Gimarangan, Joglenn I.

Ranggas, Mark R.
 Community corrections are sanctions imposed on
convicted adults or adjudicated juveniles that occur in
a residential or community setting outside of jail or
prison. The sanctions are enforced by agencies or
courts with legal authority over the adult or juvenile
offenders. Community corrections programs are
generally operated by probation agencies (correctional
supervision within the community instead of
incarceration) and parole agencies (conditional,
supervised release from prison). (Crimesolutions.gov)
 The community-based treatment of offenders in the Philippines is governed
by Presidential Decree No.968 (PD 968) promulgated on July 24, 1976.
 Probation was first introduced in the Philippines during the American
colonial period (1898-1945) with the enactment of Act 4221 on August 7, 1935
by the Philippine legislature. This law created a Probation Office under the
Department of Justice. However due to some defects in its procedural
framework, it was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court on
November 16, 1937 after barely two years of existence.
 On July 24, 1976, Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as Adult Probation
Law of 1976, was signed into law by the President of the Philippines, His
Excellency Ferdinand E. Marcos. The law gave birth to the Probation
Administration, a line agency under the Department of Justice.
 The operation of the probation system in 1976-1977 was a massive
undertaking during which all judges and prosecutors nationwide were
trained in probation methods and procedures; administrative and proce-
dural manuals were developed; probation officers were recruited and trained;
and the central office and also the probation field offices were organized
throughout the country, and on January 3, 1978, the probation system started
to operate in the entire country of the Philippines. At present there are 183
field offices spread all over the country supervised by 16 regions.
 Legal Basis of Community-Based Treatment are Presidential Decree No. 968
or the Adult Probation Law of 1976 Administrative Code of 1987 ,Board of
Pardons and Parole Resolution No. 229, dated April 2, 1991 Republic Act 6425,
the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 ,Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.

 The method use in this study is careful analysis and
evaluation of each countries community based
programs with the aide of in-depth research.
 South Australia
 good behaviour
 supervision by a community corrections officer
 not leaving South Australia without permission and
 not owning a firearm or ammunition.
 Good behaviour bonds in South Australia are an
important sentencing option. An offender can be put
on a good behaviour bond without there being any
further penalty, and with or without a conviction being
recorded against them. Under a good behaviour bond,
a person who has been found guilty of an offence
promises to be of good behaviour for a set period of
time up to 3 years. During that time they may or may
not be under the supervision of a community
corrections officer. The bond usually carries a sanction
whereby a sum of money is forfeited if the bond is
breached. In order to impose a bond the Court must
be satisfied that there are good reasons for doing so.
 Supervision
 Intensive supervision
 Community detention
 Home detention
 Offenders on home detention are required to wear an
ankle bracelet and stay at an approved address where
they are electronically monitored 24 hours a day for
up to 12 months. Detainees may be able to work but
also have to undertake rehabilitation programs to
address the causes of their offending. Any leave of
absence to attend work, rehabilitation programs, or
important appointments such as the doctor, requires
pre-approval of the offender's probation officer.
 Day Reporting Order scheme shown to be viable in Singapore
Prisons for 400 offenders from 2011 to 2016, confinement behind
bars was avoided. They were free to lead their lives, though they
had to appear at a prison reporting centre once a week for about
10 to 45 minutes. These low-risk offenders, whose crimes would
have put them in jail for three years at the most, were part of a
prison scheme that aims to rehabilitate them in the real world.
 Since the Day Reporting Order scheme started in 2011, at least 90
per cent of each year's cohort completed their sentences,
according to the latest prison statistics released yesterday. The
high completion rates show that the scheme is a viable
alternative sentencing option, said a spokesman for the
Singapore Prison Service (SPS).
 Furthermore, offenders' records are considered spent when they
complete their court order, so that they will not be stigmatized
when they apply for jobs, said the prison service.
 Community Service Orders (CSO) is a community-
based sentencing option pursuant to the Community
Service Orders Ordinance, Cap 378. A court may make
an order requiring a person of or over 14 years of age
and convicted of an offence(s) punishable with
imprisonment to perform unpaid work for a number of
hours not exceeding 240 hours within a period of 12
months under the supervision of a probation officer
(PO) who shall also provide counseling and guidance
to the offender.
 Back door electronic monitoring (EM) as an early
release program was first introduced in Sweden in
2001. Back door EM in the home involves monitoring
an individual’s location using an ankle bracelet, in
connection with the individual’s release from a short-
term stay in prison (conversely, front doorelectronic
monitoring is when electronic monitoring replaces a
short-term stay in prison). The overall goal is to reduce
reoffending rates of participants who are released from
prison and placed on electronic monitoring.
 The conclusion that can be drowned in New Zealand’s
home detentions that have purpose of using the offenders
own home instead of the prison facility thus eliminating
over capacities that may solve Philippines overcrowding
problems. As we all know Filipinos have strong bond to
their families. Incorporating family members to be the
main rehabilitator can give additional success rate. We all
know that all people will always listen to their family and
from that we can say that using them will strongly give
successful rehabilitation. In addition the state will benefit
greatly because they did not need to spend money on
prisoner instead the family will do it in behalf of their
family member to be released.
 The conclusion in the part of Hong Kong’s community
service orders has great impact to the community and
to the offender. To the offender in a way that is
imposes deterrence because they will need to do
service with no return on their behalf thus making
them think twice if they will plan to commit another
crime. To the community in the essence that they see
or monitor if a convict is doing his job and also they
can lessen they activity because it is automatically
vested on the offenders.
 For us researches we recommend New Zealand and Hong Kong
community based treatment to be added in our foregoing
community based treatments. For us we see that New Zealand’s
home detention treatment to be effective in our country mainly
of two (2) reasons. First is the bond it create to the family, as
previously discuss above Filipino had deep roots of family bonds
as early as the aged of Datu’s until the Spanish to American
regime. That’s one reason we celebrate Christmas and other
significant holidays to see each other and our families. As this
program promote this Filipino core value. Second reason is this
will greatly help our current jail congestion issue. We all know
how populated our current jails, thus sending prisoners back to
their home will not only lessen population but also lessen the
government expenses. In addition many studies show many jail
suicide rate, one main reason is loneliness. From this statement
we can say that sending them back home will eliminate
loneliness and making the suicide rate lower.
 We also recommend Hong Kong’s community based
treatment as we can see this program will help the
community and resolve faster the cases of small time law
breakers. This policy imposed community work thus
making it effective tool of deterrence for small time
offenders like ordinance violators. Thus making the issue
to be resolved in small amount of time without
incarcerating the offender that will make jail no so
crowded. This will help the Philippine communities so well
if we will just adjust a little part in this program. We
recommend that each person to be punished in this
treatment will do community cleaning. We all know the
fact that not all communities are clean so making convicts
clean it will greatly promote cleanliness and deterrence to
others.