Page 1 of 24

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANILA

College of Criminology
SUBJECT – NON- INSTITUTIONAL CORRECTIONS

Historical Background of Probation

Role of Probation in the Correctional System

PROBATION

Probation is another form of non-institutional corrections practices that gives a sentenced convict
the chance to reform and rehabilitate himself without having to spend time in jails. Probation does not
confine to prison a sentenced prisoner but rather he will released and undergo personalized community
based treatment, while in parole, the parolee will have to serve a portion of his sentence before he is
eligible for parole.

Probation is a form of non-institutional based correctional practices that gives a sentenced convict
the chance to reform and rehabilitate himself without having to spend time in jails. Probation does not
confine to prison a sentenced prisoner but rather released and undergo personalized community based
treatment.

Probation is a disposition under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released to
the supervision of a probation officer subject to conditions imposed by the court. The probation officer
shall supervise and program the individual treatment of the probationer under his care. M any time during
probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a probationer for any serious violation of the
conditions of probation, the probationer, once arrested and detained, shall immediately be brought before
the court for a hearing of the violation charged. If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve
the sentence originally imposed in prison.

The Probation and Parole Administration under the Department of Justice supervises and
controls all probation officers and promulgates rules and procedures on probation process, subject to the
approval of the Secretary of justice. The period of probation of a defendant sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of not more than one (1) year shall not exceed two years, and in all other cases, said period
shall not exceed six (6) years.

When the sentence imposes a fine only and the offender is made to serve subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, the period of probation shall not be less than nor be more than twice
the total number of days of subsidiary imprisonment as computed at the rate established in article thirty-
nine of the revised Penal code as amended.

Pioneers and Founders of Probation

By 1878, the state of Massachusetts passed the first Probation Law but it was only after 20 years
that another state, Vermont, picked up the trail and followed suit. By the early 20th century, however,
Probation has overcome institutional prison treatment as the prevailing mode of punishment.

In 1887, the city of Boston appointed the first government probation officer. The lucky fellow is the
former Chief of Police of Boston. Edward N. Savage. By 1891, a law was passed in Massachusetts
Page 2 of 24

requiring all criminal courts of that state to employ a probation officer. From this date on, the trailblazing
example of Massachusetts was followed by other states. By 1944, all but six states in the United States
had probation officers.

Probation, on the other hand, was first introduced in the United States several decades earlier than
parole. A certain John Augustus of Boston, Massachusetts concerned with the plight of prisoners began
bailing out prisoners and helping them finds residence and employment around the middle of the 19th
century. In time, the Courts in his area began to recognize his efforts. If the temporarily free offender
conducted himself well, Augustus would recommend a sentence other than incarceration to the court, and
his recommendations were usually accepted.

He eventually helped 2000 offenders, and reported only 10 absconders out of this number. His
finances were eventually exhausted but he had made his point so well that by the time he stopped his
philanthropy, others have picked up where he left off and took charge of continuing his work. The first law
authorizing a probation officer was passed in Massachusetts in 1878. However, no other state followed
this example until 1898, when Vermont authorized a probation officer for each county in the state.

By the turn of the 20th century, however, probation and parole has already surpassed formal
incarceration in penal facilities as methods for official punishment. And by the time that these practices
were on the ascendancy, capital punishment in turn was also experiencing a decline in popularity. By the
end of the 19th century, the total of all executions in the United States had decreased to approximately
122 cases per year. We can trace this trend back to 1846, when Michigan became the first government in
the world to abolish the death penalty.

A STUDY ON INSTITUTIONAL AGENCIES IN THE PHILIPPINES

The Spanish philosopher George Santayana once wrote that those who fail to learn from the
lessons of history are condemned to repeat its mistakes.

This lack of historicity is also apparent in our corrections system. We do not have any books or
publications at all that deal with the corrections history of our country. This problem, in fact, has already
been brought out seven years ago during the Strategic Planning Workshop on the Modernization of the
Philippine Correctional System held at St. Michael Retreat House in Antipolo, Rizal on November 13-15,
1995 on the occasion of National Correctional Consciousness Week.

One of the recommendations that came out of the said workshop is the need to formulate a
substantially complete historical account of the development of the Correctional System in the Philippines.
To highlight the importance of this, a Committee on History was tasked to prepare the same. Indeed there
is a very embarrassing dearth of writings dealing with the history of Philippine corrections. In fact, one of
the weaknesses cited by participants in the said workshop during their SWOT Analysis session was the
lack of systematic research and inadequate data collections

Governance and Criminal justice in this country could be claimed to have started simultaneously
with the arrival of the ten datus and their barangays in this archipelago thousands of years ago. This
contention although it cannot be backed up by formal documents saved for Philippine history books can
only be inferred from the fact that the ten datus and their followers came to these shores because of
persecution from the authorities of the land from where they came from. In effect, what happened to them
is a de facto banishment reminiscent of the colonization period that intensified in many countries at the
height of the industrial revolution in Europe.

Prior to the coming of the Spaniards, available evidences point to the existence in this country of a
penal system although its jurisdiction is only tribal and localized. Some of these legal and penal systems
are the codes of Datu Sumakwel, Kalantiaw, Maragtas, Sikatuna and still many others that left scant
traces however into our history books. Among these codes, the most extensive is the Kalantiaw Code,
which is comparable to the Greek, Roman, English and Spanish Laws.

These early codes are likewise very simple, easily understandable and, therefore, subjects of those
days find it easy to comprehend and follow. Hence, criminality does not at all pose a problem. Rather
violators are looked up to as aberrations, exceptions rather than the rule. For instance, the Kalantiaw
Page 3 of 24

Code, which was the governing law in the island of what is now Panay, particularly in what is now the
province of Aklan, has been the governing law and is based on the beliefs, customs and practices of
those days. This Code also reflects the level of uprightness and morality of the people. When we look at
this code and compare with our supposedly civilized laws of today, it becomes a shame that we who
claim to be more civilized are actually the uncivil ones while those we look down on as primitive and
uncivilized are the more advanced and more humane.

The Code was degreed by Dam Kalantiaw about a hundred years before the coming of the Spanish
slavers and colonizers. It continued to be the governing law long after the death of Kalantiaw and ceased
to exist only when the Spaniards reached Panay and set up their government there.

The laws that exist now in our country are laws that were imposed by the Spaniards and then the
next slavers to replace them, the Americans. The laws they imposed did not reflect the customs, beliefs
and practices of the natives but it reflects the customs, beliefs and practices of foreigners who tailored it
to fit their interests in subjugating the people of this land for their benefits. This is now the reason why our
laws have become complicated, distorted and convoluted. It was remodeled and remodeled to find the
correct mix of what is applicable to us but to no avail. Our present laws are one of the causes why there is
so much conflict and un-peace in our country. And this conflict and lack of peace is the cause of our
backwardness and underdevelopment. We cannot find the true rules that should govern us and be
followed by all in the pursuit of our national destiny.

The entire Code of Kalantiaw contains only eighteen articles but enough to bring peace and
harmony. Our Congress and Senate continuously make hundreds of laws that no one seems to be
following.

Here are the eighteen rules of Kalantiaw:

Rule 1 - Do not kill, steal, or harm old people. Punishment is drowning or boiling;

Rule 2 - Pay all your debts promptly. Punishment for first offense is whipping of 100 lashes. If the debt is
large the violator’s hand will be immersed in boiling water three times. Second offense will be death by
beating;

Rule 3 - Do not be too lustful. Do not marry young girls (phaedophilia) nor marry more than you can
handle and support. First offense is swimming for three hours. Second offense is laceration with thorns;

Rule 4 - Respect the dead, do not disturb their graves and burial places. First offense is exposure to the
ants while subsequent offense is beating to death by means of thorns;

Rule 5 - Contracts shall be faithfully fulfilled. First offense is one hour whipping. Subsequent offense is
one-day exposure to the ants;

Rule 6 - Valuable trees and places that are holy should be respected. Fine for violation should be equal to
one month’s labor and paid in gold or honey. Subsequent offense is the equivalent of five years labor;

Rule 7 - Cutting sacred trees, shooting arrows at old people treacherously, entering the Chiefs’ homes
without permission is punishable by death;

Rule 8 - Setting fire to another’s crops, stealing the wives of Chiefs and owning dogs that bit the Chiefs is
punishable by one year slavery;

Rule 9 - Those who sing at night while on the road, kill the manual bird, destroy the Chief’s records,
deceive others and mock the dead will be beaten for two days;

Rule 10 - Mothers should educate their daughters secretly about sex hygiene to prepare them for
motherhood; Men should be kind to their wives and should not harm them if they are caught in adultery.
Violators will be cut to pieces or thrown to the crocodiles;

Rule 11 - Those who escape and evade punishment, kill young children and steal the wives of old men
will be burned alive;

Rule 12 - Slaves who attack their masters or the chiefs, masturbates, or destroy their anitos will be
drowned;
Page 4 of 24

Rule 13 - Those who steal from the Chiefs or old men will be exposed to the ants for half a day;

Rule 14 - Those who refuse to marry their daughters to the sons of the chiefs will be slaved for life;

Rule 15 - Those who kill the young of the manual birds or white monkeys will be beaten;

Rule 16 - Those who break the idols on their altars and temples, destroy the daggers used by the
priestesses for killing sacrificial pigs or break their wine vessels will have their fingers cut off;

Rule 17 - Those who destroy the altars and temples and urinates or defecates in these sacred places will
die; ad

Rule 18 - Chiefs who disobey any of these rules will be stoned or crushed to death while old men who
disobey will be fed to the sharks or crocodiles.

