-Classification movement Elaya Calunag

 PROBATION is a privilege granted by the court to a person convicted of a criminal offense to remain in the
community instead of actually going to prison / jail.
 PAROLE is the conditional release of a prisoner from correctional institution after serving the minimum
period of prison sentence.
 EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY. Under Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution, the President may grant
reprieves, commutations and pardons, and remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction by final judgment.
Executive clemency rests exclusively within the sound discretion of the President.
 SUSPENDED SENTENCE FOR FIRST-TIME MINOR DRUG OFFENDER (FTMDO) is availed only
once by an accused drug dependent who is a first-time offender over fifteen (15) years of age at the time of
commission of the violation of Section 15 of RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) but not
more than eighteen (18) years of age at the time when judgment should have been promulgated.

Investigation
To properly screen, select and place offenders in a community-based treatment program,
investigation is conducted in probation, parole,executive clemency or suspended sentence for
first-time minor drug offenders.
Supervision
The monitoring of selected offenders in a community correction program to ensure strict
adherence to and compliance with the terms and conditions attached to their conditional release
whether probation, parole, pardon with parole condition or suspended sentence, and likewise
prevent further reoffending.
Rehabilitation
This is the “meat and bone” of community-based correction. PPA employs the community-
based intervention through a three-pronged approach: Restorative Justice (RJ), Therapeutic
Community (TC), and Volunteerism through Volunteer Probation Assistant (VPA).

PROBATION AND PAROLE: HISTORY, GOALS, AND DECISION-MAKING

( tabaosares )
Over five million people are under the supervision of the criminal justice systems in the United States.
Approximately, 1.6 million are incarcerated in local, state, and federal institutions. The remaining, or almost 70
percent of those under the responsibility of the criminal justice system, are being supervised in the community
on probation or parole. This means that at any one time a large number of U.S. citizens are in the community
under correctional supervision. For example, nearly 2 percent or 3.8 million adult men and women in the United
States were being supervised in the community on federal or state probation or parole in 1995 (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 1997).
While probation and parole are both considered community corrections and involve supervision in the
community, they differ in other respects. Probation is a sentencing option available to local judges. Convicted
offenders are released by the court to serve a sentence under court-imposed conditions for a specified period. It
is considered an alternative to incarceration. In most cases the entire probation sentence is served under
supervision in the community. The court retains the authority to supervise, modify conditions, cancel probation
and resentence if the probationer violates the terms of probation. The responsible agency for overseeing
probation can be either state or local. There are currently more than two thousand separate probation agencies in
the United States.
In contrast to probation, parole is the early release of inmates from correctional institutions prior to the
expiration of the sentence on the condition of good behavior and supervision in the community. It is also
referred to as supervised release, community supervision, or after-care. The parole board is the legally
designated paroling authority. The board has the authority to release on parole adults (or juveniles) who are
committed to correctional institutions, to set conditions that must be followed during supervision, to revoke
parole and return the offender to an institution, and to discharge from parole. Thus, probation is a front-end
decision that is made prior to incarceration in a jail or prison, while parole is a back-end decision to release
inmates from jail or prison.
Community corrections includes traditional probation and parole as well as other sanctions such as intensive
supervision, restitution, community service, correctional boot camps, and fines. Frequently these alternative
punishments or intermediate sanctions come under the jurisdiction of the agencies responsible for the
administration of probation and parole.

WHAT IS PROBATION?
Probation is a privilege granted by the court to a person convicted of a criminal offense to remain in the community
instead of actually going to prison/jail.
WHAT ARE THE ADVANTAGES OF PROBATION?
a. The government spends much less when an offender is released on probation than that offender be placed behind bars
(jails/prisons).
b. The offender and the offender’s family are spared the embarrassment and dishonor of imprisonment.
c. The offender is able to continue working and can therefore earn income, pay taxes and pay damages to the victim of the
crime.

WHO CAN APPLY FOR PROBATION?

Any sentenced offender, not disqualified, can apply for probation before serving their prison/jail sentence.

HOW TO APPLY FOR PROBATION?

1. Apply within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment.
2. The court will suspend the execution of sentence and refer the application to the proper probation office for
the conduct of post-sentence investigation (PSI).
3. The probation officer must submit the Post-Sentence Investigation Report (PSIR) within sixty (60) days
upon receipt but the period may be extended in meritorious cases for a period that will be approved by the court.
4. Pending submission of the PSIR and the resolution of the application, the defendant may be temporarily
released under bail or be released on recognizance of a responsible member of the community, if defendant is
incapable of posting bail.
MAY AN ACCUSED WHO APPEALED THE CONVICTION APPLY FOR PROBATION ON REMAND OF
THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT?
As a rule, probation and appeal are mutually exclusive remedies. However, if the judgment of conviction that was
appealed imposed non-probation able penalty and the same was modified through the imposition of probation able penalty
or conviction for a lesser crime, which is probation able, the accused shall be allowed to apply for probation based on the
modified decision before such decision becomes final. The application for probation based on the modified decision shall
be filed in the trial court, which tried and convicted the accused or in a trial court where such case has been re-raffled.

MAY AN ACCUSED IN A JOINT TRIAL APPLY FOR PROBATION EVEN IF THE OTHER CO-
ACCUSED APPEALED THEIR CONVICTION?
Yes. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may
apply for probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the
judgment of conviction.
MAY AN ACCUSED IN A JOINT TRIAL APPLY FOR PROBATION EVEN IF THE OTHER CO-
ACCUSED APPEALED THEIR CONVICTION?
Yes. In a case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the other defendants may
apply for probation by submitting a written application and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the
judgment of conviction.
WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED FROM APPLYING FOR PROBATION? f.
Those legally disqualified under special penal laws:
(1) Offenders found guilty of any election offense in accordance with Section 264 of B.P. Blg. 881 (Omnibus Election
Code);
(2) Offenders found guilty of violating R.A. No. 6727 (Wage Rationalization Act, as amended);
(3) Offenders found guilty of violating R.A. No. 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, except
Sections 12, 14, 17, and 70.

ARE ALL QUALIFIED, CONVICTED PERSONS AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO

PROBATION?
No. The court will not grant probation if, after investigation the probation officer finds that:
a. The offender can be treated better in an institution or in other places for correction;
b. The offender is a dangerous risk to the community; or
c. Probation will lessen the gravity of the offense.
WHEN PROBATION IS GRANTED, WHAT CONDITIONS ARE IMPOSED BY THE COURT?
The probationer must:
a. Appear before the probation officer within 72 hours;
b. Report to the probation officer at least once a month;
c. Not commit another offense; and d. Comply with any other conditions imposed by the court.
HOW LONG IS THE PERIOD OF PROBATION?
a. Not more than 2 years if the probationer was sentenced to imprisonment of 1 year or less;
b. Not more than 6 years if the probationer was sentenced to imprisonment of more than 1 year.
MAY THE OFFENDER BE RELEASED WHILE THE APPLICATION FOR PROBATION IS
PENDING?
At the discretion of the court, the probationer may be released:
a. On the same bond filed during the trial;
b. On a new bond; or
c. To the custody of a responsible member of the community (if probationer is unable to file the bond).
HOW MANY TIMES CAN ONE BE GRANTED PROBATION?
An offender can be granted probation only once in a lifetime.
WHAT HAPPENS TO A PROBATIONER IF THE CONDITIONS OF PROBATION ARE
VIOLATED?
The probation officer investigates the alleged violation and if it is established, a report is submitted to the court.
Depending upon the nature and seriousness of the violation, there can be modification of the conditions or
revocation of probation by the judge. There is also the possibility of arrest including criminal prosecution of
probationer in the event of commission of another offense. The revocation proceeding is summary. If the court
finds the probationer guilty of serious violation of the conditions of probation, the offender may be ordered to
serve the original sentence imposed.

What are the advantages of probation? 

