense.

Both the Act No. 3815 and R.A 10592 provides for the exclusion to its application. It
exclude those are recidivist which are those continuously committing a crime even after they
convicted by a final judgment of the same title of Penal laws; Habitual delinquents, if within a
period of ten years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of robo, hurto,
estafa, or falsificacion, he is found guilty of any of said crime, a third time or oftener; Escapees
are those who escape from imprisonment; and Person charged with Heinous crimes. The law
does not provide for the definition of heinous crimes but the law provides various crimes which
are considered as an offense of heinous crimes. In connection, Republic Act 7659 (1993) which
imposed the death penalty as capital punishment enumerated crimes that may be considered
heinous, such as: a) Treason, b) Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas in Philippine waters,
c) Qualified piracy, d) Qualified bribery, e) Parricide, f) Murder, g) Infanticide, h) Kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, i) Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, j) Destructive
arson, k) Rape and l) Importation, distribution, manufacturing and possession of illegal drugs.

These crimes were considered heinous “for being 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 phrase “Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years.” In R.A 10592, those sentenced with
reclusion perpetua shall also credited for preventive imprisonment and that credit shall be deducted
from 30 years. The computation of preventive imprisonment which also provides in the
amendments shall be in the actual period of detention with good conduct time allowance.

Group 1_GCTA Page 5 of 19

 Act No. 3815
Art. 94. Partial Extinction of criminal liability. ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal
— 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 serving his
sentence.
RA No. 10592
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.”

In the old law the good conduct allowance can be earn by the culprit only while he is
serving his sentence, which means, the reduction of his sentence with good conduct shall only
commence during his service of his sentence. However, in the amendments this law, the reducti
on of his sentence can be earn also while undergoing preventive imprisonment.

Act No. 3815 RA No. 10592

Art. 97. Allowance for good conduct. — The ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The
good conduct of any prisoner in any penal good conduct of any offender qualified for
institution shall entitle him to the following credit for preventive imprisonment
deductions from the period of his sentence: pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any
1. During the first two years of his convicted prisoner in any penal institution,
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction rehabilitation or detention center or any
of five days for each month of good behavior; other local jail shall entitle him to the
2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, following deductions from the period of his
of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a sentence:
deduction of eight days for each month of good
behavior;

Group 1_GCTA Page 6 of 19

3. During the following years until the tenth 1. During the first two years of imprisonment,
year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty days
be allowed a deduction of ten days for each for each month of good behavior during
month of good behavior; and detention;
4. During the eleventh and successive years of
“2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive,
his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of fifteen days for each month of
reduction of twenty-three days for each month
good behavior.
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.”

Group 1_GCTA Page 7 of 19

 Both laws use the word “any” but in R.A 10592 only those persons qualified for
preventive imprisonment will benefit from it. In other words, this is only applicable to those
who were convicted prisoners or an accused not excluded to the preventive imprisonment.
To those offenders or convicted prisoner, who is not a recidivist, escapees, habitual
delinquent, and those who are not charge with heinous crimes are entitled to deductions of
their sentence.

Both laws also provide for a rules for the deduction of sentence, but they differ to
the deduction of a number of days during the first 2 years, during the 3 rd to the 5th, during
the following years to the 10th years during the 11th and successive years. R.A 10592
section 3 or Article 97, added a rule that any time during the period of his imprisonment a
deduction of 15 days in addition to numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, for each month of study, teaching,
or mentoring. Thus, if a convicted prisoner rendered his imprisonment with a good
behavior in rule numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 another 15 days deduction for each month if he or
she during his or her imprisonment rendered his sentence mention in paragraph 5 of R.A
10592.

Also in R.A 10592, an appeal by the accused does not bar for entitlement of the
good conduct allowance.

Act No. 3815 RA No. 10592

Art. 98. Special time allowance for ART. 98. Special time allowance for
loyalty-A deduction of one-fifth of the loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the
period of his sentence shall be granted to period of his sentence shall be granted to
any prisoner who, having evaded the any prisoner who, having evaded his
service of his sentence under the preventive imprisonment or the service of
circumstances mentioned in Article 58 of his sentence under the circumstances
this Code, gives himself up to the mentioned in Article 158 of this Code,
authorities within 48 hours following the gives himself up to the authorities within
issuance of a proclamation announcing the 48 hours following the issuance of a
passing way of the calamity or catastrophe proclamation announcing the passing away
to said in article. of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in
said article. A deduction of two-fifths of

Group 1_GCTA Page 8 of 19

 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.”