Although our own brand of justice even if adjudged as backward and primitive contains basic
characteristics that respects the old people, women and motherhood and prohibits immoral acts such as
masturbation or self-gratification that is being lobbied hard by the international gay rights and decadent
feminist movement ethanating from the West to become an accepted practice. The Kalantiaw Code also
shows a strong respect for a God, the dead and even the environment with each rule on the protection of
valuable trees, the manual birds and white monkeys.

Our primitive laws also contain traces of Restorative Justice especially those from the tribes of the
Cordilleras in Northern Luzon, which have their own brand of justice termed by some as the sipat. These
continue to exist today in many remote areas of the country. In fact, when Father Conrado Balweg, the
priest who turned rebel during the Martial Law years in the 1970s and 1980s surrendered to the
government and formed the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army, one of his group’s demands is for the
Philippine government to recognize the “BODONG” which is some kind of a court to settle tribal and even
individual people’s conflicts.

From just these reasons, it can already be deduced with a considerable degree of certainty that
justice and, therefore, criminal justice and punishments which are more humane, compassionate and
more civilized have been existing in this country since the dawn of its history long before the coming of
the Spanish colonialists.

Upon the colonization and subjugation of this country by the Spaniards beginning in 1521, they
imposed their own brand of justice and gradually their system of laws become the law in the different
parts of the country they come to occupy. The royal decrees, orders and ordinances were applied in the
colony and from time to time the King of Spain issued additional laws, rules and regulations. These were
eventually incorporated to become the Recopelacion de las Leyes de India,” a rough translation of which
runs like Recompilation of the Laws of the Indies.”

This Recompilation Laws were in effect until 1887 when the Spanish Penal Code enacted seventeen
years before in 1870 were decreed for implementation in the country upon the recommendation of the
Committee for Overseas Provinces (Provincias de Ultramar) with some minor amendments to suit local
conditions. This code prepared and recommended by the Committee for Overseas Provinces should have
been in effect on September 4, 1884 or three years earlier by virtue of a Royal Decree of the Spanish
Crown but its implementation was held in abeyance owing to the opposition of the Spanish Governor
General in the Philippines. Owing to these objections, the Spanish King issued a follow-up Royal Decree
on December 17, 1886 ordering the implementation of the code. On March 13, 1887, the code finally
became enforceable in the Philippine Islands together with the “Ley Engiciamiento Criminal” and another
Royal Decree, the “Legislacion Ultramarina.”

Prisoners were confined in jails located in the “Comandancias” which exist in practically every
province and major towns or cities where the Spanish colonizers exercise strong control. Comandancias
are the equivalent of today’s police stations or precincts while the laws are enforced by the “Guardia Civil”
equivalent of today’s police.

The first penal institution in the country, whose scope is a national penitentiary in nature, was
established even before the effectivity of the Spanish Penal Code and while the Recompilation Laws were
still the existing law of the islands. This prison facility is the Bilibid Prison, which was constructed
sometime in the year 1847 in the Bilibid district of the city of Manila from where it derived its name. This is
located at the back of what is today, the Central Market along Quezon Boulevard.
Page 5 of 24

But while the Bilibid Prison was already in operation since 1847., it was only recognized and formally
designated as an insular penitentiary through a Royal Decree issued some eighteen years later in 1865.

The physical lay-out of the Bilibid Prison was constructed in conformity with the dominant concept of
criminology existing in Europe during those times; custody, security and confinement of prisoners. As
such, the cells were constructed in a radial shape similar to the spoke of a wheel. A central, commanding
tower was erected at the center of the spokes for easy control of prisoners especially in times of tumult or
disturbances such as riots. In this tower, the Officer of the Day exercises command and supervision of the
facility.

The buildings, which were referred to, as “Brigadas” are made of very strong adobe stones.
Incidentally, the term brigada continue to be used in prisons even until today. These brigades are so
sturdy that they have withstood the ravages of time and even the bombings perpetrated by the Americans
during their reoccupation of the Philippines from the Japanese Imperial Forces. Incidentally, the bombings
done by the Americans on Manila was second only to Warsaw, Poland in the entire world in the extent of
its devastation. Yet, the Bilibid Prison continued to exist to this day in full defiance of the earthshaking
brutal conflicts it has undergone. In fact, this historical landmark is still being used as jail by the City of
Manila.

Twenty-two years after the establishment of the Bilibid Insular Penitentiary, the San Ramon Prison
and Penal Farm followed in 1869. This prison and penal farm was constructed near the southern tip of
Zamboanga peninsula nearby what is now Zamboanga City and originally intended for the confinement of
convicted Moro “insurrectos” fighting subjugation by the Spanish “conquistadors.” The Zamboanga
peninsula was also a banishment site for political non-conformists coming from Luzon and the Visayas.
This is the reason why our own national hero, Dr. Jose P. Rizal who fought for reforms, which the island
colonial authorities found objectionable and subversive to their tastes, was exiled in Dapitan.

In those days, insurgents who were not killed by the Spanish forces were either exiled to Guam or
the Marianas Islands in the middle of the Pacific Ocean which happened to be Spanish colonies too, or in
Zamboanga peninsula. However, Moro insurgents, whose lives were spared by the Spanish authorities
for some reason or another, cannot be incarcerated here considering the proximity of the place to their
homeland. So they were either sent to Guam or the Marianas.

But rather than banishing them to these far-flung Spanish colonies in the middle of the Pacific Ocean,
where sea transportation is rare and hard and highly vulnerable to Moro marauding attacks, not to
mention the rough seas, the Spanish authorities eventually found it more advisable and convenient to
construct a penal facility nearby and confine these Moro rebels there. As a countervailing measure to the
presence of Moro insurgents in the vicinities, they simply strengthened security.

San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm was named in memory of its founder, Ramon Blanco, a Spanish
captain in the Royal Army. It was closed during the Spanish-American War of 1898 but reopened in 1904
after the victorious Americans grabbed possession of the Philippines from Spain and the Americans have
established control over this new colony of theirs. This penal prison and farm has an aggregate area of
1,524.6 hectares and was made productive through the blood, sweat and tears of confined prisoners who
passed the portals of this penal institution in the course of our country’s march in history.

Today, the principal product of the San Ramon Prison is copra. which is one of the biggest sources
of income of the Bureau of Prisons. It also raises rice, corn, coffee, cattle and livestock. Presently, it
houses maximum, medium and minimum-security prisoners. It now also accepts convicts who were
directly committed by the courts in the area to this prison but are later sent to the Reception and
Diagnostic Center in the Central Office in Camp Sampaguita in Muntinlupa City for study and diagnosis.

The founder of the Kagalanggalangang Kataastaasang Katipunan ng mga Anak ng Bayan or

Katipunan, Andres Bonifacio, elected Don Severino de las Alas as the country’s first Minister of Justice
during the convening of the Magdiwang government at Naic, Cavite. When Philippine Independence was
proclaimed at the balcony of Emilio Aguinaldo’s residence in Kawit, Cavite on September 26, 1898, his
first acts was to issue a decree reorganizing the government. Gregorio Araneta was appointed as the new
Secretary of Justice following this reorganization.

The department underwent numerous changes. In 1899, the American occupation forces renamed it
as the Office of the Attorney of the Supreme Court. Then another reorganization by the Americans
followed in 1901 and it was renamed Office of the Attorney General under the reorganized Department of
Page 6 of 24

Finance and Justice. In 1903, the American Army created the Bureau of Prisons under the Department of
Commerce and Police. In 1916, it was- again reestablished as Department of Justice and assigned to
exercise administrative supervision over all courts in the country inferior to the Supreme Court, continuing
to function as such when the 1935 Philippine Constitution went into force under the Philippine
Commonwealth.

In 1924, Commonwealth Act No. 3203 established the Reformatory for Boys and Girls.

When the Japanese Imperial Forces came to wrest control of the country from American occupation
hands, they transformed the Justice Department into a Commission. They remade the Commission into a
Ministry.