 The government spends much less when an offender is released on probation than that offender be
placed behind bars (jails/prisons).
 The offender and the offender’s family are spared the embarrassment and dishonor of imprisonment.
 The offender and the offender’s family are spared the embarrassment and dishonor of imprisonment.

Development of the Probation (Jasfer N. Gajelloma)

 Probation developed from the efforts of a philanthropist, John Augustus, who looked for ways to
rehabilitate the behavior of criminals. Massachusetts developed the first state-wide probation system in
1880, and by 1920, 21 other states had followed suit.

The origin of probation.

Probation as it is known today can be traced to the use of several judicial practices exercised in English
and later, American courts. "Release on recognizance" or bail, for example, allowed defendants who
agreed to certain conditions of release to return to the community to await trial. After setting bail, judges
sometimes failed to take further action (Abidinsky). Thus, similar to modern-day probation, defendants
were released to the community conditionally. If they failed to meet the condition of release, they were
faced with the threat of revocation. And in some instances, they were spared further contact with the
criminal justice system.

In English courts, judicial reprieve empowered judges to temporarily suspend either the imposition or
execution of a sentence in order to permit a defendant to appeal to the Crown for a pardon (Abidinsky;
Allen et al.). Although suspension was intended to be temporary, further prosecution of such cases was
sometimes abandoned (Allen et al.). Judges in the United States exercised a similar power, enabling
them to suspend the sentence of a convicted defendant if justice had in any way been miscarried. The
use of judicial power to suspend a sentence was extended to cases in which there existed no miscarriage
of justice. Sentences were suspended seemingly to give defendants another chance. Documentation of
this practice in Boston dates back to 1830. Such suspensions were challenged near the turn of the
twentieth century in a New York state court (1894) and later in the Supreme Court (1916). Both courts
held that absent a legislative directive judge did not possess the authority to suspend sentences.

During roughly the same time period, a shoemaker-philanthropist in Boston, named John Augustus,
began the practice of bailing offenders out of court and assuming responsibility for them in the
community. Bailing hundreds of offenders between the years 1841 and 1859, John Augustus is most
often credited as being the founder of probation in the United States. Augustus bailed the offenders out
after conviction. As a result of this favor and with further acts of friendliness such as helping the
offender obtain employment and aiding the offender's family in other ways, the offender was indebted to
Augustus and was willing to abide by agreements. After a period of supervision in the community, the
bailed offenders returned to court armed with Augustus's sentencing recommendations. Due to his
efforts John Augustus's charges were typically spared incarceration. John Augustus's probation bears
much resemblance to probation as it is practiced today. Augustus took great care in deciding which
prisoners were promising candidates for probation. He considered the person's "character," age, and
factors that would impact the offender after release. In dubious cases, he required the offender to attend
school or to be employed. Thus, Augustus's activities provided the origins for the presentence
investigation as well as common conditions of present-day community supervision such as education or
employment. Not long after John Augustus published an account of his work in 1852, the Massachusetts
legislature in 1878 passed a bill authorizing the city of Boston to hire a probation officer (Abidinsky).
The practice of probation spread through the state of Massachusetts and was later adopted by numerous
states around the turn of the twentieth century. Between 1897 and 1920, for example, twenty-six states
and the District of Columbia passed adult probation statutes (Champion). By 1927, all states except
Wyoming had adopted some type of probation law for juveniles. However, probation was not available
for all adult offenders in the United States until 1956.Regardless of whether the origins of probation are
traced to judicial reprieve or to the work of John Augustus, it is clear that the guiding philosophy of
probation was rehabilitation. John Augustus leaves no room for doubt, stating: "It became pretty
generally known that my labors were upon the ground of reform, that I confined my efforts mainly to
those who were indicted for their first offence, and whose hearts were not wholly depraved, but gave
promise of better things . . ." (Augustus). Probation implies "forgiveness" and "trial," or a period during
which offenders may prove themselves capable of obeying the law and abiding by society's norms.
Court opinions as well as state statutes generally affirm that the overarching purpose of probation is
rehabilitation (Brilliant).
The History of Probation
Beginnings of Probation Services
The origin of probation can be traced to English criminal law of the Middle Ages. Harsh punishments
were imposed on adults and children alike for offenses that were not always of a serious nature.
Sentences such as branding, flogging, mutilation, and execution were common. During the time of
King Henry VIII, for instance, no less than 200 crimes were punishable by death, many of which were
minor offenses.
This harshness eventually led to discontent in certain progressive segments of English society that
were concerned with the evolution of the justice system. Slowly but resolutely, in an effort to mitigate
these inhumane punishments, a variety of measures were devised and adopted. Royal pardons could
be purchased by the accused; activist judges could refrain from applying statutes or opt for a lenient
interpretation of them; stolen property could be devalued by the court so that offenders could be
charged with a lesser crime. Also, methods such as benefit of clergy, judicial reprieve, sanctuary, and
abjuration offered offenders a degree of protection from the enactment of harsh sentences.
Eventually, the courts began the practice of "binding over for good behavior," a form of temporary
release during which offenders could take measures to secure pardons or lesser sentences.
Controversially, certain courts began suspending sentences.

Birth of Probation
 John Augustus, the "Father of Probation," is recognized as the first true probation officer. Augustus
was born in Woburn, Massachusetts in 1785. By 1829, he was a permanent resident of Boston and
the owner of a successful boot-making business. It was undoubtedly his membership in the
Washington Total Abstinence Society that led him to the Boston courts. Washingtonians abstained
from alcohol themselves and were convinced that abusers of alcohol could be rehabilitated through
understanding, kindness, and sustained moral suasion, rather than through conviction and jail
sentences.
In 1841, John Augustus attended police court to bail out a "common drunkard," the first probationer.
The offender was ordered to appear in court three weeks later for sentencing. He returned to court a
sober man, accompanied by Augustus. To the astonishment of all in attendance, his appearance and
demeanor had dramatically changed.
Augustus thus began an 18-year career as a volunteer probation officer. Not all of the offenders
helped by Augustus were alcohol abusers, nor were all prospective probationers taken under his wing.
Close attention was paid to evaluating whether or not a candidate would likely prove to be a
successful subject for probation. The offender's character, age, and the people, places, and things apt
to influence him or her were all considered.
Augustus was subsequently credited with founding the investigations process, one of three main
concepts of modern probation, the other two being intake and supervision. Augustus, who kept
detailed notes on his activities, was also the first to apply the term "probation" to his method of
treating offenders.
By 1858, John Augustus had provided bail for 1,946 men and women. Reportedly, only 10 of this
number forfeited their bond, a remarkable accomplishment when measured against any standard. His
reformer's zeal and dogged persistence won him the opposition of certain segments of Boston
society as well as the devotion and aid of many Boston philanthropists and organizations. The first
probation statute, enacted in Massachusetts shortly after this death in 1859, was widely attributed to
his efforts.

“Probation — from the latin verb "probare" — to prove, to test. A term coined by John Augustus”.
Following the passage of that first statute, probation spread gradually throughout the United States.
The juvenile court movement contributed greatly to the development of probation as a legally-
recognized method of dealing with offenders. The first juvenile court was established in Chicago in
1899. Formalization of the intake process is credited to the founders of the Illinois juvenile court.
Soon after, 30 states introduced probation as a part of the juvenile court procedure. Today, all states
offer both juvenile and adult probation.
Matthew Davenport Hill, a lawyer from England is also noted to have contributed to the development
of modern probation. Hill had witnessed the sentencing of youthful offenders to one-day terms on the
condition that they be returned to a parent or guardian who would closely supervise them. When he
eventually became the Recorder of Birmingham, a judicial post, he used a similar practice for
individuals who did not seem hopelessly corrupt. If offenders demonstrated a promise for
rehabilitation, they were placed in the hands of generous guardians who willingly took charge of
them. Hill had police officers pay periodic visits to these guardians in an effort to track the offender's
progress and keep a running account.

