INMATES OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON, MUNTINLUPA CITY,
NAMELY: VENANCIO A. ROXAS, SATURNINO V. PARAS,
EDGARDO G. MANUEL, HERMINILDO V. CRUZ, ALLAN F.
TEJADA, ROBERTO C. MARQUEZ, JULITO P. MONDEJAR,
ARMANDO M. CABUANG, JONATHAN O. CRISANTO, EDGAR
ECHENIQUE, JANMARK SARACHO, JOSENEL ALVARAN, AND
CRISENCIO NERI, JR., Petitioners vs. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE
LIMA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND SECRETARY MANUEL A.
ROXAS II, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, Respondents
G.R. No. 212719 | June 25, 2019 | PERALTA, J.
REYNALDO D. EDAGO, PETER R. TORIDA, JIMMY E. ACLAO,
WILFREDO V. OMERES, PASCUA B. GALLADAN, VICTOR M.
MACOY, JR., EDWIN C. TRABUNCON, WILFREDO A. PATERNO,
FEDERICO ELLIOT, and ROMEO R. MACOLBAS, Petitioners vs.
SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
SECRETARY MANUEL A. ROXAS II, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT; ACTING DIRECTOR
FRANKLIN JESUS B. BUCAYU, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS; AND
JAIL CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT DIONY DACANAY MAMARIL,
BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY, Respondents
G.R. No. 214637 | June 25, 2019 | PERALTA, J.
Facts of the Case:
G.R. No. 212719
 Several petitions and petitions-in-intervention were filed challenging
the retroactive application of Republic Act No. 10592 (RA 10592),
which amended the provisions of the Revised Penal Code regarding
the computation of good conduct time allowance for prisoners.
 The petitioners argue that the implementing rules and regulations
(IRR) contradict the law and should have a retroactive effect to
benefit the inmates.
 They claim that the distinctions between the relevant provisions of
the law and the RPC are easily identifiable and that the records of
prisoners are complete, making it feasible to apply the law
retroactively.
 The petitioners also argue that the IRR violates the constitutional
guarantee of the rights to liberty and due process.
 The Office of the Solicitor General filed consolidated comments on
the petitions and petitions-in-intervention.
G.R. No. 214637
 A petition was filed by inmates at the Maximum-Security Compound
of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), challenging Section 4, Rule I of the
implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 10592
(RA 10592).
 The petitioners argue that the provision, which provides for the
prospective application of the law, is contrary to Article 22 of the
Revised Penal Code and violates public policy.
 They also claim that the provision violates the Equal Protection
Clause and substantive due process.
 The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the
Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed their respective
comments on the petition.
 The petitioners were granted leave to file a reply, which was noted
by the court.
Issue of the Case:
Whether or not the provision states that the grant of good conduct time
allowance under the said law shall be prospective in application due to the
introduction of new procedures and standards. The main issue to be
determined is whether this provision contradicts the Constitution and the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), rather than examining whether the acts
implemented are in violation.
The Ruling of the Court:
The court has ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Section 4, Rule 1 of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the Republic Act (R.A.)
No. 10592 as invalid. The provision, which mandates the prospective
application of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time allowance for
study, teaching, and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty, is
deemed contrary to Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and the
Constitution. The court affirms that R.A. No. 10592, although not explicitly a
penal law, diminishes the punishment attached to the crime and therefore
falls under the purview of Article 22. The prospective application of the law,
in this case, works against the interests of the petitioners and similarly
situated individuals, extending their sentence, and increasing their
punishment. The court orders the re-computation of time allowances and the
immediate release of the petitioners and others in the same situation unless
they are confined for other lawful reasons.
Dispositive Portion:

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. Section 4, Rule

1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592
is DECLARED invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective application
of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time allowance for study,
teaching and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty. The Director
General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Chief of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology are REQUIRED 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 thereat for any other lawful cause.

This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

SO ORDERED.