The Department of Justice was again reestablished in 1947 persisting until 1973 when the Marcos
Martial Law regime adopting the parliamentary system of government turned it into a ministry. But aside
from a change of name from a department to a ministry, Marcos also divested it of its supervisory function
over the lower courts transferring such function to the Supreme Court.

When the Filipino people of the 1987 Constitution restored the Presidential form of government
upon the ratification, the ministry was again reverted to a Department. But while this agency of
government under whose wings the Bureau of Prisons operate, the changes did not all considerably
affect corrections in the country.

The Department of Justice today has nine agencies of which three are involved in corrections work
both institutional and community-based. These agencies are: the Bureau of Corrections or BuCor, the
Board of Pardons and Parole and the Probation and Parole Administration.

In 1904, another penal colony was established in Iwahig, Palawan on the orders of Governor
Forbes, then the incumbent Secretary of Commerce and Police. The establishment of this penal facility
was made on the suggestion of Governor Luke E. Wright who felt the need for an institution designed for
incorrigible offenders. An American construction foreman left Bilibid on November 16, 1904 with sixteen
prisoners and sailed for Palawan to start building the colony thereat. However, this contingent turned
against their custodians, hogtied their Superintendent and the short-lived revolt was quelled with the
timely arrival of Philippine Scout reinforcements from Puerto Princesa, the provincial capital.

In November 1, 1905 Reorganization Act 1407 was passed into law mandating the Philippine
Commission to create the Bureau of Prisons under the Department of Commerce and Police. Later,
jurisdiction was assigned to the Department of Public Instruction, the predecessor of the Department of
Education. Finally it nestled under the wings of the Department of Justice to which it belongs till the
present time.

One of the first acts of the Bureau upon its creation is to reverse the status of Iwahig Penal Colony
as a destination for maximum-security incorrigible prisoners. Instead, convicts who were well behaved
and pliable were assigned to this Facility. The reason of the authorities then is to convert 38,611 hectares
of fertile virgin lands into production areas for revenue and as a means to prisoner rehabilitation.

By the Act of 1905 the Bureau of Prison was created under the Department of Commerce and
Police. Later, it was transferred under the Department of Public Instruction and finally under the
Department of Justice.

Today, this penal institution is considered as one of the most open penal institutions in the world. It
was from this facility that the term “Prison Without Walls” had its beginnings. Iwahig is divided into four
sub-colonies for a more practical consideration of easier administration and management. These sub-
colonies are Santa Lucia, Inagawan, Montible and Central. Each sub-colony operates as an autonomous
institution under the management of a penal supervisor.

Iwahig Penal Colony, owing to its vast landholdings allocated 1,000 hectares, which was distributed
to release inmates who no longer had any desire to return to their original homes and who instead want to
settle for good in Palawan. This is the Tagumpay Settlement, which infers a successful rehabilitation and
return of prisoners to the mainstream society. Each released prisoner awardee is given a six- hectare
farm lots as homestead.

On November 27, 1929, Republic Act 3579 was passed into lawn establishing the Correctional
Institution for Women. This penal institution for women was constructed on an I8-hectare piece of land in
Page 7 of 24

what is now Mandaluyong City. Before the establishment of this institution, women prisoners were
confined in portion of the Bilibid Prison, in 1934, the position of Female Superintendent was created to
superintend the operations of this penal facility. Today, the institute is run entirely by female personnel
with the exception of the perimeter guards who are male,

Another prison facility was established in 1941 in what is now Muntinlupa City at the outskirt of
Metro Manila in its boundary with the province of Laguna. This prison establishment was constructed by
virtue of Proclamation 414 in 1931 as an enabling order to Commonwealth Act No. 3732. These official
edicts were also the official basis for the opening of the Davao Penal Colony in the island of Mindanao.

The prison authorities at the time were compelled to move away from the Old Bilibid site because of
the inevitable development of the area for commercial purposes. Bilibid was in the immediate vicinity of
Quiapo and Santa Cruz districts, which were the principal trading and commercial center of the country in
those days. Economic growth and construction activities rendered the Bilibid Prison to be fast becoming
out of place in its present site and in its role as the national penitentiary.

In addition, the Bilibid Prison in Manila has become overcrowded due to the considerable increase
in prison population happening continuously.

The place where the Bilibid Prison was relocated is a 552 hectare Muntinlupa estate owned by the
City of Manila. This site was previously acquired by the city to become the site for its Boys Training
School. But because the site is far from Manila, the city gladly exchanged their Muntinlupa property to the
Bilibid facilities when the Bilibid Prisons was looking for a relocation site. This was in 1936 and
construction started immediately thereafter.

The actual transfer of the prison was effected in 1941. It became the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) while
the one left behind in Manila was renamed the Old Bilibid Prison to avoid confusion and became the site
of the Manila City Jail until this day. Shortly before the outbreak of World War II in the Philippines, all the
prisoners at the Old Bilibid were transferred to the NBP on the recommendation of the cabinet. Prison
labor was the main work force in the construction of the facility.

During the war, the Japanese imperial forces used the NBP to confine suspected guerillas and anti-
Japanese Filipinos as well as American prisoners of war. The Japanese forces also installed anti-aircraft
battery positions atop the hills OF the prison reservation. Probably, the Japanese military thinking is that
the United States warplanes will not retaliate at these positions because of the presence of American
prisoners of war confined in this facility.

When Manila was reoccupied by Filipino and American troops, the victors continued to use the
facilities of the NBP to camp freed American prisoners of war to recuperate from their injuries and
illnesses.. NBP also used by the American forces as confinement facility for Japanese war collaborators.
Then at the height of the Huk rebellion after the war that intensified because of the American government
refusal to give the promised back pays to the partisans of the HUKBALAHAPs.

The Americans took the advised of the Filipino elite who also own vast landholdings not to recognize
the Huks because they were fighting for agrarian reform which is detrimental to the vested interests of the
elite “balimbings” who were pro-Japanese and anti-Americans now became anti-Japanese and pro-
Americans when the US returned to the country.

Naturally, the Huks who were the most active guerilla units who fought the Japanese Imperial Forces
during the war did not take this lying down. They were furious at such betrayal and non-compliance of the
US on their promise to pay back wages so they resumed their resistance. With this development, NBP
was used as incarceration facility for arrested Huks. At this point in time, the NBP became the place of
confinements for both anti-American, pro-Japanese collaborators as well as anti- American, anti-
Japanese Huk partisans.

The NBP compound houses maximum-security convicts including the death row, the electric chair
chamber when it was still in use and now the lethal injection chamber. It is considered as one of the
biggest prisons in the world in terms of the number of inmate population. The central offices of the Bureau
of Corrections are also housed here. Eventually, it became the National Penitentiary.

The NBP, therefore, can be seen from a historical perspective that it played a sensitive role in every
ebb and flow of the country’s historical tide. It is here where partisans in the changing political fortunes,
Page 8 of 24

both heroes and heels were imprisoned. Pro-Americans were imprisoned during the Japanese times.
Then, pro-Japanese Filipinos came their turn when the Americans returned. Then the next wave of
political prisoners was the Anti-American Huks. NBPs history is truly colorful and fascinating.

Outside the compound and within the reservation, three other satellite prisons are situated. These
are the minimum-security camp called Camp Bukang Liwayway, the name implying the coming release of
prisoners destined here. The second camp is Camp Sampaguita, which houses medium security
prisoners. The Youth Rehabilitation Center for juvenile offenders is also situated here. And the third
facility is the Reception and Diagnostic Center that receives newly committed prisoners coming mainly
from the jails nationwide except those committed by courts within the jurisdiction of the two Zamboanga
provinces, Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi. Sentenced prisoners coming from these provinces are directly
committed to the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm. A skeletal! Reception and Diagnostic Office is
available in this penal facility for the formulation of the treatment program of committed prisoners.

The Davao Penal Colony was established at almost the same time and under the same authority
that the New Bilibid Prison was established in January 21, 1932 by virtue of Republic Act No. 3732 and
Proclamation No. 414, series of k93 1. Retired General Paulino Santos, the incumbent Prisons Director at
the time led the first contingent of prisoners that opened the colony that covers an area of about 18,000
hectares.

During World War II, the Japanese Imperial Forces as internment and concentration camp used the
colony for captured American prisoners of war. The Japanese transferred the prisoners who were
destined here to the inagawan sub-colony of Iwahig Penal Colony. Before the Japanese left the facility
due to the return of the Americans, they destroyed all its buildings, machineries and industries. By August
1946, however, the colony was able to re-establish its pre-war status.

