A research done by San Beda College Alabang School of Law Legal

Writing Students

“Dapat Na Bang Palayain?”: A Review of Statutes and Judicial Decisions

on the Exclusion of Heinous Crime Convicts Under the Good Conduct
Time Allowance Law
Date:​ December 20, 2020

Submitted by:

Isabel Francesca C. Anunciacion (Legal Writing 1S / Legal Research 1S)

Karla Marie V. Gabriel (Legal Writing 1S / Legal Research 1C)

Patricia Medina (Legal Writing 1S / Legal Research 1S)

Roque Alejandrino Cresencio Quintin Salvador V O. Paredes (Legal Writing 1S

/ Legal Research 1S)

Anna Mikaela C. Ty (Legal Writing 1S / Legal Research 1S)

Submitted To:​ Atty. Sarah Sarmiento-Tronqued

Summary: Good Conduct Time Allowance is implemented to promote

decongestion of prisons and to sway the rule of law towards a more
rehabilitative system, rather than retributive. This paper shall argue, based on
primary and secondary legal sources, that the consideration of qualified
candidates should be amended so as to exclude heinous crime convicts as
candidates.

1
Issues:

1. The constitutionality of the 2019 REVISED IMPLEMENTING RULES

AND REGULATIONS (IRR) OF 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; Rulemaking is internal to the Department of Justice and
the Supreme Court do not interfere. However, if the guidelines/the new
and revised Implementing Rules and Regulations were already issued and
there is a case filed, the Supreme Court has to require the other party,
that is the government, to comment through the solicitor general.

2. The determination of the qualifications and process of approval for a

candidate for parole and a prisoner entitled to Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA).

a. This is to question as to why Persons Deprived of Liberty who

committed heinous crimes should be included and therefore benefit
under the new and revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of
the GCTA.

3. The sufficiency of proof and reliable evidence proving the repentance or

good behavior of a prisoner to declare such as not a danger to the society.

2
Introduction

In 1930, the Revised Penal Code was signed into law. The Chapter 2 of
the Code articulates the "partial extinction of criminal liability," which covered
the principles of conditional pardon, commutation of sentence, and good
conduct allowances. This portion on the partial extinction of criminal liability
was repealed by subsequent laws, particularly by Senate Bill No. 3064 and
House Bill 417.​1 The research discusses why the Department of Justice is open
to legal challenges particularly the determination of whether those who
committed heinous crimes would be included to get the benefit of Good
Conduct Time Allowance.

In 2013, under the Aquino administration, the more pronounced Good

Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) or the Republic Act 10592, Section 3 was
passed into law. The said law sought to credit the prisoners who are deprived of
their liberty due to the offense they have committed against persons, property or
government and primarily against society, due to the ‘good conduct’ and service
that they have rendered while serving their sentence.​2 This is similar to the
concept of “good time” in the United States which reduces the actual time a
defendant sentenced to prison serves— usually because he has complied with
prison rules and regulations.​3

The law, which initially covered as eligible those convicted of heinous

crimes, was met with public criticisms and protests, as evidenced by the

1
​Jodesz Gavilan, Rappler, August 27, 2019,
<​https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/timeline-gcta-law-controversy-stirred​> (visited December 18, 2020)
2
​Republic Act 10592, Section 3
3
​BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 5121 (8​th​ ed. 2004).

3
public’s outrage on the release of the convicted murderers of the Chiong sisters
and the preempted release of former Los Baños Mayor Antonio Sanchez.​4

The issue most critical in this public debate is whether or not extending
the coverage of GCTA’s eligibility to those convicted of heinous crimes is a
disservice to justice for the convicts’ victims, their families and the society.

After the series of controversies of the GCTA law, the Legislative branch
amended its coverage with the subsequent promulgation of its Implementing
Rules and Regulation (IRR) by the Executive department through the DOJ and
the DILG, which under its Rule IV, Section 1(f), specifically disqualifies those
convicted of heinous crimes.​5

This paper aims to review the statutes and judicial decisions pertaining to
the exemption of those convicted of heinous crimes under the Good Conduct
Time and Allowance law. By reviewing said legal references, the researchers
will be able to provide insights on the existing debate on the issue of whether or
not the current law impacts the rehabilitative or retributive perspective of the
Philippine legal system.

