Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 Delima

    Uploaded by

    lumina
    9 views1 page
    The inmates of New Bilibid Prison questioned the legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10592. They argued it contravened the Revised Penal Code and Constitution by not applying retroactively and conflicting with the statute. The respondents contended it should apply prospectively and was legitimate. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Section 4, Rule 1 invalid as it violated the prisoners' constitutional rights and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code by discriminating against those imprisoned or found guilty before the law.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    16 delima

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The inmates of New Bilibid Prison questioned the legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10592. They argued it contravened the Revised Penal Code and Constitution by not applying retroactively and conflicting with the statute. The respondents contended it should apply prospectively and was legitimate. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Section 4, Rule 1 invalid as it violated the prisoners' constitutional rights and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code by discriminating against those imprisoned or found guilty before the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    9 views1 page

    16 Delima

    Uploaded by

    lumina
    The inmates of New Bilibid Prison questioned the legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10592. They argued it contravened the Revised Penal Code and Constitution by not applying retroactively and conflicting with the statute. The respondents contended it should apply prospectively and was legitimate. The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Section 4, Rule 1 invalid as it violated the prisoners' constitutional rights and Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code by discriminating against those imprisoned or found guilty before the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    The section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10592's legality is being

    questioned in this case. It was argued by the inmates of the New bilibid prison which are the petitioners
    that the provision is contravening the article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and also the Constitution.

    They contend that the IRR should be applied retroactively and that it conflicts with the statute it
    enforces. Conversely, the respondents contend that the statute ought to be implemented prospectively
    and that the provision is legitimate.

    ISSUE

    Whether or not the Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR of RA 10592 is valid or legal.

    Ruling

    The court ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR invalid. The clause in
    question is seen to be in violation of Article 22 of the RPC, as well as the detainees' constitutional rights
    to equal protection and protection from cruel and unusual punishment, according to the court. The
    court determined that the clause discriminates against prisoners who were imprisoned or found guilty
    prior to the law's implementation and lacks a reasonable foundation.

    You might also like