At present, the Davao Penal Colony houses medium and minimum-security prisoners. They work in
the open fields escorted by the colony custodial force. It has become the largest source of revenue for the
Bureau of Prisons producing abaca, banana, rice, kenaf, copra, cattle and other farm products. It is now
the biggest abaca plantation in the country. But aside from abaca, it is also a major banana producer
having secured a joint venture agreement with Tagum Development Company in a 3,000-hectare banana
plantation. These banana products are exported to Japan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and many other countries.
If fully utilized, its landholdings can meet the needs of the whole inmate population of the Bureau of
Corrections.

Davao Penal Colony has two sub-colonies; the Panabo sub-colony and the Kapalong sub-colony
with each under a penal supervisor. Like Iwahig Penal Colony, Davao has also a settlement site for
released prisoners who no longer wish to return to their homes but choose to remain in Davao as
homesteaders. This settlement area is called Tanglaw Settlement.

The next penal facility to be constructed is the Reception and Diagnostic Center, which was
established in 1953 by virtue of Administrative Order No. ii issued by the Secretary of Justice. The center
was established to enable the Bureau of Corrections to conduct a more effective rehabilitation of
prisoners committed to the Bureau’s care through a more scientific study and diagnoses of each and
every prisoner committed to the Bureau.

A year later, on September 27, 1954, the President of the Philippines issued Proclamation No. 72
allocating 16,000 hectares of land in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro for the setting up of another penal
colony. The Sablayan Penal Colony and Farm was established to met the increasing population of
prisoners that is already causing serious congestion. In those times, the New Bilibid Prison that was
supposed to confine only 3,000 had a population more than twice that capacity.

The first contingent of prison personnel and prisoners were drawn from the Iwahig Penal Colony.
The penal colony is designed for minimum-security prisoners and after conducting the surveys; the actual
area of the land allocated by the President has become 16,408.5 hectares. The principal activity here as
in any penal colony of the country is agriculture and rice is the main product that is not only used by the
inmate of the colony but also supplying some of the rice needs of the New Bilibid Prison.

Another unique facility to be built by the Bureau is the Manila Office, which was originally a holding
facility for prisoners working as orderlies in the different offices of the Department of Justice at Padre
Faura, Manila. It was converted to a regular penal institution following the riots in the New Bilibid Prison in
1958. The hardwood shop of the Prison Industries Office was pinpointed as the source of deadly
Page 9 of 24

weapons used by the rioting prisoners. As a consequence, the hardwood shop was transferred to the
Manila Office to cut the source of weapons in the New Bilibid.

The last penal facility to be built by the Bureau of Prisons is the Leyte Regional Prison in Abuyog,
Leyte. This was established in January 16, 1973 on the orders issued under Martial Law by President
Ferdinand E. Marcos.

On the other hand, the Provincial Jail System was first established in 1910 under the American
regime. Each province of the country has been mandated by the American colonizers to establish their
own provincial jails to be under their own supervision and control.

The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology was created pursuant to Republic Act 6975 signed
on December 13, 1990 and became known as the DILG Act of 1990.

Another landmark legislation regarding corrections is the one pertaining to youth offenders. On
December 10, 1974, Presidential Decree No. 603 otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code
of 1974 was promulgated. This code became the Magna Carta for Children and was the first in the entire
ASEAN region.

Before P.D. 603 went into effect, however, there is already a long existing law covering the
probationary treatment of juveniles in conflict with the law. This is Commonwealth Act No. 3203 that went
into effect’ on December 3, 1924. This is the first youth offender’s law of the land. This law established the
Welfare Institutions, which took responsibility of taking charge of all government child-caring institutions,
Home for the Aged and Infirm as well as the Philippine Training School for Boys. They were put under the
supervision of the Office of Public Welfare Commission.

All these facilities were centralized and located at what was known as Welfareville in
Mandaluyong, which was still then part of the province of Rizal. Welfareville was a fifty-hectare land with
forty- (40) buildings. Five of the buildings were for orphanages of different types of orphaned children,
homes for the homeless, neglected, displaced and abandoned boys picked up by the police, the
Philippine Training School for Boys and the Philippine Training School for Girls which serve for
confinement institution for youths in conflict with the laws; and a home for the aged and infirm.

In 1948, the United Nations International Children’s Educational Fund or UNICEF conducted a
study on the institutions at Welfareville and concluded that the facilities were inadequate, insufficient and
equipment poor and the cause over-centralization. The study recommended the decentralization of the
institution and transfer to another site.

On November 29, 1969 the Philippine Training School for Boys was transferred to Sampaloc,
Tanay, Rizal where it continues to stay to this day. It was named Vicente Madrigal Rehabilitation Center
(VMRC) in honor of the one who donated the land. Eventually, however, it returned to its old official name,
the National Training School for Boys.

On the other hand, the Philippine Training School for Girls transferred to Alabang, which became
the Marillao Hills up to this day. However, in view of the increased incidence of child abuse and
exploitation, Marillao Hills now only has a cottage for youthful offenders.

Another agency that has a role to play in Corrections is the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). A brief
history of the PAO is lifted from its 30th Anniversary Program.

Benefits and Advantages of Probation

Advantages of Probation

Probation is more advantageous than imprisonment. In Probation, the person is spared the
degrading, embittering and disabling experience of imprisonment, which might only confirm them in
criminal ways. On the other hand, the offender continue to work in his place of employment. Family ties
remain intact, thus preventing many broken home. Also, Probation is less expensive which is only one
tenth as costly as imprisonment. To the extent that probation is being used today about 60% of convicted
offenders are given probation this type of sentencing therefore, will greatly relieve prison congestion.
Page 10 of 24

Who are disqualified for Probation?

1. Those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more then six (6) years;
2. Those convicted of subversion or any crime against National Security or the Public Order;
3. Those who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of not less than one month and one day and/or fine of not less than Two Hundred
Pesos (P200.00);
4. Those who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
5. Those who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of the Probation
law became applicable.

Linkages of Probation with Agencies of the Criminal Justice System

THE PUBLIC ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (PAO)

A BRIEF HISTORY

The PAO came into being in response to the challenge for a government agency for the
advancement and protection of legal rights of the less privileged sector of our society as enshrined in the
Philippine Constitution.

The seed, as it were, of the PAO was planted on August 20, 1954, when Republic Act No. 1199
created the Agricultural Tenancy Commission, which was later, renamed as Tenancy Mediation
Commission (TMC). With the passage on August 8, 1963 of R.A. No. 3844, otherwise known as the
“Agricultural Land Reform Code”, TMC was further strengthened and renamed as the Office of the
Agrarian Counsel (OTAC).

However, the economic and social changes that occurred since then as well as the demands of
the time, invariably blew the winds of public clamor for a more accessible legal service to our people, thus
necessitating an expansion of agrarian related assistance provided by OTAC to include civil, criminal,
administrative, and labor cases. This paved the way for the creation of Citizen’s Legal Assistance Office.
(CLAO) under P.D. No. 1 and Implementation Order No. 4, dated October 23, 1972. The CLAO started
out with a work force of 94 lawyers and an organizational set-up, which had 10 regional and 26 district
offices.

With the advent of the Administrative Code of 1987 (E.O. 292) on July 25, 1987, the CLAO was
renamed Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). The change being merely nominal, the mandate remained the
same, that is to extend legal assistance free of charge to indigent persons in civil, criminal, administrative,
and labor cases.

Since its creation, the growth of the PAO was quiet and steady with 16 regional offices, 251
district offices, and 5 sub-district offices in existence at the end of the year 2001. There is also a rapid
increase in the number of civil and criminal cases handled annually by the PAO, from approximately
169,205 in 1992 to over 408,145 in 2001. It was able to serve a total of 5,400,637 clients for the whole
year of 2001, through its rendition of free legal services which include judicial and non-judicial services,
mediation and counseling, jail visitation, inquest assistance, documentation, legal advice and on-air
counseling. This swelling workload underscores the fact that there is a demand for free legal services
from the indigent sector of the Philippines that must be met if we would safeguard our kind of society.
Keeping pace with this daunting task is an actual work force of 940 lawyers and 760 support staff
nationwide.

From January 2001 to September 2002, the PAO field lawyers have won 2,694 cases before the
lower courts and other quasi-judicial and administrative bodies by way of acquittals and favorable
judgment] decision in civil cases. The Special and Appealed Cases Division (SACD), PAO-Central Office,
was able to obtain 107 reduction of penalty from death to life from January 2001 to July 2002. It was also
able to obtain 14 acquittals in the appealed cases of those accused who were sentenced to death by the
lower courts.

No less than the UNICEF and the British Embassy have recognized the vital role the PAO plays
in the justice system that they have magnanimously shared their resources to finance
seminars/workshops to further hone the skills of its lawyers. The World Bank and UNDP, has already
signified its willingness to support trainings and seminars for PAO lawyers and possible assistance and
donation of equipment.
Page 11 of 24

The Supreme Court, PHILJA and MCLE Committee, in recognition of its mandate of providing
free legal services to poor Filipinos, accredited the PAO as a Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
(MCLE) provider as of August 5, 2002, thereby allowing the PAO to conduct its own trainings and
seminars for its lawyers.