Brief History of the probation in the Philippines. (tabaosares)

The adult probation as a reformation idea was twice attempted to be implanted in the country’s justice system. First was in
1935 and second in 1972.
On August 7, 1935, the Philippine Legislature passed Act No. 4221. This Act created the Probation Office under the
Department of Justice, headed by a Chief Probation Officer appointed by the American Governor-General with the advice
and consent of the US Senate. The Act also granted probation to first-time offenders 18 years old above and convicted of
certain crimes. However, two years after its implementation, on November 16, 1937, the Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional because of its constitutional and procedural defect.
In 1972, House Bill No. 393 was filed in the Congress with the purpose of establishing a probation system in the country.
Its provisions removed the defects of the previous law that made it constitutionally and procedurally defective. Despite the
Congress passing the bill, HB No. 393 gathered dust in the Senate of the Philippines upon declaration of Martial Law.
In 1975, the late Assemblyman Teodulo C. Natividad introduced another proposed probation decree. The proposed decree
was presented on April 24, 1976, at the seminar on probation system sponsored by the National Police Commission
(NAPOLCOM) at the UP-Law Center. It was also presented at the First National Conference on Crime Control on July
22-24, 1976. The bill underwent eighteen (18) technical hearings and submitted to a selected group of jurists, penologists,
civil leaders, social and behavioral scientists and law practitioners before it was endorsed for approval.
Finally, on July 24, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed the proposed decree known as Presidential Decree No.
968 (PD 968) or the “Adult Probation Law of 1976”.
 With its enactment, it created the Probation Administration. The late Congressman Teodulo C. Natividad recognized
as the Father of Philippine Probation was appointed its first Administrator. With PD 968, probation became an added
component of Philippine Corrections System and proved its institutional worth.
On November 23, 1989, with the passage of Executive Order No. 292 or “The Administrative Code of 1987”, the
Probation Administration became PAROLE AND PROBATION ADMINISTRATION (PPA). EO 292 expanded PPA’s
mandate to include supervised treatment of released prisoners, who after serving a part of their sentence are released on
parole or granted presidential pardon with parole conditions.
In line with this expanded function, the Board of Pardons and Parole issued BPP Resolution No. 229 dated April 1991
granting PPA the authority to conduct pre-parole or pre-executive clemency investigation on prisoners detained in local
and national jails and prisons.
Additionally, the investigation and supervision of First-time Minor Drug Offenders (FTMDO) placed under suspended
sentence became another responsibility of PPA. This is in pursuant to Sections 66, 68 and 81(b) of Republic Act No. 9165
or “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”, of DDB Resolution No. 2 dated July 19, 2005, and the
Memorandum of Agreement between Dangerous Drugs Board and PPA. However, with RA No. 9344 enacted known as
“The Juvenile Justice Welfare Act of 2006”, these minor drug offenders were now included in the probation supervision
program of PPA.

MISSION
To rehabilitate probationers, parolees and pardonees and promote their development as integral persons by
utilizing innovative interventions and techniques which respect the dignity of man and recognize his divine
destiny.
VISSION
A model component of the Philippine Correctional System that shall enhance the quality of life of its clients
through multi-disciplinary programs and resources, an efficient organization and a highly professional and
committed workforce in order to promote social justice and development.
GOALS
1. To promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with personalized community-
based treatment;
2. To provide an opportunity for his reformation and reintegration into the community;
3. To prevent the commission of offense; and
4. To uplift and redeem valuable human material to economic usefulness and to prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of personal liberty.
MANDATE
The Parole and Probation Administration (PPA) is mandated to conserve and/or redeem convicted offenders and
prisoners who are under the probation and parole system.

ESTABLISHMENT AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROBATION

ADMINISTRATION (OMAYA MARCHSHELYN)
ESTABLISHMENT
The concept of probation stems from faith in man’s capacity to change for the better and in the
ultimate good that will redound to society by rebuilding rather than destroying those who have
offended it.

Thus, as early as the thirteenth century, efforts were made to mitigate the harshness of penal laws
through more enlightened and rehabilitative approaches in the treatment and correction of offenders.
These included the release of accused members of the clergy to ecclesiastical authorities, judicial
reprieve or temporary suspension of sentence or execution, deportation, and release on
recognizance wherein a misdemeanant bound himself before the court to “keep the peace and be on
good behavior.” These practices in early English Courts became the forerunners of probation which
was later established in England and the United States.

 In the Philippines, provisions for juvenile probation have been embodied in Article 80 of the Revised
Penal Code since its enactment in 1932. Thus, sentence was suspended for offenders under 16
years of age accused of a grave or less grave felony, who were then placed in the care and custody
of public or private entities. This was amended on December 10, 1974 by Presidential Decree No.
603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and by Presidential Decree No. 1179 which set the
age of minority to below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Likewise,
Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 provided for the suspension of sentence
and probation of a first-offender under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense
but not more than 21 years at the time when judgment should have been promulgated.

 The move to integrate adult probation in the Philippine criminal justice system began early in the
twentieth century when the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 4221 on August 7, 1935. This
created a Probation Office under the Department of Justice, and provided probation for first offenders
18 years of age and above who were convicted of certain crimes. Unfortunately, there were defects in
the law’s procedural framework so that, on November 16, 1937, the Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Vera on the grounds of “undue delegation
of legislative power” and violation of the “equal protection of the law” clause.

 A second attempt was made when then Congressmen Teodulo C. Natividad and Ramon D.
Bagatsing introduced House Bill No. 393 during their last months in Congress. Passed in the Lower
House, this was pending in the Senate when Martial Law was proclaimed in 1972.

The agitations for the adoption of an adult probation law continued. In 1973, the technical staff of the
Bacolod City Police Advisory Council, headed by Lt. Col. Arcadio S. Lozada and assisted by US
Peace Corps Volunteer Alvin L. Koenig, prepared a proposed Probation Decree which incorporated
pertinent provisions of the Natividad and Laurel Bills. This was submitted to the Secretary of Justice
and the National Police Commission after a thorough perusal by a study committee of the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines and subsequent indorsement by its national Board of Directors.

 Late in 1975 the National Police Commission, sitting en banc and headed by Defense Secretary
Juan Ponce Enrile who was the concurrent Chairman of NAPOLCOM, heard the report “Meeting the
Challenge of Crime” of the Philippine delegation to the 5 th United Nations Congress held in Geneva,
Switzerland in September 1975. At that time, the Philippines was among the few participating
countries without an adult probation system. Citing the role of probation in an integrated approach to
crime prevention, the delegation urged priority action on the establishment of the system. This was
the turning point that led to the passage of the law. The Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime
Prevention created in 1974 by Secretary Enrile and chaired by Commissioner Teodulo Natividad,
then pursued the preparation of the probation decree. Eighteen technical hearings were conducted,
attended by 60 resource persons, after which the draft decree was presented at the Seminar on the
Probation System sponsored by the NAPOLCOM, Philippine Constabulary and Integrated National
Police, and the University of the Philippines Law Center on April 24, 1976. This was studied and
overwhelmingly endorsed by 369 participants representing various sectors of society. A final draft of
the decree was subsequently prepared, then reviewed and endorsed to the President of the
Philippines by the Minister of Justice, Minister of National Defense, and Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court.

 Thus, the law was born on July 24, 1976. It was during the closing ceremonies of the First National
Conference on a Strategy to Reduce Crime held at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, that President
Ferdinand E. Marcos signed Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 968, otherwise known as the Probation
Law of 1976, in the presence of nearly 800 representatives of the country’s criminal justice system.

DEVELOPMENT
Under Executive Order No. 292, “The Administrative Code of 1987” which was promulgated on
November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed “Parole and Probation
Administration” and given the added function of supervising prisoners who, after serving part of their
sentence in jails are released on parole pardon with parole conditions

Moreover, the investigation and supervision of First Time Minor Drug Offenders (FTMDO) placed
under suspended sentence became another added function of the Administration pursuant to
Sections 66 – 70 of Republic Act 9165, “The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” and by
virtue of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Dangerous Drugs Board and Administration
dated 17 August 2005. Likewise, pursuant to Section 57 of Republic Act 9165, the Administration was
designated as the authorized representative of the Dangerous Drugs Board under the Voluntary
Submission Program.

