Today is Monday, October 14, 2019

Fifteenth Congress
Third Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-third day of July, two thousand twelve.

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

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

Section 1. Article 29 of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code, is hereby further amended to read as
follows:

"ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or accused who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty,
with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily
in writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the following cases:

"1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime; and

"2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to surrender voluntarily.

"If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he
shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths
of the time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment.

"Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30)
years.1âwphi1

"Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same
is under review. Computation of preventive 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 lestierro,  he shall be released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment."

Section 2. Article 94 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

"ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal 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."

Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:
 "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."

Section 4. Article 98 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:

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

Section 5. Article 99 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as follows:"

"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."

Section 6. Penal Clause. – Faithful compliance with the provisions of this Act is hereby mandated. As such, the penalty of one (1) year
imprisonment, a fine of One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and perpetual disqualification to hold office shall be imposed
against any public officer or employee who violates the provisions of this Act.

Section 7. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – The Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) shall within sixty (60) days from the approval of this Act, promulgate rules and
regulations on the classification system for good conduct and time allowances, as may be necessary, to implement the provisions of
this Act.

Section 8. Separability Clause. – If any part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the provisions not otherwise
affected shall remain valid and subsisting.

Section 9. Repealing Clause. – Any law, presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction, administrative order, rule
or regulation contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.

Section 10. Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days from its publication in the Official Gazette or in at least two
(2) new papers of general circulation.

Approved,

(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE (Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.

President of the Senate Speaker of the House of Representatives
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3064 and House Bill No. 417 was finally passed by the Senate and the House of
Representatives on November 5, 2012 and January 28, 2013, respectively.

(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP
(Sgd.) EDWIN B. BELLEN Secretary General
House of Representatives
 Acting Senate Secretary
Approved: MAY 29 2013

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

President of the Philippines

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

TIMELINE: The GCTA law and the controversy it has stirred

The debate now focuses on whether or not people convicted of heinous crimes should benefit from the Good Conduct
Time Allowance law. What are the arguments for amendment now?

Jodesz Gavilan
@jodeszgavilan
Published 5:55 PM, August 27, 2019
Updated 6:17 PM, August 27, 2019

Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Email

GOOD LAW? The Good Conduct Time Allowance Law is the center of a controversy now. File photo by LeAnne
Jazul/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines – The Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law has been at the center of controversy after initial
news about the possible early release of convicted murderer-rapist Antonio Sanchez broke.

As government officials backtracked on cutting short the prison term of Sanchez, the debate has now focused on whether
or not those convicted of heinous crimes should benefit from the GCTA.

But how did the law come to be? What are the arguments for amendments?

December 1930

The Revised Penal Code is signed into law. Chapter 2 lays out the specifics of "partial extinction of criminal liability,"
including conditional pardon, commutation of sentence, and good conduct allowances.

November 5, 2012
The Senate passes Senate Bill No. 3064 which amends several articles of the Revised Penal Code.

January 18, 2013

The House of Representatives passes House Bill 417 which amends Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

May 29, 2013

Then-president Benigno Aquino III signs Republic Act No. 10592 or the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law, which
amended several articles under the Revised Penal Code, including Article 97, which lays out the allowance for good
conduct for persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).

The GCTA law allows for a reduction of sentences of PDLs, depending on how well they abide by rules and regulations
inside “any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention center or any other local jail.”

March 26, 2014

The law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) document is released. Penned by then-justice secretary Leila de Lima
and interior secretary Mar Roxas, the IRR provides for a prospective application of the GCTA law.

Prospective application is seen in Section 4 of the IRR, which provides “for new procedures and standards of behavior for
the grant of good conduct time allowance" and requires "the creation of a Management, Screening and Evaluation
Committee.”

The IRR takes effect on April 18 of the same year.

June 18, 2014

At least 13 Bilibid inmates, represented by lawyer Michael Evangelista, file a petition for certiorari and prohibition against
Roxas and De Lima, contesting the prospective application of the GCTA Law.

The inmates include Venancio Roxas, Saturnino Paras, Edgardo Manuel, Heminildo Cruz, Allan Tejada, Roberto Marquez,
Julito Mondejar, Armando Cabuang, Jonathan Crisanto, Edgar Echenique, Janmark Saracho, Josenel Alvaran, and
Crisencio Neri Jr.

July 14, 2014

Lawyer Rene Saguisag files a petition-in-intervention, saying that RA 10592’s legislative history shows no intent of being
prospective in character. The High Court grants the leave to intervene.