Truly, the PAO has become more accessible to the indigent Filipino masses who are in dire need
of legal assistance arid services. It has become an institution on its own when it comes to providing free
legal assistance to the whole nation.

The PAO past leadership who all contributed to its growth and expansion since its creation thirty
(30) years ago, were as follows: Attys. Oscar M. Ontimare (CLAO), Reynold S. Fajardo, Josefina G Bacal
and Carina J. Demaisip.

Today, the Chief Public Attorney is Hon. Persida V. Rueda-Acosta, who is in the forefront of
continuing its mandate of providing free legal services to the poor. She catapulted the PAO to greater
heights in the delivery of its legal services through several assigned high-profile and celebrated cases
such as: the May 1, 2001 Rebellion Case, the former Philippine President Estrada Case, and the latest is
the “Angelica” Rape Case.

MISSION

In order to focus its functions, the PAO set its sight on this Mission: to provide the indigent litigants
free access to courts, judicial and quasi-judicial, by rendering legal assistance. This is in consonance with
the Philippine Constitution, which mandates that “free access to courts shall not be denied to any person
by reason of poverty (Sec. 11, Art. 3, 1987 Philippine Constitution.)

VISION

Its Vision is to be God-centered and be a dynamic organization that is responsive to the ever-
growing legal needs of the indigents led by highly competent, world-class, development oriented and
nationalistic leaders.

In support of its Mission and Vision, the PAO adheres to the following objectives and thrust:

To provide the indigent clients with free legal services;

To provide the low-income and indigent sector access to counsel at the time of need; and

To implement the constitutional guarantee of free access to courts, due process and equal protection of
the law and rights of a person under investigation for the commission of an offense.

SERVICES AND SPECIAL PROJECTS OFFERED

1. Representation of indigents in judicial and quasi-judicial cases. The following are considered indigent:

Those residing in Metro Manila, whose family income doesnot exceed P14, 000 a month;

Those residing in other cities whose family income does not exceed P13, 000 a month; and

Those residing in other places whose family income do not exceed P12, 000 a month.

2. Rendition of non-judicial services like mediation, conciliation, counseling, administration of oaths and
documentation services to meet the legal aid needs of indigent persons.

3. Conduct of legal outreach activities such as:

a) Custodial Interrogation and Inquest Investigation. Lawyers are assigned to specific major police
precincts to provide suspects access to counsel if they do not have a lawyer of their own choice.

b) Jail Visitation. Every District Public Attorney should ensure that jails within their territorial jurisdiction
are visited at least once a month.

c) Barangay Outreach Program. The main thrust of this program is to provide a more accessible free legal
to the poverty-stricken Filipinos residing in barangays nationwide.
Page 12 of 24

d) Media Linkage- information dissemination campaigns in coordination with the print and broadcast
media for legal counseling on the air and to improve the legal literacy of the citizenry.

e) KALAHI Program - The PAO sends Public Attorneys and staff to provide legal assistance in the
depressed areas in Metro Manila and other places nationwide together with other departments/agencies
of the government. This is the Arroyo Administration’s main thrust in helping the poor of the country.

Legal assistance is extended by virtue of agreements entered into with other government offices,
directives from the Department of Justice, and special laws. The following are qualified for services of the

PAO:

1. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) lawyers against whom criminal and administrative complaints
have been filed for acts committed in connection with the performance of their duties;

2. Farmer-beneficiaries of the Agrarian Reform Law:

a) in agrarian-related civil or criminal cases pending before the courts, and

b) in cases pending before the court or the DARAB against fellow beneficiaries where one of the parties is
already represented by a lawyer from the Department of Agrarian Reform;

3. Indigent laborers in meritorious labor cases;

4. Indigent aliens;

5. Qualified overseas contract workers in all cases within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
POEA;

6. Barangay health workers; and

7. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) in the filing of petitions for the declaration
that a child is abandoned or neglected.

Republic Act 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966 mandated the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM) to formulate a National Crime Prevention Program. In compliance with this
mandate, the NAPOLCOM created an Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention (IDCCP) in 1974
to draft the National Crime Prevention Program. The IDCCP in turn, utilized for the first time, the five-pillar
approach in crime prevention. On July 22-24, 1976, the First National Conference on a Strategy to
Reduce Crime was held. Eventually, the IDCCP evolved into the Technical Committee on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice and this was entrenched in the law with the enactment of Republic Act
6975 otherwise known as the Philippine National Police Act which underscored the pivotal role of the
NAPOLCOM in coming up with an annual crime prevention program within sixty (60) days of every
calendar year to be submitted to the President and both houses of Congress through the Secretary of the
DILG

One of the priority action programs of the First National Conference on a Strategy to Reduce Crime
in 1976 was the establishment of Criminal Justice System Coordinating Council. This Council, in turn,
evolved at the local level to become the Peace and Order Councils (POC), which was formalized on
September 10, 1976 under Executive Order No. 727. This Peace and Order Council has its origin in the
Police Advisory Council of Bacolod City in the mid-sixties. The POC is the embodiment of the five pillars
of the Criminal Justice System at the local level. In November 1987, the POC was reorganized under
Executive Order No. 309 and undergone two amendments a year later under Executive Orders 317 and
320 and then again in 1992 under Executive Orders No. 3 and 20. All these amendments were being
done to meet the highly changing conditions and worsening crime problem.

As a way to strengthen the community pillar of the criminal justice system, the government issued
Presidential Decree 1508 in 1978 establishing the Barangay Court System or Katarungan Pambarangay.
This system is but a return to the pre-Spanish, traditional method of compulsory arbitration, mediation and
reconciliation by the community to conflicting parties.

Another, mechanism adapted by the government in its quest to quell the worsening problem of
criminality is the creation of the Law Enforcement Coordinating Council (LECC), which was created in
Page 13 of 24

1982 under Executive Order No. 829. Ten years later in 1992, the LECC was reorganized with a view to
strengthening it under Executive Order No.41.

The seeds of the probation system in the country came in August 1971 when the Philippine Government
requested the services of Dr.Torsten Eriksson, UN Interregional Adviser on Social Defense to make a
study of the social defense plans and programs in the Philippines. Among the recommendations
forwarded by Dr. Eriksson is the strengthening of the criminal justice system and adoption of the
probation system in dealing with convicted offenders

Probation for adult offenders in the Philippines started in 1976 through Presidential Decree 968.
Adult probation can be availed of only once, and usually by first time offenders, for penalties of
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) years except political crimes such as rebellion, subversion, sedition
and others. Probation is considered a privilege, not a right. Thus, an offender has to apply for it before the
court upon his conviction and it would depend on the discretion of the Judge is such privilege will be
granted to the probation applicant.

Probation was first implemented in the country during the Commonwealth period when the
Philippine Assembly enacted Act No. 4221 otherwise known as the Probation Act. It is extended to first
time offenders 18 years old and above. After only about two years of operation, however, the law was
abolished for having been classified as class legislation and declared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court. What was been seen by the highest court of the land as unlawful is the provision that probation
shall be operable only in cities and municipalities which are given appropriation for said purpose by
Congress.

The Board of Pardons and Parole was established in 1933 in compliance with Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provided among others, the creation of a
Board of Indeterminate Sentence. It was later renamed as Board of Pardons in 1937 by virtue of
Executive Order No. §, series of 1937, which tasked the Board to become the adviser of the President on
matters pertaining to the course or courses of actions to take on petitions for executive clemency. Then
the Board was again renamed to the Board of Pardons and Parole on October 4, 1947 under Executive
Order No. 94, otherwise known as the Reorganization Law of 1947. Again on June 19, 1965, Act No.
4103 was amended by R.A. 4203, which provided the qualification, term of office, composition and
compensation of members of the Board.

The Adult Probation Law and Other Probation Laws

Presidential Decree No. 968, As Amended
Goal and Purposes of Probation

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968

ESTABLISHING A PROBATION SYSTEM,

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

WHEREAS, one of the major goals of the government is to establish a more enlightened and
humane correctional system that will promote the reformation of offenders and thereby reduce the
incidence of recidivism;

WHEREAS, the confinement of all offenders in prisons and other institutions with rehabilitation
programs constitutes a onerous drain on the financial resources of the country; and

WHEREAS, there is need to provide a less costly alternative to the imprisonment of offenders
who are likely to respond to individualized, community-based treatment programs;

Purpose. - This decree shall be interpreted so as to:

Page 14 of 24

(a) promote the correction and rehabilitation of an offender by providing him with individualized]
treatment;
(b) provide an opportunity for the reformation of a penitent offender which might be less probable if
he were to serve a prison sentence; and prevent the commission of offenses.