Special time allowance is granted to any prisoner who stay or evaded their
confinement due to calamity or catastrophe. Under the old law, a one-fifth deduction is
granted to any prisoner who evaded their service of imprisonment due to calamity or
catastrophe. On the hand, in R.A 10592, a deduction is also applicable to any prisoner who
choose to stay in their confinement notwithstanding the existence of calamity or
catastrophe, but only provide for a deduction of two-fifth of the period of his sentence.

I-B. Officials who grant GCTA

Article 99 of the RPC and R.A. 10592 provides that the officer who are authorized to grant the
GCTA are a) The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, b) Chief of Bureau of Jail Management
and Penology, and c) the Warden of a provincial, municipal, district, or city jail when it is justified
lawfully may grant good conduct time allowance.

It must be noted that the authorized officials are under the supervision of the executive department,
the Director of BuCor is under the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Chief of BJMP and
Warden are under the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG). However, it must
not misunderstand that the authority lies exclusive with them or within their office. Such power or
authority are only delegated to them by the higher-ups, particularly the President as the Chief
Executive because it is not possible for the president to do all the job corresponding to its position.

Group 1_GCTA Page 9 of 19

Thus, delegation or devolution of powers are needed, however, once it is delegated that does not
mean that the authority of the President disappears. Therefore, it must be understood that the power
to grant the GCTA is also within the power of the President.

II. Issues and Challenges on the implementation of the GCTA Law

II-A. GCTA and ex-Mayor Sanchez history check

It was in late August of this year when unverified information pertaining to the potential release
of then Calauan mayor Antonio Sanchez blew all over the internet and the television news.
Sanchez, a convict for murder and rape charges, has already been serving his sentence in bilibid
25 years now.

The issue ignited when the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) executed the Good Conduct
Time Allowance (GCTA) Law in reference to a July 2019 Supreme Court ruling which made
GCTA’s effect retroactive. Hence, the application to Sanchez which made freedom possible in his
case.

II-B. TIME TRACK

Tracing back, it was on the 28th of June, 1993, when certain Sarmenta and Gomez were
abducted in front of the UP Los Banos by six of Sanchez’ men. Reportedly, Sarmenta and Gomez
were presented to Sanchez as “gifts” in a farm rest house in Laguna. According to court records,
it was there where Sanchez raped Sarmenta and handed her over to his six men after incident just
to be raped again.

On the 13th of August, 1993, Sanchez was arrested. The arrested former mayor maintained
his innocence, and has accused a certain Kit Alqueza, son of Gen. Dictador Alqueza, to be the
mastermind of the killing of Gomez.

A month after, September 12, 1993, the case versus Sanchez and his men was officially
read in court. Witnesses told that Sanchez was seen naked of his bottoms during the incident
accompanied by a seemingly weak Sarmenta.

It was in March 11, 1995 when Sanchez was found guilty of rape and murder and was
sentenced to seven terms of reclusion perpetua. In addition, he was told to pay millions in amount
for the damages inflicted against the families of the victims, Sarmenta and Gomez.

Group 1_GCTA Page 10 of 19

 In the span of serving his sentence, Sanchez, on October 10, 2006, was charged with
possession of illegal drugs after authorities found marijuana and shabu in his jail.

Additionally, on and in between the years of 2010 up to 2015, Sanchez was again charged
after being caught with P1.5m worth of shabu hidden inside Virgin Mary statues. During the raid,
an airconditioning unit and a flat-screen television were seized from his jail.

On August 20, 2019, BuCor Dir. Gen. Nicanor Faeldon announced that in two months,
Sanchez was likely to be released which, according to DOJ Sec. Guevarra, was due to the
retroactive application of the GCTA.

After the incident, the issue drew flak which eventually pushed for a senate hearing
pertaining to this case which uncovered that more than a thousand convicts were already freed for
the same reason with Sanchez’ possible freedom.

This, eventually, has pushed Pres. Duterte to issue an order to rearrests all the freed convicts due
to the GCTA.

III. 2019 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulation of R.A.10592

The issue abovementioned triggered the revision of the Implementing Rules and
Regulation (IRR) which aims to rectify the error committed by the executive department. Major
revision was the express “exclusion clause” with regard to those who are covered to benefit from
the GCTA Law. The aforementioned clause was not included in the old IRR, hence, the cause of
the error. The aforementioned exclusion clause is under the 2019 Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulation of R.A. 10592, Rule 3, Sec 1 which provides;

“xxx The following shall not be entitled to any GCTA during preventive imprisonment:
a. Recidivist
b. An accused who has been convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime
c. An accused upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence has
failed to surrender voluntarily before a court of law
d. Habitual delinquents
e. Escapees and

Group 1_GCTA Page 11 of 19

 f. PDL charged of Heinous crimes.

