What is inside the revised 2019

IRR of the GCTA Law

The new IRR says heinous crime convicts after the law became effective
in 2013 shall not be entitled to any type of good conduct time allowance

MANILA, Philippines – 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.

The new IRR of Republic Act 10592 or the GCTA law

now categorically excludes heinous crime convicts
like Sanchez from the benefits of the GCTA Law.

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defined under Republic Act 7659 or the now-repealed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was repealed only insofar as imposing the death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.

"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," Justice
Undersecretary Markk Perete said in a news
conference on Friday September 20.

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)

Here is a copy of the revised IRR:

MANILA, Philippines – The new and

revised Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the
Good Conduct Time Allowance law (GCTA law) is "open
and vulnerable to serious legal challenge," said National
Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) president Edre Olalia.
"What they did was tantamount to executive legislation.
Water cannot rise above the source, that is open and
vulnerable to serious legal challenge," Olalia told
Rappler in a phone interview on Wednesday, September
18.

The IRR, which was revised by a joint committee chaired

by Justice Undersecretary Deo Marco, categorically
excluded heinous crime convicts from the coverage of
GCTA under Republic Act 10592. The revised IRR was
signed and approved by Justice Secretary Menardo
Guevarra and Interior Secretary Eduardo Año.

Because heinous crime convicts were entitled to good

conduct time allowance under the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) before RA 10592 became effective in 2013, the IRR
said that heinous crime convicts before 2013 shall be
entitled to the much lesser GCTA under the RPC.

And because no law covers them, the revised IRR also

said that heinous crimes convicts after 2013 shall not be
allowed to avail of any type of GCTA.

"Mas lalong pinalala (they made it worse)," said Olalia.

Asked to respond, Guevarra said: "Let him test it,"

meaning to challenge the IRR before the courts.

What's wrong with the new IRR? The first issue is the
new IRR's exclusion of heinous crime convicts from RA
10592, which Olalia said is an exclusive task of
Congress.
The root of contention is Section 1 of the law which
excluded heinous crime convicts from credit of
preventive imprisonment (CPI). The crucial clause in this
section is "recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees
and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded
from the coverage of this Act."

Section 3, which discussed GCTA, did not make such

exclusion and even said that "any convicted prisoner in
any penal institution" is entitled to GCTA. It was for this
reason that the old IRR also did not make the exclusion.

By excluding heinous crimes from GCTA coverage in new

IRR, Olalia said the DOJ "already changed the law."

"You are changing what is in the law without passing

through the legislative process. I'm not saying yet
whether the change was right or wrong, I'm just saying
they're encroaching. They cannot emasculate or expand
the law, they can only clarify," Olalia said.

Does the new IRR violate equal protection? Olalia

said that the different applications of GCTAs to
prisoners from different periods violate equal protection.

Olalia was referring to the IRR's effect that heinous

crime convicts before 2013 can only avail of a much
lesser GCTA under the RPC, while heinous crime
convicts after 2013 cannot avail of any GCTA at all.

"They amended the law through the IRR which has the
effect of prejudicing those who deserve GCTA, contrary
to the principles of equal protection and ex-post facto
law," Olalia said.

The Constitution guarantees that no ex-post facto law

should be passed. Ex-post facto laws are laws that will
penalize a crime that was committed at the time that it
was not illegal yet.

The Supreme Court (SC) made RA 10592

retroactive precisely to uphold equal protection –
meaning to apply the same law to all prisoners – and to
uphold the constitutional guarantee against ex-post
facto laws.

Olalia also pointed out the established legal doctrine

that if the law has ambiguities, it must be resolved in
favor of the accused.

"Why would you apply the old GCTA in the RPC when the
rule is when it is beneficial to the accused, you apply it
to the accused, so why are you applying a lower period
because there is ambiguity? Statutory construction is
you rule in favor of the accused," said Olalia.

Should heinous crime convicts be excluded? Olalia

shares the sentiment of several lawmakers that heinous
crime convicts must not be excluded because it goes
against the philosophy of reformative justice.

Olalia also worries for political prisoners who had been

charged with common crimes such as murder, which is
heinous by the IRR's definition.
The IRR was revised in response to public outcry on the
aborted release of convicted rapist and murderer
Antonio Sanchez.

"They are pandering to public opinion; do things the right

way otherwise that is abuse. You are going beyond your
power which is wrong," Olalia said.

Since 2013, the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) has

released 1,914 heinous crime convicts based on the
prevailing interpretation at the time that they were
covered by the law.

These prisoners can argue that it was not their fault that
the IRR at the time covered them under the law.

"If he challenges that in court, of course, the court will

have to make a decision on that. But as far as the DOJ is
concerned, if you were not entitled to begin with, you
acted in good faith, it was not your fault. That's beside
the point. You have to go back and serve your full
sentence. You want to challenge that before the court,
let the court decide on it," said Guevarra.