The Agency was placed in the forefront in relation to crime prevention, treatment of offenders in the
community-based setting, and in the overall administration of criminal justice by mandating the
revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide (VPA) Program pursuant to Executive Order 468 dated
October 11, 2005.

Under Republic Act No. 10389, “Recognizance Act of 2012”, the Administration was directed to
monitor and evaluate the activities of the person on release on recognizance.

Development of parole. (Llagoso Laila)

Parole
Parole is the early release of inmates from correctional institutions prior to the expiration of the sentence on the
condition of good behavior and supervision in the community. It is also referred to as supervised release,
community supervision, or after-care.

Origins of parole
Prior to the mid-nineteenth century most offenders were sentenced to flat or determinate sentences in prison.
Under this type of sentencing, an offender received a specific amount of time to serve in prison for a specific
crime. This created a major problem when prisons became crowded. Governors were forced to issue mass
pardons or prison wardens had to randomly release offenders to make room for entering prisoners. Credit for
developing early parole systems is usually given to an Englishman, Captain Alexander Maconochie, and an
Irishman, Sir Walter Crofton. In 1840, Maconochie was appointed governor of the notorious English penal
colony at Norfolk Island off the coast of Australia. At the time, English criminals were being transported to
Australia and those sent to Norfolk Island were considered "twice condemned"; they had been shipped to
Australia from England and from Australia to the island. Conditions were so bad that, allegedly, men who
received reprieves from the death penalty wept.

The first thing Maconochie did was to eliminate the flat sentence structure used in Norfolk at the time of his
arrival. Instead of requiring convicts to serve their sentences with no hope of release until the full sentence had
been served, Maconochie initiated a "mark system" whereby a convict could earn freedom by hard work and
good behavior in the prison. The earned marks could be used to purchase either goods or a reduction in
sentence. Prisoners had to pass through a series of stages beginning with strict imprisonment through
conditional release to final freedom. Movement through the stages was dependent upon the number of marks
accredited. Like Maconochie, Sir Walter Crofton believed the length of the sentence should not be an arbitrary
period of time but should be related to the rehabilitation of the offender. After becoming the administrator of the
Irish Prison System in 1854, Crofton initiated a system incorporating three classes of penal servitude: strict
imprisonment, indeterminate sentences, and tickets-of-leave. This indeterminate system or Irish system, as it
came to be known, permitted convicts to earn marks to move from solitary confinement to a return to the
community on a conditional pardon or ticket-of-leave.

Zebulon Brockway, a Michigan penologist, is usually credited with initiating indeterminate sentences and
parole release in the United States. Similar to Maconochie and Crofton, Brockway believed inmates should be
able to earn their way out of prison through good behavior. Thus, they should receive a sentence that could vary
in length depending upon their behavior in prison. In his opinion, this had two advantages. First, it would
provide a release valve for managing prison populations. Second it would be valuable in reforming offenders
because they would be earning release by demonstrating good behavior.

Brockway had the opportunity to pioneer this proposal into practice in 1876 when he was appointed
superintendent of Elmira Reformatory for youthful offenders in New York. Inmates at Elmira were graded on
their conduct, achievement, and education. On the basis of their behavior in the reformatory, they were given
parole. Volunteer "guardians" supervised the parolees and submitted written reports documenting their behavior
in the community. A condition of the parole was that the offender report to the guardian each month.

Thus, by the turn of the century the major concepts underlying parole were in place in the United States: (1) a
reduction in the sentence of incarceration based on good behavior in prison; (2) supervision of the parolee in the
community; and (3) indeterminate sentences. By 1901, twenty states had parole statutes and by 1944, every
jurisdiction in the United States had some form of parole release and indeterminate sentencing.

History
The word, parole, derives from the French “parol” meaning “word of honor” and references prisoners of war
promising not to take up arms in current conflict if released. How that concept came to apply to the early release
of convicted, often violent, offenders is less clear. The first documented official use of early release from prison
in the United States is credited to Samuel G. Howe in Boston (1847), but prior to that, other programs using
pardons achieved basically the same outcome. In fact, as late as 1938, parole was simply a
conditional pardon in many states.

Alexander Maconochie (England) ran the Norfolk Island prison. During his tenure, he instituted a system
whereby inmates would be punished for the past and trained for the future. He believed that inmates could be
rehabilitated so he implemented an open-ended sentencing structure where inmates had to “earn” their release
by passing through three stages, each stage increased their liberty and responsibilities. Inmates had an open time
frame in which to earn the next level. Compliance advanced them; infractions resulted in a return to the
previous stage, thereby lengthening the sentence. The open-ended sentences (today known as indeterminate
sentencing) allowed the administration to ensure that when finally released, an offender’s behavior had been
successfully reformed. Eventually, Maconochie was removed from his position under criticism that his program
“coddled” criminals.

At about the same time, Sir Walter Crofton was developing a similar program in Ireland using “tickets of
leave”. The “Irish System” as it came to be known, employed a similar practice of allowing inmates to earn
credits towards early release. However, once the “ticket of leave” was achieved, release from custody was
conditional. The releasees were supervised in the community by either law enforcement or civilian personnel
who were required to secure employment and to conduct home visits. These “supervisors” represented the
forerunner to today’s parole officer.

In the United States, Zebulon Brockaway (Super-intendent) employed elements from both the Irish and Great
Britain models in managing the Elmira Reformatory during the 1870s. Brockaway is credited with the passage
of the first indeterminate sentencing law in the United States as well as introducing the first good time system to
reduce inmates’ sentences. However, releasing the offenders was only part of the problem and initially, the
greatest challenge was providing adequate supervision once release had been granted.

By 1913, it was clear some independent body was required to supervise inmates in the community and by 1930,
Congress formally established a United States Board of Parole. It appeared, at least for a while, that initiatives
and programs were developing that could make parole a viable and useful tool of the criminal justice system.
But unfortunate timing contributed ultimately to its downfall.

In 1929, the Great Depression hit the United States. An immediate result was a sharp increase in prison
populations. However, the high cost of maintaining prisons as well as a lack of available personnel to staff them
made new construction prohibitive and contributed to the popularity of parole. While alleviation of the
overcrowding problem is often cited as a secondary (or latent) goal, the reality is that as a back-end solution,
parole is vital to the maintenance of the correctional system.

With the onset of the twentieth century, philosophers began to examine the social and psychological aspects of
criminal behavior. This heralded a shift from classicalist thinking towards positivism. Under positivism, actions
are believed to be caused by forces beyond one’s control (such forces could be psychological, biological, or
sociological in origin). Therefore, parolees were now viewed as “sick” and the parole department was charged
with the responsibility of “fixing” them.
Positivism is consistent with a less punitive approach to sentencing and generally involves an indeterminate
sentencing structure allowing for the possibility of early release if the offender demonstrates that they have been
successfully rehabilitated. As such, it fit well with the Elmira system and the timing afforded officials the
opportunity to use parole as a means to relieve the overcrowded conditions that had developed during the
depression.

The fact that parole involves some incarceration suggests that the average parolee has committed a more serious
crime than the average probationer and, hence, poses a greater risk to the community. Therefore, primary goals
of parole must include crime deterrence and offender control. And given that most offenders will eventually
return to the community, a rival goal is reintegration, or the facilitation of an offender’s transition from
incarceration to freedom.

Unfortunately, it appeared during the 1980s that parole was failing. Street crime rates during this period
skyrocketed and, in many cases, the crimes were perpetrated by individuals who were released into the
community prior to the official expiration of their sentence. This reality led to the development of penal
philosophies espousing “tough on crime” approaches and demanding “truth in sentencing”. Such philosophies
warned criminals, “do the crime, do the time” and resulted in radical changes to sentencing practices across the
country that indicated a return to a more punitive sentencing structure.

