Lifetime prisoners who have been convicted of heinous crimes but released under the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law can’t be sent back to jail, and those politicians who scream for these released convicts to bring them back to their cells may just be scoring media points, knowing that this can’t be done.

Whether these convicts were released with good intentions or not, whether done mistakenly or through ignorance or corruption through bribery in exchange for an early release should not be at issue, since once released on GCTA, authorities — including the President of the Philippines — have no power to order the released inmates returned to prison without violating the law.

To quote the former Supreme Court (SC) spokesman Theodore Te, sending them back “would be a retroactive application of the law in a prejudicial manner,” which is prohibited by the Constitution as an “ex post facto application of law.”

However, once freed, should those released commit yet another crime, then that would be the time to charge them for the new crimes and send those former inmates to spend more time in jail.

“The GCTA that may serve to shorten a sentence and entitles the inmate to be released extinguishes liability and, even if applied erroneously but in good faith to unqualified inmates, this cannot justify sending back to jail those set free,” Te said.

Even Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra was reluctant to get the released convicts returned to their cells, as he stressed that he has to study the matter carefully, since it may not be as simple as it seems, even when Republic Act 10592 (GCTA) clearly excludes those who are convicted of heinous crimes, escapees, habitual delinquents and recidivists, which means they have to serve their full term in prison.

What the President is empowered with is his pardoning powers — even of lifetime prisoners, if they deserve to be pardoned, as those jailed-for-life convicts can be conditionally pardoned should they appeal to the President for a pardon, or even be granted absolute pardon should that be the choice of the President. Which, incidentally, cannot be ruled against by even the SC.

As it has been stated: “Unlike conditional pardon, the only item under Article 94 of the Revised Penal Code that can justify sending back the convict to jail (upon violation of the condition for the pardon), Article 99 expressly says that the GCTA, once granted, cannot be revoked and its consequences, once set in place, cannot be reversed.”

This should end all the wrangling from all sides on the issue of the release of some of these lifetime prisoners who have committed heinous crimes. It shouldn’t happen again, but those who have been released just can’t be returned to prison, and all the hue and cry of those who feel that freeing these prisoners is an injustice and a slap on their faces know that they can’t do anything to change things — unless of course the freed convicts commit another heinous crime.

It is probably accurate to state that there are some — not all — lifetime convicts who may have been convicted and sentenced by the High Court but may just be innocent. It happens, especially in cases of 30 years or so, since there was still no DNA testing. Even had there been DNA as evidence, the Philippine SC had not, as yet, recognized DNA as evidence.

It cannot be denied that there are some who are innocent who have been imprisoned for years on end, convicted but later have been found to have been wrongly convicted by the courts after DNA testing. The proof of this is the High Court’s overturning of the conviction of Hubert Webb and others who went to prison for years on the strength of a paid and coached National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) drug addict “witness,” who testified that she had witnessed the rape and murder by Webb when she was obviously not even anywhere near the area. Hell, her story was all shot but she and the NBI got away with it.

There was a lot more evidence proving that Webb and the others who did not even know each other but were lumped together by the NBI fake witness, who probably had an axe to grind against the victims, and who was probably fed with daily drugs by the NBI agents to get her to testify against Webb.

The Webbs produced evidence including a certification from the US Immigration stating that Hubert entered the United States at the time of the rape and murder.

That lower court judge refused to accept the evidence as she claimed that what would be accepted as evidence would have to be signed by then US State Secretary Madeleine Albright, which is never done. That judge convicted Webb and the group. Even in the clear face of innocence.

As for the judge who convicted Webb and the others, why, she was even rewarded with a promotion to the appellate court — hopefully she will never ever be promoted to the High Court.

We may as well accept this fact that the released heinous crime convicts cannot be sent back and just ensure that this never happens again.