Second chance for prisoners

A couple of weeks ago, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Romualdez Marcos Jr. gave his 3rd State of the Nation Address (SoNA). Among the programs and achievements he mentioned, one stood out to me as an Undersecretary of the Department of Justice (DoJ).

It pertained to the administration’s war against illegal drugs. The President said, “On the fight against dangerous drugs, our bloodless war adheres, and will continue to adhere, to the established “8 Es” of an effective anti-illegal drugs strategy. Extermination was never one of them.” This received thunderous applause from the audience.

I could not react in any other way to this statement, but I almost stood up while giving loud applause. This was not one of the two statements that received a standing ovation from the assembled crowd, but to me I felt that it deserved a long, big applause as well.

This message resonated well with me because I’ve always lobbied for better treatment and programs for our prisoners or Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs). I have written about this in the past and I write about it again today, as it is connected to the cited statement made by our dear President.

Republic Act (RA) No. 7659 defines heinous crimes, and among the enumerations cited therein, crimes related to dangerous and illegal drugs are included among heinous crimes. By this definition, PDLs accused of crimes related to dangerous and illegal drugs are excluded from being entitled to the benefits of Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA).

However, in Guinto et al. v. Department of Justice (G.R. No. 249027) and Inmates of New Bilibid Prison et al. v. Department of Justice (G.R. No. 249155), the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, ruled that the DoJ, in enacting its 2019 Implementing Rules and Regulations (2019 IRR) to RA 7659, exceeded its power of subordinate legislation when it excluded persons convicted of heinous crimes from the benefits of RA No. 10592, or the New GCTA law.

In finding the questioned provisions of the 2019 IRR invalid, the En Banc held that when RA No. 10592 amended Article 97 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), it used the conjunction “or” to express that (1) “any offender qualified for credit imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of the RPC,” and in the alternative (2) “any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention center, or in any other local jail” may avail of the benefits granted by RA No. 10592.

Thus, the 2019 IRR invalidly expanded the scope of RA No. 10592 when said IRR excluded recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and persons deprived of liberty convicted of heinous crimes from earning GCTA credits, since the law itself did not do so.

The Court further ruled that Article 97 of the RPC, as amended by RA No. 10592, is clear that any convicted prisoner is entitled to GCTA as long as the prisoner is in a penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center, or in any local jail.

The President’s pronouncement and the Supreme Court’s rulings are aligned. And I hasten to add that they also reflect my humble disposition on how our PDLs should be treated. I believe that our PDLs should be given a chance at a life beyond jail walls, and the grant to them of GCTA is a step towards that direction.

Extermination or lifelong imprisonment are not the answers we need. The justice system should take into account the aspect of restorative justice which is a process through which remorseful offenders accept responsibility for their misconduct, particularly to their victims and to the community.

Hence, this is not entirely about decongesting our jails; more importantly it is about giving prisoners a second chance at life, and about how our government can help these individuals at redemption.