4
​Jodesz Gavilan, Rappler, August 27, 2019,
<​https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/timeline-gcta-law-controversy-stirred​> (visited December 18, 2020)
5
​2019 Revised Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 109592, “An Act Amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98,
and 99 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as The Revised Penal Code,” September 16, 2019

4
Method

This study employed the desk review method in its data collection
process. The researchers reviewed documents from local primary and secondary
sources as well as international secondary sources.

For the local primary sources, the team of researchers consulted as

research tools search engines and CD Asia, and used sources of primary
authority, the Constitution, statutes and case law; whereas for international
primary and local secondary sources, the Google search engine was used, which
provided access to legal dictionaries, periodicals and journals.

What is “good conduct” in the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law?

Republic Act 10592 defined what constitutes good conduct under the law.
It enumerated and specified activities that may classify the person as eligible for
the benefits of shortening his time inside prison. This statutory definition is as
illustrated below:

The performance of studying, teaching, mentoring, and loyalty to their duties

inside the prison to; a. Redeem and uplift valuable human material towards economic
and social usefulness; b. Level the field of opportunity to motivate PDL(Person
Deprived of Liberty) to pursue a productive and law-abiding life; c. Implement the
state policy of restorative and compassionate justice by promoting reformation and
rehabilitation of PDL, strengthening their moral fiber and facilitating their successful
reintegration into the mainstream of society; and d. Maintain a firm punitive or
retributive policy towards certain classes of PDL.6​

6
​Id.​ at 5.

5
 GCTA as defined "Good Conduct Time Allowance" (GCTA) — a grant
accorded a PDL on Good Conduct entitling him to deductions from the possible
maximum imposable imprisonment or period of sentence.”7​

Procedures under the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 1​0592

enumerated the procedures to be undertaken under the GCTA law as follows:

a. In consideration of the detainees’ or convicted prisoner’s faithful obedience to all

prison/jail rules and regulations, the BUCOR, BJMP, and provincial jails “shall give
special considerations to satisfactory behavior” of detainees or convicted prisoner in
“active involvement in rehabilitation programs, productive participation in authorized
work activities or accomplishment of exemplary deeds.”

b. The Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) shall be formed

consisting of BUCOR, BJMP, and Provincial Jails which shall be tasked to manage,
screen and evaluate the behavior or conduct of a detention or convicted prisoner

c. Upon consideration of the good behavior or conduct exhibited by the detainees or

prisoners, the MSEC shall then recommend the appropriate GCTA ranging from the
minimum allowable credit or maximum allowable credit.

d. The appropriate official under Section I, Rule VIII of the law shall act upon the
recommendation of the MSEC. The decision may either be to approve, to disapprove,
or to return the evaluation based on clerical errors.

7
​Id.

6
Qualifications under the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law

Section 2, Republic Act No. 10592 states that an accused who has
undergone imprisonment shall be credited, either full or four-fifths (⅘) term, for
his actual detention or service of his sentence, provided that he does not possess
any characteristic that would disqualify him under Section 3.

Section 3 enumerated the following convicted inmates are not qualified

for the good conduct time allowance:

A. An accused who is a recidivist as defined under Article 14 (9), Chapter

III, Book I of the​ Revised Penal Code​;

B. An accused who has been convicted previously twice or more times of

any crime; and

C. An accused who, upon being summoned for the execution of his

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

Given the qualifications

Heinous crimes are those defined to be “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.” 8​
8
https://web.mylegalwhiz.com/search/glossary?page=glossary&keyword=heinous+crimes

7
 In this paper, the eligibility of those convicted of heinous crimes under
Good Conduct Time Allowance is investigated using legal primary and
secondary sources.

If the definition above is to be followed, those convicted of heinous

crimes may be considered to be repugnant and a danger to society.

Relevant Cases

a. Local Case

RUBEN E. TIU, PETITIONER, VS. HON. NATIVIDAD G. DIZON,

ACTING CHAIRPERSON OF THE BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE,
HON. FRANKLIN JESUS BUCAYU, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS, HON. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA JR., THE
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 211269 |
2016-06-15) ​9

This case discusses the petitioner Ruben E. Tiu seeking immediate

release from Occidental Mindoro Penal Farm in Prison in Sablayan, on the basis
that he has served in the prison as a colonist as a reduction of his sentence
which entitles him Good Conduct Time Allowance, as well as claiming he has
been given conditional pardon without parole granted by the President.