Also, under Rule 3, Sec 2 of the same IRR provides that:

“xxx The following shall not be entitled to any GCTA during service of sentence:
a. Recidivist
b. Habitual delinquents
c. Escapees and
d. PDL charged of Heinous crimes.

Therefore, pursuant to this new IRR, all PDLs who were convicted and charged with heinous crime
to which was defined in the said IRR as those crimes abovementioned were not supposedly
released.

Also, other major revision is the inclusion of the word “validly granted” in the IRR which
was not visible in the R.A. 10592.

Section 5 of R.A. 10592 2019 Revised Implementing Rules and

Regulation of R.A.10592, Rule IX Grant of
Section 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby Time of Allowances, Section 3 states,
further amended to read as follows:"
"ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. – Section 3. Irrevocability of Time Allowances –
Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Time allowances such as GCTA, TASTM and
the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the STAL, once validly granted by the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology authorized official to a qualified PDL shall
and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, not be revoked.
municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for
good conduct. Such allowances once granted
shall not be revoked."

The said revision distinguished a valid grant and an invalid grant under the GCTA Law. It might
be construed that irrevocability of such grant rests on whether such grant is validly or invalidly

Group 1_GCTA Page 12 of 19

granted. Therefore, if it is validly granted, then it is irrevocable but if it is invalidly granted, then
the irrevocability cannot be invoked as per the law and IRR provides,

IV. Response of the Executive Department

On September 04, 2019, President Duterte orders the arrest of those convicts who were
released by the implementation of Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) under Republic Act
10592 to surrender and register themselves at the Bureau of Corrections within 15 days. Duterte
said, that if they do not surrender themselves, they will be treated as fugitives from justice and a
criminal. Likewise, the President also ordered the firing of Bureau of Correction (BuCor) Chief
Nicanor Faeldon in the midst of public anger over the release of inmates through the Republic Act
(RA) 10592, which he said was apparently misinterpreted and abused.
The President averred that he wants a re-computation of good conduct time allowances
given to thousands of convicts who were freed under the 2013 GCTA Law. He also granted the
convicts 15 days of liberty but on the condition that they make themselves available when they are
called for investigation and re-computation.
The Palace provided that under 2013 GCTA Law excluded recidivists, habitual
delinquents, escapees and person charged with heinous crimes from its coverage. In connection
with this, the Bureau of Correction provided the numbers of convicts who were released under the
GCTA Law from 2014 to 2019 as follows:
a. Persons deprived of liberty (PDL) – 22, 049
b. Heinous crime convicts (such as murder and rape);
i. Those who were sentenced for murder – 797
ii. Those who were sentenced for rape – 758
iii. Those who were sentenced for robbery with violence or intimidation – 274
iv. Those who were sentenced for drug-related offenses – 48
v. Those who were sentenced for parricide – 29
vi. Those who were sentenced for kidnapping with illegal detention – 5
vii. Those who were sentenced for destructive arson – 3

Among those who were released, over 2,000 people have voluntarily surrendered to the
government since President Rodrigo Duterte announced that freed heinous crimes convicts

Group 1_GCTA Page 13 of 19

released under a controversial law should turn themselves in or else, “things can go wrong.”
Whereas, the President imposed deadline which would expire at midnight of September 20. Justice
Undersecretary Markk Perete explained that 1,773 are staying at the Bureau of Corrections while
236 are with the Philippine National Police. Out of the more than 2,000 now under government
custody, Perete said that at least 41 of them were freed with no legal obstacle or not through the
controversial law.

V. Validity of the order of arrest by President Rodrigo Duterte

In order to answer the issue on the validity of the order of the President to arrest those who were
allowed to enjoy the benefit of the GCTA Law, a determination of validity of arrest must first be
settled. Second, if the president is authorized to issue such arrest.

V-A. Validity of the Arrest

Generally, the arrest is not valid as provided by the law, Section 5 of R.A. 10592 provides that:
“Sec. 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:
Article 99. Who grants time allowances – Whenever lawfully justified, the
Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district,
municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such
allowances once granted shall not be revoked”

In the plain reading of the law applying the basic principle of statutory construction “verba
legis or the plain meaning rule”, the order of arrest of those who were allowed to enjoy the benefits
of the GCTA Law is not valid and would amount to grave abuse of authority on the part of the
President. Moreover, Rule IX, Sec 3 of the 2019 Revised IRR of R.A. 10592 states that:
“Rule IX, Sec 3. Irrevocability of Time Allowance – Time allowances such as
GCTA, TASTM and STAL once validly granted by the authorized official to a
qualified PDL shall not be revoked.”