Meaning of Terms. - As used in this decree; the following shall, unless the context otherwise
requires, be construed thus:

(a) “Probation” is a disposition, under which a defendant, after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to condition imposed by the court and to supervision of a probation officer,
(b) “Probationer” means a person placed on probation,
(c) “Probation Officer” means one, who investigates for the court a referral for probation or
supervises a probationer or both,

Grant of Probation. - Subject to the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have
convicted and sentenced a defendant, and upon application by said defendant within the period for
perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for
such period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best; provided, That, no application for
probation shall be entertained or granted if the dependant has perfected an appeal from the judgment of
conviction.

Probation may be granted whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. An
application for probation shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal able.

An order granting or denying probation shall not be appeal

Post-Sentence Investigation. - no person shall be placed on probation except upon prior

investigation by the probation officer and a determination by the court that the ends of justice and the best
interest of the public as well as that of the defendant will be served thereby.

Form of Investigation Report. – the Investigation report to be submitted by the probation officer
under Section 5 hereof shall be in the form prescribed by the Probation Administrator and approved by
the Secretary of Justice.

Period for Submission of Investigation Report. - The probation officer shall submit to the court the
investigation report on a defendant not later than sixty days from receipt of the order of said court to
conduct the investigation. The court shall resolve the application fir probation not later than fifteen days
after receipt if said report.

Pending submission of the investigation and the resolution of petition, the defendant may be allowed
on temporary liberty under his bailed filed in the criminal case; Provided, that in case where no bail filed in
the criminal case; Provided, That, in case where no bail was filed or that the defendant is incapable of
filing one, the court may allow the release of the defendant on recognizance to the custody of a
responsible member of the community who shall guarantee his appearance whenever required by the
court.

Criteria for Placing an Offender on Probation. - In determining whether an offender may be placed
on probation, the courts shall consider all information relative to the character antecedents, environment,
Page 15 of 24

mental and physical condition of the offender and available institutional and community resources.
Probation shall be denied if the court finds that:

(a) the offender is in need of correctional treatment that can be provided most effectively by his
commitment to an institution;
(b) there is an undue risk that during the period of probation, the offender will commit another
crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of the offense committed.

Disqualified Offenders. - The benefits of this Decree shall not be extended to those:

(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
(b) convicted of subversion or any crime against national security or the public order;
(c) who have previously been convicted by final judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment
of not less than one month and one day and/or fine of not less than Two Hundred Pesos
(P200.00);
(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this Decree; and
(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive provisions of this Decree became
applicable pursuant to Sec. 33 hereof.

Conditions of Probation. - Every probation order issued by the court shall contain conditions requiring
that the probationer shall;

(a) present himself to the probation officer designated to undertake his supervision at such place as
may be specified in the order within seventy two (72) hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least once a month at such time and place as specified by said
officer.
The court may also require the probationer to:

(a) cooperate with a program of supervision;

(b) meet his family responsibilities;
(c) devote himself to specific employment and not to change said employment without the prior
written approval of the probation officer;
(d) undergo medical, psychological or psychiatric examination and treatment and enter and remain
in a specified institution, when required for that purpose;
(e) pursue a prescribed secular study or vocational training;
(f) attend or reside in a facility established for instruction, recreation or residence of persons on
probation;
(g) refrain from visiting houses of ill-repute;
(h) abstain from drinking intoxicating beverages to excess;
(i) permit the probation officer or an authorized social worker to visit his home and place of work;
(j) reside at premises approved by it and not to change his residence without its prior written
approval; or
(k) satisfy any other conditions related to the rehabilitation of the defendant and not unduly
restrictive of his liberty or incompatible with his freedom of conscience.

Effectivity of Probation Order. - a probation order shall take effect upon its issuance, at
which time the court shall inform the offender of the consequence thereat and explain that upon his
Page 16 of 24

failure to comply with any of the conditions prescribed in the said order or his commission of another
offense, he shall serve the penalty imposed for the offense under which he was placed on probation.

Modification of Conditions of Probation. - During the period of probation, the court may, upon
application of either the probationer or the probation officer, revise or modify the conditions or period of
probation. The court shall notify either the probationer or the probation officer of the filing of such an
application so as to give both parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.

The court shall inform in writing the probation officer and the probationer of any change in the period
or conditions of probation

Control and Supervision of Probationer. - The probationer and his probation program shall be under
the control of the court that placed him on probation subject to actual supervision and visitation by a
probation officer.

Whenever a probationer is permitted to reside in a place under the jurisdiction of another court,
control over him shall be transferred to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of that
place, in such a case, a copy of the probation order, the investigation report and other pertinent
records shall be furnished said Executive Judge. Thereafter, the Executive Judge to whom jurisdiction
over the probationer is transferred shall have the power with respect to him that was previously
possessed by the court, ,which granted the probation.

Violation of Probation Conditions and Arrest of Probationer

Arrest of Probationers: Subsequent

Disposition. - At any time during probation, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a
probationer for any serious violation of the conditions of probation, the probationer, once arrested and
detained, shall immediately be brought before the court for a hearing of the violation charged. The
defendant may be admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such case, the provisions regarding
release on bail of persons charged with a crime shall be applicable to probationers arrested under
this provision.

In the hearing, which shall be summary in nature, the probationer shall have the right to be
informed of the violation charged and to adduce evidence in his favor. The court shall not be bound
by technical rules of evidence but may inform itself of all the facts, which are material and relevant to
ascertain the veracity of the charge. A prosecuting officer in any contested hearing shall represent the
State. If the violation is established, the court may revoke or continue his probation and modify the
conditions thereof. If revoked, the court shall order the probationer to serve the sentence originally
imposed. An order revoking the grant of probation or modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall
not be appeal able.

Termination of Probation. - After the period of probation and upon consideration of the report and
recommendation of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the probationer
upon finding that he has fulfilled terms and conditions of his probation and thereupon, the case is
deemed terminated.
Page 17 of 24

The final discharge of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or
suspended as a result of his conviction and to fully discharge his liability for any fine imposed as to
the offense for which probation was granted.

The probationer and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.

Confidentiality of Records. -The Investigation Reports and the supervision history of a probationer
obtained under this Decree shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed directly and indirectly to anyone
other than the Probation Administration or the court concerned, except that the court, in its discretion,
may permit the probationer or his attorney to inspect the aforementioned documents or parts thereof
whenever he best interest of the probationer makes such disclosure desirable or helpful; Provided,
further, That, any government office or agency engaged in the correction or rehabilitation of offenders
may, if necessary, obtain copies of said documents for its official use from the proper court or the
Administration.

The Probation Administration. - There is hereby created under the Department of Justice an agency to
be known as the Probation Administration herein referred to as the Administration, which shall exercise
general supervision over all probationers.

The Administration shall have such staff, operating units and personnel as may be necessary
for the proper execution of its functions.

Probation Administrator. - The Administration shall be headed by the Probation Administrator,

hereinafter referred to as the Administrator, who shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines.
He shall hold office having good behavior and shall not be removed except for cause.

Powers and duties shall be to:

(a) act as the executive officer of the administration;

(b) exercise supervision and control over all probation officers;
(c) make annual reports to the Secretary of Justice in such form as the latter may prescribe,
concerning the probation, administration and improvement of the probation system;
(d) promulgate subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, the necessary rules relative to the
methods and procedures of the probation process;
(e) recommend to the Secretary of Justice the appointment of the subordinate personnel of his
administration and other offices established in this decree; and
(f) generally, perform such duties and exercise such power as may be necessary or incidental to
achieve the objectives of this Decree.

Assistant Probation Administrator. - There shall be an Assistant Probation Administrator who shall
assist the Administrator and perform such duties as may be assigned to him by the latter and as may be
provided by law, In the absence of the Administrator, he shall act as head of the Administration.

He shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines.

Page 18 of 24

PARDON

Pardon is a form of executive clemency which is exercised by the Chief Executive. It is an act of
grace and the recipient of pardon is not entitled to it as a matter of right. The exercise of pardon is vested
in the Chief Executive, and as such is discretionary and is not subject to review by the courts. Neither
does the Legislative Branch of the Government have the right to establish conditions nor provide
procedures for the exercise of clemency.

History of Pardon.

The exercise of pardoning power has always been vested in the hands of the executive branch of
the government, whether King, Queen, President or Governor. Pardon dates back to the pre-Christian
era. In fact the Bible contains an allusion where a criminal was released and pardoned by the King at the
time Christ was crucified.

In England, pardon developed out of the conflict between the King and the Nobles who
threatened his powers. Pardon was applied to members of the Royal family who committed crimes, and
occasionally to those convicted of offenses against the royal power. It was the general view that the
pardoning power was the exclusive prerogative of the King. In England today the power to extend pardon
is vested in the Queen upon advise of the Minister of the Interior.