Probation and parole decision-making Elaya Villaceran Culanag

Probation and parole agencies have always been responsible for two functions. First, the agencies must assist with the
decision process. For probation officers this is the investigative aspect of their work and it involves assisting the court in
the decision to sentence to probation in lieu of a prison sentence. For parole, the decision must be made to release an
inmate from prison. The second responsibility of both agencies is to provide supervision for those offenders who are
judged suitable for release to the community.

The decision to grant probation.

The majority of individuals convicted of a crime are not given a prison sentence. Fifty-four of every one hundred felony
arrests result in a conviction. Of those convicted, twenty-two are given a probation sentence, eighteen a jail sentence and
fourteen are sent to prison (Boland, Mahanna, and Stones). Community corrections officials are critical players in these
sentencing decisions. They must assess the level of risk offenders present to the public safety and make recommendations
to the court about the appropriate sentence.
Probation officers often begin the investigative process during the pretrial period by examining an offender's background
and history to assist in determining whether a defendant can safely be released on his own recognizance or bail. The report
from the officer is frequently the primary source of information the court uses in this decision. At this point the court may
defer adjudication or offer pretrial diversion and require probation supervision.
Once an offender is convicted, the probation officer prepares a presentence investigation report (PSI). The PSI is the
major source of information on which courts base sentences. The primary function of the PSI report is to provide the
sentencing court with timely, relevant, and accurate data about the offender. Such information is used to determine the
sentence and classify offenders as to risk and therapeutic needs. The information is used to plan programming in
institutions and in the community, to set conditions of supervision, and for release planning.
In determinate-sentencing jurisdictions the statutes specify similar sentences for offenders convicted of similar offenses.
The PSI in these jurisdictions places the emphasis on offense-based reports where the dominant focus is on the offense
and the offender's culpability in the offense. Where the court uses sentencing guidelines to determine the appropriate
sentences the emphasis of the report is on providing verifiable information on the defendant's criminal record and
aggravating or mitigating circumstances. Unlike the PSI provided by the indeterminate-sentencing jurisdictions, the
primary focus is on the crime and not the criminal.
Typically, the PSI includes information on the seriousness of the crime, the defendant's risk for recidivism, the defendant's
circumstances (living arrangement, employment, family), the legally permissible sentencing options, and a recommended
sentence. Today with the increased concern with victim issues, the PSI may contain a victim impact statement that
describes the impact of the offense on identifiable victims or the community.
Over 90 percent of all felony cases are eventually resolved through negotiated pleas so the major decision of the court is
whether or not to imprison the offender. The PSI is critically important in this regard. Research has shown that the judge's
knowledge of the case is limited to the information contained in the PSI. Furthermore, there is a high correlation between
the recommendations provided by the probation officer in the PSI and the judge's sentence. Such recommendations are
accepted between 65 and 95 percent of the time.
Eighty percent of all adults convicted of misdemeanors and 60 percent of all adults convicted of felonies are sentenced to
probation or a combination of probation and jail. Thus, two-thirds of all convictions result in a sentence of probation.
Research shows that people are less likely to be given probation if they: have more conviction counts, have more prior
convictions, were on probation or parole at the time of arrest, were drug addicts, or used a weapon in the crime or
seriously injured victims (Petersilia and Turner).
For those who receive probation, the court must also decide how to impose the sentence. Commonly, the judge gives a jail
or prison sentence and then suspends the sentence in favor of probation. The jail or prison term is held in abeyance to be
used if the offender fails to abide by the conditions of probation. About 50 percent of all probations sentences are
suspended in this way (Latessa and Allen, 1997). The judge also imposes conditions that the probationer is required to
follow during the community supervision.

Parole Release.
The parole board (or parole commission), an administrative body, is empowered to decide whether inmates shall be
conditionally released from prison prior to the completion of their sentence. The board is also responsible for determining
whether to revoke parole and to discharge from parole those who have satisfactorily completed the terms of their sentence.
In most jurisdictions, once the parole board makes the decision to grant parole, the responsibility for supervision in the
community is turned over to parole officers who are supervised by the department of corrections.
The decision to grant parole is usually based on a review of the individual offender's case file (including the PSI) and an
interview with the inmate. Eligibility for parole is determined by statutory requirements and is usually based on the
completion of the minimum sentence less any good-time credits earned during incarceration. Technically, parolees are
still prisoners who can be recalled to serve the remainder of their sentence in prison if the parole board decides they have
not fulfilled the terms of their release.
Parole boards have traditionally had great leeway in deciding when to grant parole. During the hearing stage when the
board met with the inmate, they were expected to observe whether the prospective parolee demonstrated his or her
rehabilitation, a willingness to accept responsibility, and self-understanding. Decisions were not based on formally
articulated criteria or policies but on subjective and intuitional judgments of the individuals on the board. Few courts have
reviewed parole decision-making and those that have appear to agree with the contentions of paroling authorities that to
impose even minimal due-process constraints on the decision-making process would interfere with the board's goals of
diagnosis and prediction (Cromwell and Del Carmen).
Most parole boards appear to accept an incapacitation or a modified justice model when making release decisions
(Petersilia, 1998). They reported that the single most important factor they considered in the release decision was the
nature of the current offense (Runda, Rhine, and Wetter). Following this they considered any history of prior violence,
prior felony convictions, and possession of a firearm during the crime. These indicators of dangerousness were used to
determine how much time an offender should serve prior to parole. Board members did not consider any factors related to
rehabilitation or program participation to be important to consider in making parole decisions.
Critics of parole release decisions characterize the system as arbitrary and capricious. This is one of the reasons some
jurisdictions have abolished parole. Other jurisdictions have instituted guidelines to be used to structure decisions without
completely removing discretion. The parole guidelines used by the U.S. Parole Commission for making parole release
decisions served as a model for parole guidelines developed in many other jurisdictions. The commission developed a
system for decision-making based on the seriousness of the offense and the risk of recidivism. An actuarial device, the
Salient Factor Score, was used to determine the potential risk of a parole violation. Decision-makers then use the
guidelines to determine the customary time to be served for a range of offenses based on the severity of the offense.
Decision-makers may deviate from the guidelines but they are required to explain the specific factors considered in the
decision to override the score. Other jurisdictions have developed "risk assessment" or prediction instruments to assist
parole boards in making decisions about release.
The move toward the justice model of corrections and the use of incapacitation has led to questions about the viability of
parole, but for different reasons. Justice advocates argue that the indeterminacy inherent in the parole system is unfair
because the board must make decisions based on what will occur in the future. Furthermore, they assert it is impossible to
tell when an offender is rehabilitated. Incapacitation advocates also argue against parole. From their point of view, a
sentence to prison prohibits an offender from committing more crimes in the community; parole release does not. Both of
these perspectives have been influential in changing sentencing in many jurisdictions, and in the past thirty years
sentencing changes have dramatically affected the use of parole. Prior to 1975 sentencing codes of every state had some
form of indeterminacy. Since then, every state in the nation has revised, replaced, or seriously considered determinate
sentencing and the abolishment of parole (Petersilia, 1998). This has led to a dramatic decline in the percent of state
prisoners released through discretionary parole (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1996). In 1977 over 70 percent of offenders
released from prison were released on parole. By 1994, this was reduced to 37 percent. An increasing percent of the
releases were through mandatory release and expiration of sentence.

PPA, if qualified under the existing Probation Law. This is to stay true to the Restorative Justice principle and
in taking into account the best interest of these children.
To strengthen PPA’s rehabilitation efforts, Executive Order No. 468 dated October 11, 2005, was issued to
revitalize the Volunteer Probation Aide Program now called Volunteer Probation Assistant (VPA). This places
PPA in the forefront in relation to crime prevention, treatment of offenders in a community-based setting, and
the overall efforts in the administration of criminal justice.

