Contrition’s criticality

We’ve had an ever lengthening string of increasingly disturbing cases where we’ve undercut justice and have allowed convicted criminals go scot-free either through technicalities, loopholes in the law, stupidly crafted implementing rules and regulations (IRR), or through the reckless whim of politicians allowed the powers to grant pardon, amnesty or clemency. In a growing number of such instances where we deliberately decapitate justice, decimate judicial wisdom, surrender to convenience and expediency in the guise of compassion, and in justice’s place release dangerous criminals among an unsuspecting public, deep regret follows.

The debate was triggered by the declaration of the family of a convicted criminal sentenced for the heinous crimes of kidnapping, rape and murder that they brazenly refuse to comply with a substantial portion of the sentence to monetarily compensate the families of the victims.

As a fellow Atenean lamented, “How can we seek justice if we can’t even extract damages from a convicted rapist and murderer?”

Despite the foregoing, the convicted rapist and murderer was among the list of inmates that an idiotic and poorly written IRR allows as eligible for a substantial reduction of sentence. Never mind that at least two statutes, the Revised Penal Code (RPC) of the Philippines and Republic Act 10592 explicitly deny a reduction based on good conduct for criminals convicted of heinous crimes.

Obviously, the IRR drafted by these two Cabinet-level factotums under the previous administration not only failed to emphasize the criticality of committing a heinous crime but also the criticality of an act of contrition on the part of the convicted criminal.

With regard to good conduct as a factor for the reduction of a sentence, the sloppily written IRR for RA 10592 had effectively institutionalized a total disregard for the gravity of heinous crimes as well as a total disregard for the need for an admission and contrition.

To fully appreciate the flaws in the IRR, take the time to read the RPC, its definition of crimes considered heinous, its amendments, the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Act or RA 10592, and then study its IRR. Read where the latter under Rule I, Section 2 lists no exemptions and virtually expands the GCTA scope using the word “any” to cover prisoners under detention.

Most decent people consider the admission to crimes and subsequent contrition critical to a determination of good conduct. Obviously, it isn’t. At least not under RA 10592’s IRR.

While deliberate stupidity in crafting the IRR virtually opens the doors to the kind of illicit commerce, trade and industry that we are now seeing exposed in our penal system, such anomalies are nothing new.

Allow us to list in no particular logic a litany of unresolved inequity and injustice where those accused including many of the convicted remain adamantly unrepentant and in denial of their criminality, mostly evidenced by a combination of recidivism as the most eloquent proof, ranging all the way to insulting smugness and arrogance.

There is a former blockbuster actor turned politician who was accused of malversation in the millions employed through his pork barrel allocations. While he was acquitted of criminal liabilities due to the absence of adequate proof, a civil liability effectively remained where he was asked to return the amount involved.

Recidivism is perhaps the most common evidence of a lack of contrition. There are at least three coup plotters granted amnesty by Benigno Aquino III. In one instance, the admission to crimes charged was merely implied and remained undeclared. Two have turned to partisan politics and have since prosecuted a continuing coup to destabilize the government. Their arsenal runs the gamut from fake news to black propaganda. The third is a government official accused of corruption.

More remain. Among them are the accused who through legal calisthenics remain unconvicted and in positions where they continue to be potent and venomous enough to continue with their illegality.