The system is not working – GCTA, NHP, WPS, etc.
Credit to Author: AL S. VITANGCOL 3RD| Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2019 16:51:12 +0000
THE 2019 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report showed that “only 1 in 5 believes the system is working for them.” For the informed public, 74 percent believe that there is a sense of injustice in the system while 76 percent desire for change in it. The mass population figures are not that far — 72 percent for the sense of injustice and 70 percent in the desire for change.
The same report defined the informed public as those aged 25 to 64, college-educated, in the top 25 percent of household income per age group, and have significant media consumption and engagement in public policy and business news. The mass population is that part of the population excluding the informed public, which is about 84 percent of total worldwide population.
Globally, there is a 47-percent trust in governments, while the media remains the least-trusted institution. Although there is a massive rise, plus 22 points, in news engagement index from 2018 to 2019, 73 percent of these “worry about false information or fake news being used as a weapon.”
Obviously, one must worry if any Dick and Harry would be writing (or saying) anything about everything without solid research to back it up.
Our lawmakers and policymakers have the predilection to unload a barrage of statements without really studying the issues at hand. To name a few — Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA), No Homework Policy (NHP), and West Philippine Sea (WPS)-related matters, among others.
Good Conduct Time Allowance
The GCTA is actually not novel. It is an integral part of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) (Act 3815) enacted way back on Dec. 8, 1930. Articles 97 and 99 pertain to the GCTA. Here is the original proviso as embodied in Act 3815 –
“Article 97. Allowance for good conduct. The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution 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 five days for each month of good behavior;
“2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior;
“3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and
“4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior.”
“Article 99. Who grants time allowances. Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.”
The original law says that criminal liability is extinguished partially for good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving his sentence. Take note that the law makes no distinction as to what type of crime was committed. It simply uses the word “culprit” to refer to the convicted criminal, regardless of the nature of crime committed.
Republic Act 10592
Fast forward to Jan. 28, 2013. The 15th Congress enacted Republic Act (RA) 10592, which amended Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code. This was passed into law on May 29, 2013.
Again, for purposes of comparison, I am reprinting here only Articles 97 and 99 –
“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.”
“Art. 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.”
Readers are directed to the penal clause of the new law, which states, “Faithful compliance with the provisions of this Act is hereby mandated. As such, the penalty of one year imprisonment, a fine of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000) and perpetual disqualification to hold office shall be imposed against any public officer or employee who violates the provisions of this Act.”
What are the changes afforded by this amendment?
First two years — increasing GCTA from five days to 20 days; third to fifth years — increasing GCTA from eight days to 23 days; sixth to tenth years — increasing GCTA from 10 days to 25 days; and eleventh year onwards — increasing GCTA from 15 days to 30 days.
On top of these graduated GCTAs, there is an additional 15 days for each month of study, teaching or mentoring service. In the old provision, only the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Now, aside from Director of the Bureau of Corrections (formerly Director of Prisons) there are a lot more who can grant good conduct allowance — the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the wardens of provincial, district, municipal and city jails.
Supreme Court bolstered GCTA provisions
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10592 provides for the “prospective application” of the new privileges. Prospective, meaning, that those who were already incarcerated prior to the passage of the law on May 29, 2013 are not qualified to enjoy the new good conduct allowances.
With this, a group of inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, former senator Rene Saguisag, and others filed several petitions before the Supreme Court questioning the prospective application of the new GCTA as incorporated in its IRR. The petitions anchored their cause on Article 22 of the RPC, which mandates the retroactive effect of penal laws as long as these are favorable to the persons guilty of the crime.
Thus, the high court, in an en banc session declared invalid the “prospective application” of the new GCTA and made it “retroactive” in effect. Thus, all prisoners were covered by the new good conduct allowances, even if they were convicted and jailed prior to the passage of RA 10592.
That’s the whole story about the much talked about GCTA.
It has to be emphasized that “such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.” In my opinion, revocation of a granted GCTA, by any authority, would subject the latter to the penal clause of RA 10592 — fine of P100,000 and perpetual disqualification to hold public office.
So, if a lawmaker declares that the felons who received such GCTA should return to jail, then that lawmaker is violating the “non-revocation” clause of the law. If a public official claims that the GCTA were given in error and thus must be revoked, again there is a violation of the law.
Admittedly, the GCTA law stipulated for a qualification in its treatment. Article 29 of the RPC was amended to provide “that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from [its] coverage.“
Thus, if the authority charged with granting the GCTA conferred it to convicts charged with heinous crimes, then it is the public officer who should be indicted for violating the law. It is rather clear here that if the Director of the Bureau of Corrections awarded GCTA to those who are specifically excluded by Article 29, then the Director should be barred from public office and fined P100,000 for every violation.
As often said, the law is hard, but it is the law. Dura lex, sed lex.
Now you know why the system is not working.
Watch the delayed streaming of “News and Nuances Kapihan at Almusalan (NANKA)” media forum at the Manila Times TV, www.manilatimestv.com, every Friday 5 p.m.
allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.com
www.facebook.com/All.Insight.Manila.Times