October 21, 2014

Three NBP inmates file another petition-in-intervention against the provision. Inmates William Montinola, Fortunato Visto,
and Arsenio Cabanilla are represented by the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).

The provision, FLAG said at the time, “discriminates, without any reasonable basis, against those who would have been
benefited from the retroactive application of the law.”

October 24, 2014

Ten inmates at the NBP’s Maximum Security Compound file a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the
prospective application of the law, saying that the IRR was “issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction.”

June 25, 2019

Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court grants the petition and makes the GCTA law retroactive.

In his concurring opinion, SC Associate Justice Marvic Leonen says that the prospective provision of the 2014 IRR
“implies that all inmates detained or convicted prior to its effectivity can no longer be rehabilitated for a successful
reintegration into society, effectively trampling upon their dignity as human beings.”

August 20, 2019

Reporters receive unverified information that convicted rapist and murderer Antonio Sanchez might soon be walking
free. (READ: TIMELINE: DOJ backtracks on possible early release of Antonio Sanchez)

Other Stories

'Zip it,' Sotto tells Malacañang officials questioning 'ninja cops' probe
Senate President Vicente Sotto III makes the statement after Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo claimed that the
Senate investigation has become 'politicized'

Bilibid inmates file 1st Supreme Court case vs new GCTA IRR
Petitioners argue the DOJ's new internal rules amount to executive legislation and violate equal protection

GCTA author wants convicts in prison drug trade ineligible for early release
Cagayan de Oro Representative Rufus Rodriguez says his proposed amendment would help ensure heinous crime
convicts would not benefit from the GCTA law, which he co-authored

Sanchez was convicted in 1995 for the rape and murder of Eileen Sarmenta and murder of Allan Gomez – both University
of the Philippines-Los Baños students – and in 1999, for the double murder of Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa. He has been
in Bilibid prison for 25 years.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra tells reporters that Sanchez "may actually be released," and, in another instance, "is
very likely for release.”

"That benefits lahat ng mga nakakulong na preso ngayon kaya isa sa mga magbe-benefit doon ay si Mayor Sanchez... pati
siya mae-entitle duon sa computation ng Good Conduct Time Allowance  (GCTA),” he says in a telephone conference.

(That benefits all the inmates, so one of the beneficiaries will be Mayor Sanchez. Even he will be entitled to the
computation of the Good Conduct Time Allowance.)

August 22, 2019

Senate President Vicente Sotto III files Senate Resolution No. 107 which seeks a review of RA 10592 with a view of
amending it. Senator Panfilo Lacson supports the plan to amend the law. (READ: Amid Sanchez news, senators split on
amending reduced prison term law)

Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon, the justice secretary at the time Sanchez was convicted, dismisses the need for
amendments, saying the law is already “good." He pins the blame on the Supreme Court which decided that a certain
provision was unconstitutional.
After a massive public backlash, Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) Director General Nicanor Faeldon says that while Sanchez
is qualified to avail of the GCTA, he might still have to stay in Bilibid for several more years because of misdemeanors he
reportedly committed. (LISTEN: [PODCAST] Ang batas na puwedeng magpalaya sa rapist-murderer na si Antonio
Sanchez)

August 23, 2019

Guevarra explains that the wording of Section 1 and Section 3 of the law makes only the inmates eligible for credit of
preventive imprisonment (CPI, or the period of imprisonment prior to conviction) also eligible for GCTA (applicable only to
post-conviction imprisonment).

To Guevarra, because those charged with heinous crimes are not eligible for CPI, then they are also not supposed to
benefit from the GCTA. “It’s been a tough process of interpreting the wordings of a law that has certain ambiguities in its
provisions. In the end, however, it is the spirit and the intention of the law that guided us in taking a position,”
Guevarra says.

Presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo echoes Guevarra in a press conference, saying that “the inevitable conclusion
is that all those convicted of a heinous crime, including Mr Antonio Sanchez, would be ineligible and disqualified from
availing the benefits of the GCTA.”

In a Rappler column, human rights lawyer and former SC spokesperson Ted Te says that there is a need for more
objective criteria to determine good conduct. (READ: [OPINION | Deep Dive] What the GCTA law is and what it needs)

He writes that “while the GCTA is a good idea, the question of determining whether conduct falls under ‘good conduct’ to
merit the GCTA may be arbitrary sans any objective standards to measure, assess, and rate such.