9
​(Accessed from CD Asia Tiu v. Dizon, G.R. No. 211269, [June 15, 2016]:
https://cdasiaonline.com/laws/23411?s_params=zssk P8xT zzgC7s2zrZ​ Date accessed: November 14, 2020)

8
 The petitioner was sentenced to reclusion perpetua with final and
executory conviction by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City. His claim was
rebutted and was confirmed to be false thus the Board of Pardon and Parole
Resolution 022-3-09 was without merit. Petitioner’s defense was the
Amendment signed by then President Benigno Aquino III Republic Act No.
(RA) 10592 giving him the defense that he has indeed complied with the
necessary requirements to qualify for Good Conduct Time Allowance having
been performed inside the prison as a colonist. The case was dismissed and
handled by four Judges sitting in decision, upholding that the petition before the
Supreme Court lacks merit.

b. Foreign Case / Article

(A TASMANIAN LAW REFORM INSTITUTE RESEARCH PAPER “A

Comparative Review of National Legislation for the Indefinite Detention of
​
‘Dangerous Criminals” RESEARCH PAPER NO. 4 JULY 2017 Australia) 10

The research article is done for the purpose of reformation, modernization

and to create uniformity within Australian jurisdiction with regards to
legislative enactments of those sentenced or detained labeled as dangerous
criminals. The contention of the article discusses the assessment of the various
problematic aspects of the Tasmanian indefinite detention regime contained in
the Sentencing Act 1997. The research article recommends that the act should
explicitly provide for the standard of proof and provide a comprehensive and
mandatory list of factors to be considered when determining whether to make a
dangerous criminal declaration. It is adamant to hold or withheld those who

10
​(Accessed from:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/other/lawreform/TASLRIRP/2017/4.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&
query=parole
Date accessed: December 18, 2020)

9
committed sex and other violent offenses, which is similarly the contention of
this research paper with regards to giving those who committed heinous crimes
the benefit of Good Conduct Time Allowance.

The researchers believe that this scholar research by the Australian

Government State of Tasmania in Partnership Agreement between the
University and the State Government signed in 2000 that undertakes the law
reform work and research on topics proposed by the Government, strengthens
the claim of the research, to exclude those who committed heinous crimes to be
qualified for Good Conduct Time Allowance.

(SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: BARBER et al. v.

THOMAS, WARDEN No. 09–5201. Argued March 30, 2010—Decided
June 7, 2010)

The case is very relevant in the distinction of the Good Credit, as

emphasized in the case, “the United States did not always favor retribution in
the form of incarceration. Indeed, throughout most of the twentieth century, the
criminal justice system's primary goal was rehabilitation.”​11 Giving the benefit
to Person’s Deprived of Liberty is essential but the contention that the crime
committed cannot be forgotten by society, especially heinous crimes such as
qualified murder and rape, focusing on rehabilitation the law must not stray
away from justice and the penalty of the crimes committed so heinous it is
abhorable to the society.

11
​Barber v. Thomas​,
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/303899272.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2yyuuxiMelrNjAGa1rjRSAue9qup6Rou1NXWjp
QxTHTghAWplcaoY-t0A

10
Conclusion:

The clear intention of the law is to disqualify persons convicted of

heinous crimes from eligibility to avail of the Good Conduct Time Allowance
(GCTA). It was expressly mentioned in Section 3 (d) of the 2019 Revised IRR
of RA No. 10592, which states: ​“to maintain a firm punitive or retributive
​
policy towards certain classes of PDL.”12

Those who have committed heinous crimes should be disqualified from

availing of the GCTA due to the gravity of their crime that the society in general
considers that person to be a danger to the society. As defined under Rule II,
Section 1(n) of the same IRR, ‘heinous crimes’ is defined as ​crimes which are
grievous, odious and hateful to the senses and which, by reason of their inherent
and 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, including crimes which are mandatorily
punishable by Death under the provisions of ​RA No. 7659​, as amended,
otherwise known as ​the Death Penalty Law​, and those crimes specifically
declared as such by the Supreme Court.”​13 It may be tedious but it gives
security to the victims and to the nation that they will no longer bring danger to
the community.

It is further argued that the status of a PDL should be justiciable. Among

the contention is the leniency, correctness and exercise of discretion in the
implementation by the Bureau of Corrections, which the Department of Justice
in the exercise of its delegated executive power by the President, should be able
to review, reverse or revise such decisions. The next contention would be the

12
​Id. ​at 5.
13
​Id.