It must be noted that a qualifier “validly granted” is apparent in the IRR to emphasize that
what is irrevocable are those validly granted.

Group 1_GCTA Page 14 of 19

 V-A-1. Validity of IRR
We submit that the insertion of the said qualifier is constitutional and does not violate the
completeness test with regard to the power of subordinate legislation. Mainly, because according
to Article 10 of the Civil Code in cases of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. It will be absurd if all
grants of GCTA will be irrevocable especially in cases where the grants were not valid. It might
pave way to injustice that would diminish the integrity of the justice system in the Philippines and
might also be a source of corruption in the government. Whereas, the law might be used to
invalidly free PDLs by virtue of the GCTA Law and invoke that the said grant is irrevocable. If
that is the case it would prejudice the victim of that particular prisoner. Also, it could eventually
lead to corruption because the PDL’s would likely be entice to bribe officials to entitle them on
the application of the GCTA Law, regardless of the validity of the grant.

Having said that, the order of arrest of those who were erroneously allowed to enjoy the
benefits of GCTA is valid, since the grant is invalid.

V-A-2. What are those “invalid grant”

Section 3 of R.A. 10592 which amended Article 97 of the RPC, GCTA Law applies to two
situations – those who were preventively imprisoned and those already convicted and serving
sentence. Exclusions did not appear in the said section but in the revised IRR where it was
explicitly provided who are disqualified to benefit from GCTA Law. 2019 Revised Implementing
Rules and Regulation of R.A. 10592, Rule 3, Sec 1 provides;
“xxx The following shall not be entitled to any GCTA during preventive imprisonment:
g. Recidivist
h. An accused who has been convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime
i. An accused upon being summoned for the execution of his sentence has
failed to surrender voluntarily before a court of law
j. Habitual delinquents
k. Escapees and
l. PDL charged of Heinous crimes.

Group 1_GCTA Page 15 of 19

Rule 3, Sec 2 of the same IRR provides that:
“xxx The following shall not be entitled to any GCTA during service of sentence:
a. Recidivist
b. Habitual delinquents
c. Escapees and
d. PDL charged of Heinous crimes.

V-A-2-1. Validity of IRR with regard to the “exclusion clause”

An issue was raised, whether the inclusion of the provision regarding on disqualification for
the entitlement on the GCTA Law was valid. Both the IRR and inclusion are valid because under
Section 1, par (2) of R.A. 10592 provides that:
“xxxxx Provided finally, that recidivist, habitual delinquents, escapees and
persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this
Act. Xxxx”

Applying the basic principle of statutory construction, the law must be construed as a whole
and not as an isolated part from each other since the law contains a general purpose. Thus, even if,
this phrase was not present in Section 3 of R.A. 10592, it must be construed that this exclusion is
also applicable to the grant of good conduct time allowance. The word “Act” in the said provision
indicates the intent of the legislature to exclude the above enumeration to the coverage of the whole
Act. Hence, we humbly submit that the enumeration of exclusions in the revised IRR is valid as
being anchored in law.

V-A-3. Is the arrest valid?

As elucidated above, the arrest of those who validly granted is not valid in accordance with
the Section 5 of R.A. 10592 and Rule IX, Section 3 of its IRR. However, the arrest of those who
invalidly granted or erroneously allowed to be released under GCTA Law is valid. The invalid
grants are those who were supposed to be excluded in the coverage of GCTA but because of the
misapplication and error on the executive department, were released.

Group 1_GCTA Page 16 of 19

V-B. Authority of the President to issue the order of arrest of those who erroneously allowed
to be released under GCTA Law
Second issue to be resolve is that considering that the arrest of those PDLs who were
invalidly granted of good conduct time allowances is valid, then is it still valid if it comes from
the President? We opine on the affirmative that the President is authorize to issue such order taking
into account the “doctrine of qualified political agency” and “doctrine of residual powers” and also
considering the fact that it is an executive department’s error, therefore, the authority to rectify it
lies with the Chief Executive.

The officials who grant good conduct time allowances are the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections (Director) which is under the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Chief of the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (Chief) and/or Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city
jail (Warden) which is under the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG).

