“Senator Bong Go said the law is too ambiguous resulting in the arbitrary interpretations through the IRR and that the ambiguity was exploited for apparent ill intentions.

Similar to insertions in the budget which are again rearing its ugly head in Congress, the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law was also inflicted with an aberration that is the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) in which most of the current problems regarding the release of convicts of heinous crimes emanated.

Nearly 2,000 life termers were released through the GCTA among the 20,000 inmates who availed of the provisions of the law which had the desirable intention of decongesting the country’s prisons.

Republic Act 10592, signed by President Noynoy Aquino in 2013, allowed the reduction of prison sentences for good behavior. A provision in the law, however, stated that recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from its coverage.

The IRR crafted by then Department of Justice (DoJ) secretary Leila de Lima and Department of the Interior and Local Government secretary Mar Roxas, however, extended the coverage to include the 2,000 convicts while making the law prospective which appears to have been designed for certain targets.

Considering that De Lima is now detained for overseeing a narcotics trading post ran by drug lords within the New Bilibid Prison, the IRR may have been meant as a sweetener for the drug operations.

The Supreme Court already deleted a provision in the IRR that made the law prospective since it violated the equal protection clause under the Constitution.

That was when the shit hit the fan so to speak, as ex-Calauan City mayor Antonio Sanchez immediately sought coverage under the law.

Chief legal counsel Sal Panelo believes that the IRR fouled up the intentions of RA 10592 or the GCTA Law, and the rules should be further revised.

The IRR provide the guidelines for the smooth implementation of a new law and it is where most of the abuses from scheming officials come from.

Panelo said the IRR must “be consistent with the law.”

“Now, after the rules are amended, it will be up to the wisdom of the lawmakers whether to change it or to repeal it,” he explained.

On the suggestion of revoking the law, De Lima immediately protested and urged her colleagues to uphold the GCTA Law. She claimed that an abolition “would render one of Congress’ major breakthroughs in restorative justice futile.”

Senators who weighed the benefits against the consequences had moved for its revision if not abolition.

Senator Bong Go said the law is too ambiguous resulting in the arbitrary interpretations through the IRR and that the ambiguity was exploited for apparent ill intentions.

“The law may be ambiguous and what is clear to me is that there is either negligence or corruption in the way our correctional system is being handled,” Go noted.

He proposed amendments to Articles 29, 97, 98 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code, the same provisions which were revised and rendered unclear by the GCTA law.

Go filed a bill which was in accordance with points raised by Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra during a Senate inquiry on the defects of the GCTA Law and safeguards that can be provided.

The senator wanted a provision that clearly states that convicts of heinous crimes “will not be eligible to be granted time allowances.”

He also added a list of heinous crimes to further avoid confusion and a provision that all prisoners for release on the basis of time allowances shall be subject for review.

The bill will also require clearance from Congress on GCTA releases “as the Bureau of Corrections will have to furnish the Legislature with a report twice a year.”

There are still certain benefits in the law in the backdrop of the packed prison cells throughout the country, and it is not even rocket science to know who are those disqualified from benefiting from it.

Those who are claiming that they release those who are not entitled to it obviously said it with their head buried in cold cash.