In the United States, pardon among the early American colonies was a carry-over of the England
practice. The pardoning power was exercised by the Royal governor through the power delegated by the
King. After the declaration of independence, the federal and state constitutions vested the pardoning
power on the President of the United States and the Governors in federal and state cases, respectively.

In the Philippines, the pardoning power is vested in the President by Article VII, Sec. 10, Par. (b)
of the Philippine Constitution which states:

“The President shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
forfeitures, after conviction for all offenses, except in cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and
with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. He shall have the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly.”

Kinds of Pardon.

As practiced in the Philippines, there are two kinds of pardons, namely the absolute and
conditional pardon.

Absolute Pardon

Absolute pardon is one which is given without any condition attached to it. The purpose of this
kind of pardon are:

a. To do away with the miscarriage of justice

Under the present method of judicial procedure justice is not guaranteed. It is possible to
convict innocent persons as it is possible for criminals to escape the hands of justice. When an
innocent convict has no more recourse through courts, then the remedy is absolute pardon. The
power of the President to pardon offenders on the grounds of innocence is rarely exercised
because the criminal procedures are liberal in granting a new trial in the case of an offender who
can establish his innocence after he has been found guilty. Only when the offender has no more
legal remedy will pardon of this nature be given. If so exercised absolute pardon is granted after
an exhaustive investigation is conducted and upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.

b. To keep abreast with the current philosophy, concept or practice of criminal justice
administration.

A criminal act, because of the changing scheme of social values, may become non-
criminal at a later date. Therefore, persons serving imprisonment at the repeal of the law
abolishing the crime may be extended absolute pardon. For example, a person serving
imprisonment for the black-marketing of gasoline when this commodity was rationed, may after
the repeal of the law on black-marketing be extended absolute pardon.
Page 19 of 24

c. To restore full political and civil rights of persons who have already served their sentence and
have waited the prescribed period.

The greatest number of applications for absolute pardon come from ex-prisoners who
desire to be restored their political and civil rights. In the Philippines, the Office of the President
laid down the policy to grant absolute pardon to ex-prisoners ten years from the date of their
release from prison. Recently, the policy was released, thereby shortening the waiting period to
five years. The waiting period is required to give the offender an opportunity to demonstrate that
he has established a new pattern of conduct.

Effects of Absolute Pardon.

Absolute pardon does not work to restore the right to hold public office or the right of suffrage,
unless such rights are expressly restored by the terms of the pardon. A pardon does not exempt the
offender from the payment of civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence. Absolute pardon totally
extinguishes the criminal liability but not the right of the offended party to enforce the civil liability against
the offender.2

In Cristobal vs. Labrador, et al., 71 Phil. 34, the Supreme Court laid down the doctrine that
absolute pardon removed all that is left of the consequences of conviction, and that is absolute insofar as
it restores the pardonee to full civil and political rights.

In another case, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine laid down in the Cristobal vs. Labrador
case and elucidated further that “an absolute pardon not only blots out the crime but removes all
disabilities resulting from the conviction; and that when granted after the term of imprisonment has
expired, absolute pardon removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction.” (Pelobello vs.
Palatino, 72 Phil. 441).

Differences Between Amnesty and Pardon.

Pardon includes any crime and is exercised individually by the Chief Executive, while amnesty is
a blanket pardon granted to a group of prisoners, generally political prisoners.

Pardon is exercised when the person is already convicted while amnesty may be given before
trial or investigation is held.

In Barrio Quinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, O.G. 303, the Supreme Court distinguished pardon from
amnesty in that “pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is private which must be pleaded
and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty is by
proclamation with concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act which the courts should take judicial
notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction, while amnesty is granted to classes of persons who may
be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of criminal prosecution and
sometimes after conviction.”

Limitations of the Pardoning Power.

The power of the Chief Executive to grant pardon is limited to the following:

a. Pardon cannot be extended in case of impeachment. (Art. VII, Sec. 10, Par. 2, Constitution of the
Philippines)

b. No pardon, parole or suspension of sentence for the violation of any election law, may be
granted without favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections. (Art. X, Sec. 2, Par.
2, Constitution of the Philippines).

c. Pardon is exercised only after conviction.

It is an elementary principle in political law that pardon can only be given after final conviction.
Cases pending trial or on appeal are still within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts, hence,
pursuant to the theory of separation of powers, the Chief Executive has no jurisdiction over the
accused.
Page 20 of 24

Conditional Pardon.

Conditional pardon serves the purpose of releasing, through executive clemency, a prisoner who
is already reformed or rehabilitated but who cannot be paroled because the parole law does not apply to
him. Thus, a prisoner serving a determinate sentence or life imprisonment is excluded from the benefits of
the parole law. However, when this prisoner has already been reformed, he may be released on
conditional pardon.

Nature of Conditional Pardon.

Conditional pardon is in the nature of a contract; it must first be accepted by the recipient before it
takes effect. The pardonee is under obligation to comply strictly with the conditions imposed therein;
otherwise, his non-compliance will result in the revocation of the pardon (Art. 95, RPC). If the pardonee
violates any- of the conditions of his pardon, he will be prosecuted criminally as a pardon violator. Upon
conviction, the accused will be sentenced to serve an imprisonment at a prison correctional. However, if
the penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon is higher than six years, the pardonee will be made to
serve the unexpired portion of his original sentence. (Art. 159, RPC).

How Conditional Pardon is Given.

Conditional pardon may be commenced by a petition filed by the prisoner, his family or relative, or
upon the recommendation of the prison authorities. The petition or request processed by the Board of
Pardons and Parole. The Board shall determine if the prisoner has served a sufficient portion of his
sentence; if his release is not inimical to the interest of the community; and if there is no likelihood that the
offender will not become a public charge and will not recidivate in crime. If all these factors are favorable,
then the Board will endorse the petition favorably to the President. If the case is premature, the petitioner
is so informed.

Some Guides in Pardon Selection.

In determining the fitness of a prisoner for release on conditional pardon, the following points
shall be considered as guides.

a. The political, organization or religious affiliation of the prisoner should be disregarded.

b. Due (but not undue) regard should be given the attitude of the people in the community from
which he was sentenced.

c. The judicial history of the case should be carefully investigated.

d. The background of the prisoner before he was committed to prison — social, economic,
psychological and emotional backgrounds — should be carefully investigated.

Conditional Pardon Distinguished from Parole.

The purpose of conditional pardon and parole is the same — the release of a prisoner who is
already reformed in order that he can continue to serve his sentence outside of the institution, thus giving
him the opportunity to gradually assume the responsibilities of a free man. Both releases are subject to
the same set of conditions, a violation of any of such conditions will subject the parolee or pardonee to be
recommitted to prison. The only difference between the two is the granting authority. In parole, the
granting authority is the Board of Pardons and Parole, while in conditional pardon, the granting authority
is the President.

Conditions of Pardon.

In the Philippines, the pardonee is given the same set of rules or conditions as the
parollee. Among the conditions usually imposed on pardonees and parolees are the following:

a. That he shall live in his parole residence and shall not change his residence during the
period of his parole without first obtaining the consent of the Board of Pardons and
Parole.
Page 21 of 24

If the parolee or pardonee leaves the parole jurisdiction temporarily, he need not
get the permission of the board, although he may so inform his parole officer (municipal
judge) of his whereabouts.

b. That he shall report to the Municipal Judge (of the area where he will reside) or to such
officers as may be designated by the Executive Officer of the Board of Pardons and
Parole during the first years once a month and, thereafter, once every two months or as
often as he may be required to by the said officer.

c. That he shall not indulge in any injurious or vicious habits, and shall avoid places or
persons of disreputable or harmful character.

d. That he shall permit the Provincial Commander, Philippine Constabulary or any officer
designated by the Executive Officer of the Board to visit him at reasonable times at his
place of abode or elsewhere and shall truthfully answer any reasonable inquiries
concerning his conduct or condition.

e. That he shall not commit any crime and shall conduct himself in an orderly manner.

f. That he shall pay not less than P50.00 a month to the cashier of the Department of
Justice in payment of the indemnity imposed upon him. This condition is not strictly
adhered to unless the pardonee is regularly employed.

g. That he shall comply with such orders as the Board or its Executive

Officer may from time to time make.

Abuse of the Pardon Power and Its Safeguards.

The power vested on the President by the Constitution to grant pardon is very broad and
exclusive. It is not subject to review by the Courts. Neither does Congress have the right to establish
conditions nor provide procedure for the exercise of pardon. Under these circumstances, it is therefore
possible that this power can be abused by unscrupulous Chief Executives. In fact, in nearly every
presidential election, the alleged abuse of the pardoning power has come up as a campaign issue against
the incumbent President. The truth of the charge has never been investigated, but the fact that the
alleged anomaly is aired publicly is an indication that the power to grant pardon may be abused.