CORRECTION AND REHABILITATION OF PENITENT OFFENDERS (Bacla-an

Jorland)
 Objective:

To effect the rehabilitation and reintegration of probationers, parolees, pardonees, and first-time
minor drug offenders as productive, law-abiding and socially responsible members of the community
through

1. well-planned supervision programs for probationers, parolees, pardonees, and first-time minor drug
offenders which are aligned to national program thrusts of the government, such as, the Sariling-Sikap, Jail
Decongestion, etc.
2. establishment of innovative and financially and technically feasible projects for the moral, spiritual and
economic upliftment of probationers, parolees, pardonees, and first-time minor drug offenders utilizing
available community resources.

 Scope and Beneficiaries: correction process

All offenders granted   probation, parole, pardon   and suspended sentence.

 The Administration has adopted a harmonized and integrated treatment program for these clients to
affect their rehabilitation. This harmonized and integrated program involves (1) The Therapeutic
Community Modality (2) The Restorative Justice Principles and Concepts and (3) the Use of
Volunteer Probation Aides (VPAs).

The Therapeutic Community Modality is a self-help social learning treatment model used for clients
with problems of drug abuse and other behavioral problems such as alcoholism, stealing, and other
anti-social tendencies. As a treatment model, it includes four (4) categories, namely, behavior
management, intellectual/spiritual aspect, emotional and social aspects, and vocational/survival
aspects.

In this regard, the Therapeutic Community Modality provides a well-defined structure for a
synchronized and focused implementation of the various intervention strategies/activities undertaken
by the Agency such as:

1.  Individual and group counseling

This activity intends to assist the clients in trying to sort out their problems, identify solutions,
reconcile conflicts and help resolve them. This could be done either by individual or group interaction
with the officers of the Agency.

2.  Moral, Spiritual, Values Formation

Seminars, lectures or trainings offered or arranged by the Agency comprise these rehabilitation
activities. Active NGOs, schools, civic and religious organizations are tapped to facilitate the activities.

3.  Work or Job Placement/Referral

Categorized as an informal program wherein a client is referred for work or job placement through the
officer’s own personal effort, contact or information.

4.  Vocational/Livelihood and Skills Training

The program includes the setting up of seminars and skills training classes like food preservation and
processing, candle making, novelty items and handicrafts making, etc., to help the clients earn extra
income. Likewise, vocational and technical trade classes are availed of such as refrigeration,
automotive mechanic, radio/television and electronics repairs, tailoring, dressmaking, basic computer
training, etc. through coordination with local barangays, parish centers, schools and civic
organizations.

5.  Health, Mental and Medical Services

To address some of the basic needs of clients and their families, medical missions are organized to
provide various forms of medical and health services including physical examination and treatment,
free medicines and vitamins, dental examination and treatment, drug dependency test and laboratory
examination.

Psychological testing and evaluation as well as psychiatric treatment are likewise provided for by the
Agency’s Clinical Services Division and if not possible by reason of distance, referrals are made to
other government accredited institutions.

6.  Literacy and Education

In coordination with LGU programs, adult education classes are availed of to help clients learn basic
writing, reading and arithmetic. Likewise, literacy teach-ins during any sessions conducted for clients
become part of the module. This is particularly intended for clients who are “no read, no write” to help
them become functionally literate.

Likewise, linkages with educational Foundation, other GOs and NGOs are regularly done for free
school supplies, bags and uniform for client’s children and relatives.

7.  Community Service

This program refers to the services in the community rendered by clients for the benefit of society. It
includes tree planting, beautification drives, cleaning and greening of surroundings, maintenance of
public parks and places, garbage collection, blood donation and similar socio-civic activities.

8.  Client Self-Help Organization

This program takes the form of cooperatives and client associations wherein the clients form
cooperatives and associations as an economic group to venture on small-scale projects. Similarly,
client associations serve another purpose by providing some structure to the lives of clients where
they re-learn the basics of working within a group with hierarchy, authority and responsibility much
like in the bigger society.

9.  Payment of Civil Liability

The payment of civil liability or indemnification to victims of offenders are pursued despite the
economic status of clients. Payment of obligations to the victims instills in the minds of the clients
their responsibility and the consequences of the harm they inflicted to others.

10.  Environment and Ecology

To instill awareness and concern in preserving ecological balance and environmental health,
seminars/lectures are conducted wherein clients participate. These seminars/lectures tackle anti-
smoke belching campaign, organic farming, waste management, segregation and disposal and
proper care of the environment.

11.  Sports and Physical Fitness

Activities that provide physical exertion like sports, games and group play are conducted to enhance
the physical well-being of clients. Friendly competition of clients from the various offices of the
sectors, together with the officers, provide an enjoyable and healthful respite.
The success of the Therapeutic Community treatment model is also anchored on the implementation
of restorative justice. To highlight the principles of restorative justice, offenders are recognized to
indemnify victims and render community services to facilitate the healing of the broken relationship
caused by offending the concerned parties. Mediation and conferencing are also utilized in special
cases to mend and/or restore clients’ relationship with their victim and the community.

 Considering that it is in the community that the rehabilitation of clients takes place, the utilization of
therapeutic community treatment model coupled with the principles of restorative justice would be
further energized with the recruitment, training and deployment of Volunteer Probation Aides (VPAs).
The VPA program is a strategy to generate maximum participation of the citizens in the community-
based program of probation and parole. Through the VPAs, the substance of restorative justice is
pursued with deeper meaning since the VPAs are residents of the same community where the clients
they supervise reside. Thus, it is practicable for the volunteers to solicit support for clients’ needs and
assist the field officers in supervising the probationers, parolees, and pardonees.

The Therapeutic Community treatment modality, Restorative Justice paradigm and deployment of
VPAs integrated into one rehabilitation program have yielded tremendous outcome in the
rehabilitation and reformation of probationers, parolees, pardonees, and first-time minor drug
offenders.

Furthermore, the Agency believes that the client’s family is a major part or support in the rehabilitation
process, thus the Administration adopts the Integrated Allied Social Services program to address the
needs of the children and other minor dependent of the clients. Under the said program, interventions
relative to the growth and development of the minor dependents are done to help them become
productive, law abiding and effective individuals.

COORDINATION AND DIRECTION THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE

SYSTEM
A. The Criminal Justice System: An Overview Jasfer N. Gajelloma
1. An Overview

The term “criminal justice” encompasses “a chain of events, activities, tasks, or functions that constitute the
official response to perceived problems of law and order,” which includes the following: “crime prevention and
crime reduction; the arrest and prosecution of suspects; the hearing of criminal cases by the courts; sentencing,
administration and enforcement of court orders; parole and other forms of license for prisoners; and work with
offenders and ex-offenders in prison or in the community.”

In the Philippines, the “Criminal Justice System” consists of the system of courts, including the barangay justice
system, the informal justice system implemented through practice particularly by indigenous communities, and
the quasi-judicial bodies empowered by law to perform adjudicatory functions; the systems for law enforcement
and prosecution which involve investigating, apprehending and prosecuting those who could not be deterred
from violating the law and the rules of the society; the system of corrections and rehabilitation or the means of
rehabilitating offenders and returning them to the community as law-abiding citizens; and the community which
collectively imposes limitations on individual behavior of citizens for the common good of civilized and
democratic society that deters criminality and criminal behavior.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has adopted the vision of the “Criminal Justice System” as follows:

to provide the public an effective system or process in the community by which crimes are investigated, and the
persons suspected thereof are taken into custody, prosecuted in court and punished if found guilty, with
provision being made for their correction and rehabilitation, and to provide the people the ability to seek and
obtain a remedy through formal or informal institutions, and in conformity with human rights standards.