11
consideration of qualifications for each applicant which should be litigated prior
to enactment and should be given full transparency beginning from the
application process affording families of victims, to be informed and raise their
contentions, disapproval or otherwise.

Psychological medical examiners and personality tests should also be

undergone by the Persons Deprived of Liberty to avoid tendencies of reverting
back to their previous criminal behavior. The case mentioned above further
states the necessity of adjudication of cases of Good Conduct Time Allowance
before granting release of persons claiming such benefit. It would be ideal to
add additional precautionary measures to ensure that the Rule of law is upheld.

12
Recommendation:

The Supreme Court will intervene in justiciable issues. In this case, the
Supreme Court has required the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the
Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) to answer the petition
that challenged the constitutionality of the new implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) on the expanded Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA)
Law under Republic Act No. 10592.

Such as the petition against the new IRR on GCTA filed by several
persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) at the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) in
Muntinlupa City. The PDLs told the SC their petition is on behalf of other
prisoners who are similarly situated and would be disadvantaged with the
implementation of the new IRR by the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP).

Specifically, the PDLs asked the SC to stop the BuCor and the BJMP
from retroactively applying the exclusions introduced under Section 1 and
Section 3 of RA 10592. They sought the nullification of provisions in the new
IRR which exclude recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and those charged
with heinous crimes from benefiting from the expanded GCTA, Time allowance
for Studying, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM) and Special Time Allowance
for Loyalty (STAL).

The new IRR – crafted by a joint committee of the DOJ and the DILG —
also states that heinous crime convicts, who were convicted after the law
became effective in 2013, shall not be entitled to any type of GCTA.

13
Dissenting Opinion:

Two among five of the researchers dissent on the opinion that those who
have committed heinous crimes would be excluded in qualifying as candidates
for Good Conduct Time Allowance. It is against the human rights of the Persons
Deprived of Liberty to not be afforded with the option of rehabilitation. As it is
mentioned continuously, the purpose of the law enactment is not to punish, but
to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes, may it be atrocious or heinous
crimes against persons, property or the society in general, its gravity would be
immaterial considering the various circumstances that give rise to its
commission.

Their confinement in prison is enough to help them contemplate the

wrong that they have committed and eventually pave way to their reformation.
It is enough that the courts or the Department of Justice should decide the
justiciable cause and the release of convicted felons provided that they match
certain qualifications and it is duly proven by credible witnesses that they
indeed performed accordingly and repented during their time in prison.

Trusting the law system and just observance of execution is enough, it

would lead to discrimination if those who committed crimes would be excluded
from the benefit of the IRR and GCTA.

It would be contrary to the principles of justice and equity to not

recognize the efforts and good behavior of PDLs. It is proper that their status be
reviewed continuously, subject to further appeal for their benefit and how their
willingness and good faith of repentance is apparent, in pursuant with the honest
rehabilitation purpose of the law. The deprivation of the application of the
GCTA and consequent prolonged imprisonment of those similarly situated

14
 constitute a violation of their substantive rights. Pursuant to Article III Section
1 of the Constitution, ​“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection
​
of the laws.”14

The exclusion of people convicted of heinous crimes was discussed in the

2019 Article in Rappler questioning that “Should heinous crime convicts be
excluded? Attorney Edre Olalia, president of the progressive National Union of
People’s Lawyers (NUPL) and their organization, shares the sentiment of
several lawmakers that heinous crime convicts must not be excluded because it
​
goes against the “philosophy of reformative justice.​”15

The researchers end this paper on a note that the opinion of all is relevant,
but the application and execution of laws should be within the ambit of the
Constitution upholding the rights of all people without disregard of justice and
equitable punishment for all individuals under the the Philippine sovereign, to
promote the goal of a conducive and healthy society.

16.1

14
​The 1987 Constitution of The Republic of The Philippines 2005 Edition
15
“​DOJ's new IRR of GCTA Law 'open to serious legal challenge”
https://www.rappler.com/nation/doj-new-irr-gcta-law-open-serious-legal-challenge

15

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 Index of comments

16.1 The addition of a "Dissenting Opinion" is very original and shows that your group really takes time to discuss
your topic and issue. Kudos to your group for this. For your final submission, end with a more elaborate
conclusion on your final stand as a group.

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)