There are certain safeguards, however, against the abuse of the pardoning power.

First is the constitutional provision that the President may be impeached for a willful violation of the
constitution. This is enough deterrent for the Chief Executive to abuse this power. Second, is the policy of
the Officer of the Chief Executive, ever since the time of the American Governor Generals, to approve
pardon cases which are favorably recommended by the Board of Pardons and Parole. Although this
policy does not wholly bind the President, seldom, if ever, has it been disregarded.

Is Pardon Necessary in Our Penal System?

Judges are human and are therefore apt to commit errors. It is possible for an innocent person to get
convicted as it is possible for a criminal to escape the hands of justice to prove his innocence, or he
may not have the money to hire a good counsel. Many of our penal laws are outmoded and have not
kept abreast with the current trends of criminal justice administration. Judges are limited by laws as to
the use of discretion they may exercise in any given case. Under any of the above circumstances, an
injustice may result, which can only be remedied by the exercise of pardon.

Ideally, all releases should be by parole. Society can only be sufficiently protected against the ex-prisoner
if the latter is released through parole or conditional pardon. Unfortunately, not all sentences are
indeterminate so that some prisoners are deprived of the privilege of parole. Therefore, pardon is
necessary for the prisoners who do not fall under the parole law.
Page 22 of 24

Other forms of Executive Clemency: Amnesty.

Amnesty is a general pardon extended to groups of persons and is generally exercised by

executive clemency with the concurrence of Congress. Usually the recipients of amnesty are the political
offenders, although there are some exceptions. For example, President Truman issued two proclamations
granting amnesty to unnamed persons, one at the end of World War II in 1945 and another at the end of
the Korean conflict in 1952. In these cases, the persons have been convicted of crimes against the United
States but were pardoned by the terms of a proclamation for having served in the armed forces for at
least a year during the conflict. Those who did so received pardons without having to apply for them.

The Supreme Court, in the case of People vs. Santos, et al., 47 O.G. 6168, stated that the
“purpose of amnesty is to bring about the return of dissidents and recalcitrant elements of our population
to their homes and to ensure the resumption of their lawful pursuits, or occupations, as loyal and law-
abiding citizens, to accelerate the rehabilitation of the war-devastated country, restore peach and order,
and secure the welfare and happiness of the communities.”

Amnesty looks backward and abolishes or puts into oblivion the offense with which a person is
charged such that the person released by amnesty stands before the law as though he had committed no
offense.

Amnesty is extended to the convicted as well as to persons who have not yet been tried by the
court.

Some of the proclamations of amnesty are as follows:

1. Proclamation No. 51 — This proclamation was issued by the late President Manuel
Roxas on January 28, 1948, granting amnesty to those who collaborated with the enemy
during World Ward IL

2. Proclamation No, 76 — This was issued by President Elpidio Quirino on June 21, 1948,
extending amnesty to leaders of the Hukbalahap and Pambansang Kaisahan ng mga
Magbubukid (PKM). The amnesty applied to crimes of rebellion, sedition, illegal
associations, assault, resistance and disobedience to persons in authority and the illegal
possession of firearms.

3. Proclamation No. 51was issued in order to attain the following objectives:

a. To pardon those who committed crimes against the security of the state who have
changed their attitude towards the government and have voluntarily surrendered with
their arms and ammunitions

b. To get the dissidents back into the fold of law-abiding citizens

c. To gather the loose firearms

Commutation.

Commutation is an act of clemency by which an executive act changes a heavier

sentence to a less serious one or a longer term to a shorter term. It may alter death or life
sentence to a term of years. Commutation does not forgive the offender but merely reduces the
penalty pronounced by the court. In almost all instances commutation has been used to substitute
a death penalty or life sentence for a term of years.

Purposes of Commutation.

Some of the common uses of commutation are the following:

a. To break the rigidity of the law

Some penal laws are rigid and unusually

cruel; for example, a law making qualified theft, the stealing of young coconuts from the trees, or
fish from the fishpond, or sugar cane from the sugar cane field. Qualified theft imposes an
unusually heavy penalty on the culprit which is greatly disproportionate to the value of the article
Page 23 of 24

stolen. Even if the judge would want to impose a light penalty, he could not do so because his
hands are tied by the provision of the law. The sentence in this cast may be reduced by
commutation of sentence.

b. To extend parole in cases where the parole law do not apply Commutation enables the recipient
to be released on parole when his sentence does not allow him parole, like, for example, when
the sentence is determinate or is a life sentence, or when the prisoner is serving two or more
sentences. The sentence maybe changed to an indeterminate sentence by commutation to
sentence.

c. To save the life of a person sentenced to death

This is one of the most common uses of commutation of sentence. In the Philippines, 95% of
death penalty cases are commuted to life imprisonment.

Procedures in Commutation.

When the sentence of Death Penalty is confirmed by the Supreme Court, the condemned man or
the head of the prison system (Director of Prisons) may file a petition for commutation. The prisoner is
subjected to a social, psychological and psychiatric examination by the Staff of the Reception Center. The
inquiry will include the sociological history of the prisoner, his criminal history, mental and psychological
capacities, work history, etc., the purpose of which is to determine the degree of involvement in the crime
the prisoner has been found guilty of and to determine if he deserves to be given a new lease in life. The
petition is then forwarded to the Board of Pardons and Parole, together with the reports of examination of
the Reception and Diagnostic Center and the recommendation of the Director of Prisons on the petition.

The Board of Pardons and Parole processes the petition and will deliberate on the
recommendation after a careful study of the papers, including the reports of the Reception and Diagnostic
Center. It will then forward the petition, including its recommendation, to the President. The President will
then act on the petition. In giving or denying commutation, the President may or may not follow the
recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole.

Reprieve.

Reprieve is a temporary stay of the execution of sentence. As in pardon, reprieve can only be
exercised by the President when the sentence has become final. Generally, reprieve is extended to death
penalty prisoners. The date of the execution of sentence is set back several days to enable the Chief
Executive to study the petition of the condemned man for the commutation of sentence or pardon.

Good-Conduct-Time Allowance.

Conditional release is the statutory shortening of the maximum sentence the prisoner serves
because of good behavior while in prison. This called “good-conduct-time” and is given by law as
motivation for good behavior while serving sentence in prison.

Good-conduct-time allowance is automatically applied to reduce the sentence but may be taken
away from the prisoner if he fails to obey the rules and regulations of the prison. However, good-conduct-
time allowance may be remitted as a reward for exceptional services the prisoner may render to the
prison administration, or after the lapse of some time when the prisoner has sufficiently demonstrated that
he has reformed.

If the prisoner does not forfeit his statutory good-conduct-time allowance through misbehavior, he
is released at the expiration of his sentence less the period of good-conduct-time earned. He is released
under supervision as if on parole and subjected to all parole conditions which, if violated, will result in the
issuance of a warrant, revocation of his release, and the requirement that he return to prison to serve the
maximum term.

In the Philippines, the prisoner who is released from prison after serving his sentence less the
good-conduct-time allowance, is released without any condition and is considered to have served his
sentence in full.

Act No. 2489, otherwise known as the Industrial Good Time Law, pries that when a prisoner has
classified as trusty or penal colonist, he is given an additional 5 days time allowance for every month of
Page 24 of 24

service. A prisoner serving lifetime sentence as his sentence automatically reduced to 30 years of
imprisonment upon attaining the classification of trusty or penal colonist.

Rule of Probation in the Correctional System

Probation is a part of the correctional system. It cannot be properly considered as an independent

subject. It is only a phase of penology, and therefore, it must be viewed in its relation to other aspects of
the enforcement of the criminal laws and its proper perspective. It is only a part of an entire structure and
only a single feature of a well-grounded system.

Probation is a form of treatment of the convicted offenders. It is not clemency, pity, or leniency to
the offender, but rather a substitute for imprisonment. There are some offenders who must go to prison
for their own good and for the good of society because their presence in the community constitutes a
threat to law and order. Others less inured to crime can remain in the community after conviction where
they are given a chance to conform with the demands of society Probation is compared to an out-patient.
The out-patient does not need to be hospitalized because his sickness is not serious. However, the
patient must remain under the care and supervision of his family physician in order that his sickness will
not become more serious. Similarly, the probationer does not need to go to prison, but he should remain
under the supervision and guidance of his probation officer in order that he will not become a more
serious offender.

Probation is given in cases in which the ends of justice do not require that the offender go to
prison. This is so when all the following circumstances exist: that there is a strong likelihood that the
defendant will reform; that there is little danger of his seriously injuring or harming members of society by
further crimes, as for instance, his case is not a violent crime and that he has no previous record of
conviction; and that the deterrent effect of imprisonment on other criminals is not required.