Raymund Narag, an expert on criminal justice, writes in his column that “there are sufficient legal and procedural remedies
to make sure that the law will not be abused by the rich and powerful.” (READ: [OPINION] Media sensationalism,
bureaucratic ineptitude, the common tao's quest for justice)

August 24, 2019

Guevarra says the DOJ is “considering seriously” the need to suspend the processing of the GCTA of convicts pending a
review of guidelines for the early release of inmates.

Those who are deserving to be freed early, he adds, “really have to wait a little.” (READ: Beyond Sanchez: How to improve
the Good Conduct Time Allowance law)

August 25, 2019

Guevarra says the DOJ hopes the Supreme Court or Congress will be able to clarify whether or not inmates who are
convicted of heinous crimes can benefit from the GCTA law.

“The DOJ will be glad to have this issue resolved with clarity and finality either by a congressional amendment of its own
act or by an interpretation rendered by the Supreme Court in a proper case brought before it,” he says.

August 26, 2019

Guevarra reiterates that the processing of early release of inmates under the good conduct time allowance (GCTA) law is
briefly suspended.

"Very temporary lang, na i-suspend ang pag-process ng GCTAs para mabigyan ng pagkakataon ang DOJ, BuCor, ang BJMP
(Bureau of Jail Management and Penology) na ma-review 'yung mga existing guidelines sa pagbibigay ng GCTAs, pati mga
internal procedures," Guevarra tells DZBB.

(It will be a very temporary suspension of the processing of GCTAs to give a chance to the DOJ, BuCor, and BJMP to
review existing guidelines for granting GCTAs, including internal procedures.)
Drilon calls the suspension a "welcome development."

August 27, 2019

AKO Bicol Representative Alfredo Garbin Jr files House Resolution No. 260 which seeks a congressional investigation to
help clarify whether or not inmates who are convicted of heinous crimes should benefit from the GCTA law.

In his resolution, Garbin says that the law “is a good law” but that “there is a need to determine whether the criterion used
in the implementing rules of the law is consistent with the very law it seeks to implement.” – with reports from Lian
Buan/Rappler.com

by Taboola
Promoted Links
You May Like

Albayalde fires back at Magalong: You could have eliminated 'ninja cops' yourself

Police investigator clears Albayalde in 2013 'ninja cops' buy-bust

'Tarnished' PNP stint? Senators doubt, defend Albayalde

Rappler.com

Published 10:36 AM, October 09, 2019

Updated 1:09 PM, October 09, 2019

Facebook
Twitter
Reddit

MANILA, Philippines – The Senate blue ribbon committee holds a joint probe into the supposed early release of rape and
murder convict Antonio Sanchez, benefitting from the retroactive application of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA
Law).

But Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Nicanor Faeldon changed his tune and said that Sanchez may not be among the
thousands of inmates to be released soon due to reported instances when illegal drugs and unauthorized equipment were
found in his cell.

The Department of Justice also temporarily halted the implementation of the GCTA law because of the issue.

The joint committee is also looking on corruption allegations inside the BuCor, including the implementation of early
release based on the GCTA law.

Previous hearings

Monday, September 2

Tuesday, September 3

Thursday, September 5 (Part 1)

Thursday, September 5 (Part 2)

Thursday, September 5 (Part 3)

Monday, September 9 (Part 1)

Monday, September 9 (Part 2)

Thursday, September 12 (Part 1)

Thursday, September 12 (Part 2)

Thursday, September 12 (Part 3)

Thursday, September 12 (Part 4)

Thursday, September 19 (Part 1)

Thursday, September 19 (Part 2)

Tuesday, October 1

Thursday, October 3

Wednesday, October 9 (Part 1)

– Rappler.com

Bilibid inmates file 1st Supreme Court case vs new GCTA IRR

(UPDATED) The petitioners argue the DOJ's new internal rules amount to executive legislation and violate equal
protection

THE Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday said it finalized the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Good
Conduct and Time Allowance (GCTA) law and expressed its intention to exert more control over the Bureau of Customs
(BuCor).

In a message to reporters on Friday, Justice undersecretary Markk L. Perete said its review committee, in partnership with
the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), finished revising the IRR of the GCTA Law. The revisions
began after the public outcry against the alleged plan to release former Calauan Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez, a convicted
murderer and rapist, last month.