2. The Five Pillars of the Criminal Justice System

The CJS is envisioned as being supported by five pillars, namely: law enforcement; prosecution; courts;
corrections; and the community. Each of these five pillars plays a vital role in the administration of justice and,
as such, their interplay and cooperation is most necessary for the proper functioning of a Criminal Justice
System.

a. Law Enforcement Pillar

The first pillar is the Law Enforcement Pillar. It consists mainly of the officers and personnel of the Philippine
National Police, National Bureau of Investigation, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Anti-Money
Laundering Council (AMLC), Armed Forces of the Philippines, and 34 other related agencies. These agencies
are “at the forefront of the Criminal Justice System of the country. They x x x directly deal with the citizens and
are directly exposed to the criminal elements.”12 Clearly, it is thus necessary that the member agencies within
this pillar are both trained and well-oriented with “the ways of civil society.”

Their work consists of the prevention and control of crimes, enforcement of laws and effecting the arrest of
offenders, including the conduct of lawful searches and seizures, to gather necessary evidence so that a
complaint may be filed at the Prosecution’s Office. Identified as the first point of contact with the community,
this pillar initiates the CJS machinery upon arresting a person believed to be a suspect.

b. Prosecution Pillar

The second is the Prosecution Pillar, which is composed of the National Prosecution Service of the Department
of Justice (DOJ), Office of the Ombudsman, and the Public Attorney’s Office. While the focus of this pillar is
the speedy disposition of cases, its principal task is the investigation of criminal complaints emanating from the
community and the law enforcement agencies, and bringing these complaints to their successful prosecution in
the judicial system.16 The prosecution pillar conducts preliminary investigation of cases filed in the
prosecutor’s office and prosecutes cases filed in the court against alleged offenders after probable cause is
established.

c. Courts Pillar (Omaya Marchshelyn)

The Courts Pillar adjudicates cases and renders judgment. The Philippine Judiciary is a four tiered court system
consisting of the Supreme Court as the highest court of the land; the intermediate courts consisting of the Court
of Appeals, Sandiganbayan, and Court of Tax Appeals; the second level courts, which consist of Regional Trial
Courts and Shari’a District Courts; and the first level courts consisting of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal
TrialCourts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’a Circuit Courts.

The goal of the Courts Pillar is not merely to adjudicate cases, but to do so in accordance with the Rule of Law
and “without sacrificing the quality of justice.”17 Interestingly enough, the overall performance of the CJS may
be determined by the performance of the Courts Pillar. Many of the factors that affect the disposition of a
litigation – such as those that are in relation to the procurement of witnesses and evidence, the determination of
probable cause and the like – are clearly outside of the control of the Judiciary.1Nevertheless, because the
litigation process brings all these factors together, “[t]he performance of the courts therefore would serve to
synthesize to a large extent the overall performance of the criminal justice system.”

d. Corrections Pillar

Comprising the Corrections Pillar are the jails and prisons administered by the Bureau of Corrections
(BUCOR), the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, and by the local government units with regard to
provincial and sub-provincial jails. The Philippine National Police likewise maintains detention facilities in its
different police stations nationwide. The Corrections Pillar may also be classified into two: institution-based
and community-based corrections. On one hand, the institution-based corrections includeprisons and jails which
house prisoners serving terms of imprisonment; under detention status; and those for safekeeping in selected
cases. On the other hand, community-based corrections pertain to probation and parole. These are being
managed by the Parole and Probation Administration of the DOJ. PPA conducts a post-sentence investigation of
petitioners for probation as referred by the courts, as well as pre-parole/pre-executive clemency investigation
for those referred by the Board of Pardons and Parole, to determine the suitability of the offender to be
reintegrated in the community instead of serving their sentence inside an institution or prison. The PPA further
supervises probationers, parolees and conditional pardonees to promote their rehabilitation and reintegration to
the mainstream of society. It mobilizes the community resources, especially through volunteer probation aides.

e. Community Pillar

The Community Pillar is composed of institutions such as the Department of Social Welfare and Development,
Commission on Human Rights, National Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Public Attorney’s Office,
barangays, civic organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Members of the Community Pillar are
regarded to be both duty holders and claimholders in the administration of justice. As duty holders, they have
the responsibility to assist law enforcement and the courts in solving crime by providing information, by
community participation in crime prevention and creating a culture of peace, and by supporting the mobilization
of resources for peace and order. As claimholders, they are the beneficiaries of the justice system and they play
critical roles in holding system duty holders accountable.

Likewise, It emphasized that the community as a subsystem of the whole cyclical process is the most critical
and useful component of the Criminal Justice System considering its massive and pervasive composition. This
also plays a crucial role towards the society’s common goal of a fair and equal administration of justice – either
victims or criminals.

The importance of the Community Pillar cannot be overemphasized. In its own manner, it ideally participates in
two main responsive roles of the CJS: first, that of crime prevention, and second, that of victim prevention. As
for the first, this pillar collectively imposes limitations on individual behavior of citizens that deter criminality
and criminal behavior for the common good of civilized and democratic society. Meanwhile, in relation to the
second, it has been recommended that communities must disseminate more information regarding the roles and
functions of the other components of the CJS, as well as broaden its own, in order to responsively contribute to
victimization prevention.

Ultimately, criminals will come from the community and some will return to it. From this alone, it can be seen
how much impact the Community Pillar can have in the rendition of justice. By participating in government
programs, though not entirely related to the criminal justice system such as livelihood programs and the like, the
community can therefore help lessen the crimes by diverting what would be criminal enterprise into something
more productive. Additionally, by aiding in the capturing of criminals and in their subsequent prosecution, they
can likewise ensure proper and just redress for crimes.
3. The Interrelation and Cooperation Between and Among the Pillars of the CJS
(TABAOSARES)
Given that the pillars operate in just one system, the efficiency and effectiveness of one can easily be hampered
by the inefficiency and incompetence of the other, notwithstanding the fact that they function separately. This is
because “[n]o pillar can operate in isolation for the performance of each impacts on the other.” The system is a
step-by-step process, where many of the roles are “independent, interconnecting and overlapping.” Therefore, in
order for the system to operate smoothly, cooperation, coordination and concerted efforts of the pillars, namely
the police, the prosecutors, the judiciary as well as the correctional services are necessary. The figure below
shows the interaction between and among the Pillars of the Philippine CJS.

Acknowledging that each pillar depends on the other, it cannot be stressed enough that for the Philippine CJS to
be effective, coordination between and among the different pillars must be strengthened. A stronger CJS will,
undoubtedly, not only result in a safer and more just society but also, inevitably, contribute to the economic
development of the country. This is because it is believed that there exists a link between economic
developments and “amenities” such as low crime rate. For a developing country like the Philippines, there is
thus more reason to engage in the assessment and improvement of its CJS. An investment of effort in this
exercise can certainly prove to be economically beneficial for all.

OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES

I. THE PHILIPPINE PROBATION SYSTEM Llagoso Laila

Historical Development of Community Corrections
 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. In 1972, House Bill No.393 intended to establish a
probation system in the Philippines was filed in Congress. This bill avoided the objectionable
features of Act 4221 which was the cause of its declaration as unconstitutional. The bill was
passed by the House of Representatives and was pending in the Senate when Martial Law was
declared, and the Congress was abolished. Three years after in 1975, the National Police
Commission acting on a report submitted by the Philippine delegation to the 5th United Nations
Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, created an
Interdisciplinary Committee tasked to formulate a national strategy to reduce crime and to draft a
probation law. Eighteen Technical hearings were done over a period of six months involving
international experts in the field of corrections and when presented to a selected group of jurist,
penologist, civic leaders, social and behavioral practitioners, it was overwhelmingly endorsed the
establishment of an Adult Probation System in the Philippines. On the last day of the First
National Convention on Crime Control held at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 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
agency named 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 procedural manuals were developed; probation officers were recruited and
trained; and the central office and also the probation field offices were organized throughout the
country. Fifteen probation officers were selected from the first batch of trainees for an
observation tour to the Los Angeles Training Academy, April 1, 1977. Upon their return, they
were assigned to train the newly recruited probation officers. The probation system started to
operate on January 3, 1978. As more probation officers were recruited and trained as more
probation field offices were opened. At present there are 183 field offices spread all over the
country, supervised by 15 regions.