In accordance with the doctrine of qualified political agency, since, the DILG and DOJ are
among the departments under the authority of the Chief Executive. The power delegated to the
above enumerated officers comes from the Chief Executive. Thus, it must be understood that the
Chief Executive also have the power to grant and revoke the grant of good conduct time allowance
if it is invalidly granted.

Our argument is also anchored in the doctrine of residual powers which states that unless
Congress provides otherwise, the President shall exercise such other powers and functions vested
in the President which are provided for under the laws and which are not specifically enumerated
above, or which are not delegated by the President in accordance with law (Section 20 of the
Administrative Code of 1987). Hence, even if the power to issue such order is not expressly
provided by the constitution it is considered valid since it was ordered in order to rectify an
executive department error.

We submit that the said order by the president does not violate the doctrine of separation
of powers since it only aims to rectify the executive department’s error in implementing the law.
It is logical that since the error originated in the executive department then it should also be
resolved within the executive department by the Chief Executive. It is also not tantamount to grave
abuse of authority since one of the most important power of the executive is to implement the law.

Group 1_GCTA Page 17 of 19

This power includes the promulgation of executive orders and IRR that shall guarantee the proper
implementation of the laws.

V-C. Validity of the order of arrest by the President

As earlier explained, only the arrest of those who erroneously allowed to benefit from the
GCTA Law was valid. In that case, those PDLs cannot invoked the right against a warrantless
arrest since they were invalidly freed due to misapplication of the law or miscomputation of the
good conduct time allowances.

On the other hand, the arrest of those who were validly allowed to enjoy the benefit of the
GCTA Law was not valid since the law provides that such grant is irrevocable, thus can invoked
the right against a warrantless arrest.

VI. Action Taken by the Government

VI-A. Suspension of the hunt for GCTA-free convicts
Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) is granted to convicts who are not a recidivist,
habitual delinquent, escapees, and those charged with heinous crimes. Such also applies to
convicts, who were charged with heinous crimes before the effectivity of the law. Unfortunately,
the framework of the GCTA was subject to questioning as it became a means to materialize the
corruption inside the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). Notwithstanding the ambiguity of the law,
The Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) has released (22,049) inmates since 2014 under the Good
Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law, including (1,914) inmates who were convicted of heinous
crimes.
President Rodrigo R. Duterte then ordered the surrender of (1,914) convicts of heinous
crimes who have been released through GCTA. Regrettably, the re-arrest procedure was
improperly executed as the Department of Justice (DOJ) spotted errors in the list of convicts for
re-arrest submitted by the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). Such fault has led to the suspension of
the hunt by the Philippine National Police (PNP) and shall on hold until the “sanitized” list from
the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) has been verified.

Group 1_GCTA Page 18 of 19

 VI-B. Resume of the hunt for GCTA-free convicts

Department of Justice (DOJ) transmitted the verified list to the Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG) and was turned over to the Philippine National Police (PNP) to prepare
the re-arrest of convicts. A knock and plead or TokHang-style operation will be implemented by
the police as they begin a nationwide manhunt Friday, September 20, for the remaining hundreds
of heinous crime convicts who have not surrendered yet. Accordingly, the DOJ-BuCor task force
is reexamining the case records for each PDL (person deprived of liberty) with extreme care to
ensure accuracy.

The National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) began its operations, visiting the
registered homes of about a hundred convicts in Metro Manila. Such operations are similar to the
controversial Oplan “TokHang,” which was subject to criticism as it progressed outside of its legal
bounds. The verified list assists the continuous arrest by the Philippine National Police (PNP) that
the government provided and with hopes to make an arrest with more certainty and to prevent
operating based on an ill-prepared list.

As the search is underway, the National Capital Region Police Office (NCRPO) is directing
all its resources to capture (19) former convicts who was erroneously granted freedom under the
good conduct law. Guillermo Eleazar stated that tracker teams from the National Capital Region
Police Office (NCRPO) are now in possession of information regarding the whereabouts of the
mentioned convicts are conducting operations to see to it that these convicts are placed behind bars
at the New Bilibid Prison (NBP).

VII. Conclusions and Suggestions

In view of the foregoing, we submit that in order to validly rectify the error committed by
the executive department, we hereby suggest that the order of arrest must be suspended. Instead,
the executive department must re-compute the good conduct time allowances and must review and
determine those who were excluded to benefit from the law but invalidly freed.

Such determination will prevent impairment of rights of those who are validly allowed to
enjoy the GCTA Law and will prevent encroachment of the power of the Judiciary to order arrest.

Group 1_GCTA Page 19 of 19