“The Joint Review Committee has completed its work and submitted the draft IRR to the Secretaries of Justice and of the
Interior and Local Government. Both will now review the draft IRR and decide on its promulgation,” he said.

More than 22,000 inmates have been released since 2014 under the GCTA law.

On the other hand, Justice Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra said that there is a need to review Republic Act 10575, which
establishes the powers of the BuCor (an attached agency of the DoJ).

“I am beginning to think that the law itself that supposedly strengthened the BuCor (and consequently diminished DOJ
control over it) may have to be reviewed,” he said.

The DoJ said that it will continue its efforts to reform the BuCor under the limitations of the current law; this includes
creating an oversight committee.
“DoJ can only exercise administrative supervision over the BuCor instead of control,” said Mr. Perete about RA 10575.
— Gillian M. Cortez

Phil. Stock Exchange@PhStockExchange

October 14, 2019: PSEi closed at 7,884.29 up 34.35 points or 0.44 percent. #PSEiupdate

Volume turnover 479.84mn… https://t.co/6LCquQOlSIhttps://t.co/1TAJedBteA

PETITION VS GCTA IRR. Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison file a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the DOJ's
new Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10592 or the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law. Photo by
LeAnne Jazul/Rappler

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – A group of inmates from the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) filed the first petition before the
Supreme Court seeking to nullify provisions of the new Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 10592
or what is now better known as the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law.

The petitioners are a group of inmates convicted in the 90s for crimes such as rape, murder and homicide.

The inmates filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition on September 24, which sought to invalidate provisions of the
new IRR that excluded heinous crime inmates from the benefits of GCTA and other time allowances like special time
allowance for loyalty (STAL.)

The petitioners said that excluding heinous crimes from GCTA, STAL and Time Allowance for Study, Teaching and
Mentoring (TASTM) should be "invalid..for going beyond the law and for being tantamount to executive legislation."

Senators, and even Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, agreed in the upper house inquiries that there were no explicit
provisions in the text of the law that excluded heinous crimes. (Read our legal explainer on that here.)

Before the enactment of RA 10592 in 2013, heinous crime convicts were clearly and unequivocally covered by the GCTA
benefits under Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), although the time allowances there were lesser.

In the new IRR, heinous crime convicts before 2013 could still avail of the GCTA benefits under the RPC, while heinous
crime convicts after 2013 cannot avail of any type of GCTA.

The petition wants to declare that clause invalid "for being tantamount to legislation, and for being in violation of the equal
protection clause under the Constitution."

The petition also said it violated Article 22 of the RPC, which provided that all penal laws shall be retroactive in favor of
the person guilty of the felony.

The petition asked the Supreme Court to "order the Bureau of Corrections and Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
to re-compute with reasonable dispatch the time allowances due to petitioners and all those who are similarly situated
and, thereafter, to cause their immediate release from imprisonment in case of full service of sentence, unless they are
being confined for some other lawful cause."

National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) president Edre Olalia earlier warned the new IRR is open to "serious legal
challenge."

The government revised the IRR in response to public outcry over the aborted release of convicted rapist and murderer
Antonio Sanchez. – Rappler.com

THE Department of Justice (DoJ) on Friday said it finalized the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Good
Conduct and Time Allowance (GCTA) law and expressed its intention to exert more control over the Bureau of Customs
(BuCor).
In a message to reporters on Friday, Justice undersecretary Markk L. Perete said its review committee, in partnership with
the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), finished revising the IRR of the GCTA Law. The revisions
began after the public outcry against the alleged plan to release former Calauan Mayor Antonio L. Sanchez, a convicted
murderer and rapist, last month.

“The Joint Review Committee has completed its work and submitted the draft IRR to the Secretaries of Justice and of the
Interior and Local Government. Both will now review the draft IRR and decide on its promulgation,” he said.

More than 22,000 inmates have been released since 2014 under the GCTA law.

On the other hand, Justice Secretary Menardo I. Guevarra said that there is a need to review Republic Act 10575, which
establishes the powers of the BuCor (an attached agency of the DoJ).

“I am beginning to think that the law itself that supposedly strengthened the BuCor (and consequently diminished DOJ
control over it) may have to be reviewed,” he said.

The DoJ said that it will continue its efforts to reform the BuCor under the limitations of the current law; this includes
creating an oversight committee.

“DoJ can only exercise administrative supervision over the BuCor instead of control,” said Mr. Perete about RA 10575.
— Gillian M. Cortez