A. Legal Basis of the Community Corrections

The enabling law that governs the administration and operation of the probation system in the
country is Presidential Decree No. 968, or the Adult Probation Law of 1976.Since its
promulgation on July 24, 1976, the Adult Probation Law has undergone several amendments
such as: Presidential Decree No 1257 approved on December 1, 1977, allowing public
prosecutors to participate in the probation process by directing them to make a comment on the
application for probation. Batas Pambansa Blg.76 (BP 76) signed June 9,1980, extending the
benefits of probation to convicted offenders whose prison sentence imposed was six years and
one day. Formerly, it was only for those convicted offenders whose prison sentence is six years.
Presidential Decree No.1990 promulgated on October 15, 1985 , provided that the application for
probation shall no longer be entertained or granted if the defendant has perfected an appeal from
the judgment of conviction. Further, it also amends BP 76 returning it to six years. On November
21, 1987, a new Administrative Code was adopted by the Philippine government under
Executive Order No. 292.The Code transferred the function of supervising parolees and
pardonees which heretofore were supervised by the trial courts, to the Probation Administration.
Executive Order 292 also changed the name of the agency to Parole an d Probation in order to
reflect the change in its mandate. In 1991, the Parole and Probation Administration was assigned
the new task of conducting pre-parole and executive clemency investigation in all city and
provincial jails and prepare pre-parole reports for the Board of Pardons and Parole. This new task
was mandated by BPP Resolution No. 229, dated April 2, 1991. Republic Act 9165 known as the
 Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002 signed on January 23, 2002, which repealed
Republic Act 6425, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 which provides under Section 57 ,
Probation and Community Service under the Voluntary Submission Program an after care
program in lieu of imprisonment and or fine. On April 28, 2006, Juvenile Justice and Welfare
Act of 2006 was signed into a law. This Act established a comprehensive juvenile justice and
welfare system in the country. Parole and Probation Administration was tasked to develop
individualized probation program appropriate for the correction and rehabilitation of children in
conflict with the law consistent with the objectives of rehabilitation and reintegration provided in
the Act

B. Organization and Personnel (Bacla-an Jorland)

1. Organization

The Parole and Probation Administration is a line-bureau type of organization created

under the Department of Justice. To carry out the objectives of the Probation Law of
1976, the Administration was organized into 15 Regional Offices and Provincial /City
Probation and Parole offices with a total of 183 Probation and Parole Offices nationwide.
Maximum support is given to the local parole and probation offices which provide direct
services to clients. Relative to this, the Administration has seven divisions which consists
of the following: Administrative, Legal, Finance and Management, Planning, Community
Service, Technical Service and Case Management and Records. Four staff divisions,
namely, Administrative, Planning, Finance and Management, and Legal perform staff
function that are primarily designed for the internal affairs of the Administration’s
offices. They are concerned with the day-to-day operations essential for the orderly and
effective management of the Administration’s activities. On the other hand, technical
services are done by three divisions namely, Case Management and Records, Community
Service and Technical.

2. Personnel

In general, appointments of personnel at Parole and Probation Administration are in

accordance to merit and fitness to be determined as far as practicable by competitive
examination. It is in accordance with the Civil Service Law and Rules. There are other
regulations and standards that may be promulgated by the Career Executive Service
Board for 3rd level position. Appointments for the positions of Probation and Parole
Officer I to Clerks are made by the Regional Directors; Probation and Parole Office II to
Supervising Probation and Parole Officer are within the authority of the Probation
Administrator; Chief Probation and Parole Officer are appointed by the Secretary of
Justice upon the recommendation of the Probation Administrator; the Regional Directors,
Deputy Administrator and the Probation Administrator are all appointed by the President
of the Philippines. Entry qualification for probation and parole officers are at least 25
 years of age, minimum educational requirement is a bachelor’s degree with a major in
social work, sociology, psychology, criminology, penology, corrections, police
administration, public administration, or related fields and with no criminal record.
Recruitment of field personnel is done on a region-wide level. Specifically, applicants
who are residents of the area where the vacancy occurs are given first preference. Only
those who meet the requirements of the position being applied for e.g. age, education,
eligibility are allowed to undergo the screening which includes interviews and
psychological testing.

3. Training of Personnel (TABAOSRES)

The training unit of the Parole and Probation Administration is primarily responsible for
providing training in specific professional courses and developing programs of trainers,
and such training courses are conducted as in-house programs. Where there are available
specialized trainings offered by other government and or non-government agencies.,
selected personnel are authorized to attend or enroll in said programs with fees paid by
the Parole and Probation Administration. Training in specific skills done on a need basis
of the employee but the agency has an initial training program mandatory to all
employees newly hired. These are Employee Orientation Courses for all newly hired
employees and Parole and Probation Officers Basic Course for newly appointed
probation and parole officers.

Actual Working Staff as of January 31, 2014

Probation and Parole Officers - 887
Lawyers -5
Administrative - 404
Total - 1,296

C. Main Tasks
• Post Sentence Investigation Alter conviction and sentence, an offender or his counsel files a
petition for probation with the trial court, which in turn orders the probation officer to conduct a
post sentence investigation to determine whether or not an offender may be placed on probation.
The grant of probation nis premised upon three conditions:
1)an application for probation by the offender
2)an investigation conducted by the probation and parole officer
3)a determination of by the court that the ends of justice and the best interest of the public as
well as the offender shall be served thereby. The grant of probation in effect suspends the
execution of the sentence of imprisonment.

• Pre-Parole Investigation (Elaya Villaceran Culanag)

Prior to April 19, 1992, probation officers regularly visited provincial and city jails to
explain to prisoners the probation law and its benefits and how they can avail of these benefits in
the event they are convicted and sentenced. In a Resolution No.229, the Board of Pardons and
 Parole on April 22, 1991 directed the Parole and Probation Administration to conduct pre-parole
investigation of all sentenced prisoners confined in prisons and jails within their jurisdiction. The
purpose of which is to determine whether offenders in prison may be qualified for parole or any
form of executive clemency and to discuss with them their plan after their release. The probation
and parole officers submit their pre parole assessment report to the Board of Pardons and Parole.
Offenders sentenced under the Indeterminate Sentence Law are eligible for parole after serving
their minimum sentence. The Rules of the Board of Pardons and Parole also provide that they
may be considered for conditional pardon after service of one-half of their minimum sentence.
• Supervision of Offenders
The Parole and Probation Administration supervises two types of offenders under conditional
release: (1) Probationers or persons placed under probation by the courts and,
(2) Parolees and Pardonees or prisoners released on parole or conditional pardon and referred by
the Board of Pardons and Parole to the Parole and Probation Administration. Before November
1989, parolee and pardonees were supervised by the judges of the municipal an d city courts
within whose jurisdiction these offenders resided. This function of supervising parolees and
pardonees was transferred from the trial courts to the Parole and Probation Administration by
virtue of Executive Order No. 292 which took effect on November 23, 1989.Thereafter, all
prisoners released on parole by the Board of Pardons and Parole were turned over to the Parole
and Probation Administration for supervision. With respect to probationers, offenders placed on
probation by the courts are turned over to the Parole and Probation Administration for
supervision. The objectives of probation supervision are to carry out the conditions set forth in
the probation order, to ascertain whether the probationer is following said conditions, and to
bring about the rehabilitation of the probationer and his re-integration into the community.

E. Probation and Parole Supervision (TABOSARES)

1. Types of Community Measures/Orders

Type Description/Eligible Sentencing/Authority Supervision/Treatment Period

Offender

Adult Probation Persons Under Suspension Criminal Court Period of is a maximum of Six Years
of Execution of sentence

Parolees Conditional release of Board of Pardons Expiration of the Maximum Sentence

Prisoner from Correctional and Parole
institution after serving the
minimum prison sentence
Conditional Prisoners who have served Office of the As recommended by the Office of the
Pardonees at least one half of the President President
maximum of the original
prison term