Controversy prompts closer reading of GCTA

MANILA, Philippines — The Department of Justice (DOJ) faced a daunting challenge in 2019 on the interpretation and implementation of the controversial law on the expanded good conduct time allowance (GCTA) that led to the early release of convicts found guilty of heinous crimes.

The events that unfolded during the past months raised questions and showed that there might have been lack of foresight of lawmakers who crafted the GCTA law or Republic Act 10521, which was intended to reward convicts with early release for good behavior.

The law took effect in 2013 during the time of former president Benigno Aquino III.

DOJ spokesman Markk Perete said the GCTA was a “daunting challenge that approximated a crisis. If it was not handled properly, it could have risen to crisis levels.”

“You already saw some problems with how to interpret the law, and you had an interpretation of the law that somehow provided ample opportunity for (some), we saw how it was exploited by some. It was also a very touchy subject because, on the one hand, the slant in general of the law is in favor of prisoners to be given a second chance outside the prison cell,” he said.

“On the other hand, you also saw even individuals who committed very serious offenses stood to benefit from that interpretation. So some sort of a balancing act was required of the department and the problem was it was only much, much later that I think everyone realized how significant and how difficult that balancing act was,” he added.

The implementation of the GCTA law took centerstage and raised howls of opposition last Aug. 20 when it was reported that former mayor Antonio Sanchez of Calauan, Laguna, who was convicted in the rape-slay of University of the Philippines-Los Baños student Eileen Sarmienta and the murder of schoolmate Allan Gomez, would be among the thousands set to be released after availing themselves of the GCTA law.

The impending release of Sanchez prompted officials to suspend the implementation of the GCTA law and order its review.

Critics said the 73-year-old Sanchez, sentenced to seven counts of reclusion perpetua (40 years in prison) in 1995 for killing Sarmenta and Gomez, does not qualify to be released for good behavior.

In 2010, Sanchez was reportedly caught with P1 million worth of illegal drugs hidden inside a statue of the Virgin Mary, while in 2015, he was caught with an air-conditioning unit and a flat screen television during a raid inside his prison cell. 

In 1996, he was also reportedly convicted of double murder for the killing of father and son Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa.

Reports of his impending release brought the families of Sarmienta and Gomez out of their seclusion to vehemently oppose his release from prison.

A week after reports of Sanchez’s release came out, President Duterte ordered the DOJ and the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) not to allow his release. 

Joint committee review

This also prompted Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra and Interior Secretary Eduardo Año to create a joint committee that revised the GCTA’s implementing rules and regulations (IRR). 

The newly crafted IRR excludes all recidivists, escapees, habitual delinquents and those convicted of heinous crimes from benefitting from the GCTA law.

However, those convicted of heinous crimes could still avail themselves of the law but with lower time credits under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not because of GCTA.

The IRR also defined heinous crimes based on jurisprudence and as enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659 that imposed the death penalty on certain heinous crimes such as murder, rape, destructive arson, parricide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, and drug-related offenses.

The imposition of capital punishment in the country has been suspended since 2006. 

Eight inmates of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City filed petitions before the Supreme Court (SC) to legally challenge several provisions of the GCTA’s revised IRR. 

They asked the SC to declare invalid the recently introduced rules disqualifying persons charged with heinous crimes from earning time allowances for good conduct, study, teaching and mentoring, and loyalty for “going beyond the law and being tantamount to executive legislation.”

Guevarra had said he welcomes the filing of the case because “some important provisions of Republic Act 10592 have been interpreted differently by various groups, I have as much interest as anyone in knowing the correct legal interpretation. Only the Supreme Court (SC) has the final word on the issue. 

“I want an affirmation by the SC that my reading of the law was correct. And if it was wrong, I want to take corrective measures right away” together with the DILG, he added.

The controversy also raised the fact that the DOJ had very little control over the operations at the BuCor that runs the NBP. 

Republic Act 10575 or the BuCor Act of 2013 only allowed the DOJ to exercise administrative supervision over the bureau. 

The confusion surrounding the GCTA found its way into the House of Representatives and the Senate’s Blue Ribbon committee under Sen. Richard Gordon. 

During the grilling at the Senate, it was discovered that aside from the GCTA, there were allegedly other anomalies taking place inside the NBP such as the “hospital pass for sale” wherein inmates, for a fee, are allowed to stay at the NBP hospital by faking an illness. Some of these inmates reportedly conduct their illegal drugs business while confined in the hospital. 

This prompted President Duterte to remove then BuCor director general Nicanor Faeldon from his post last Sept. 4. Faeldon was replaced by Gerald Bantag.