Ibarra, Larssen D.

September 21, 2019

Introduction to Philppine Law

Understanding R.A. 10592: Good Conduct Time Allowance for Persons Convicted of
Heinous Crimes.

An unfamiliar alarm wakes the sleeping public one morning when a report regarding the pending
release of convicted rapist-murderer former Calauan Mayor Antonio Sanchez as one of the 11,000
inmates who may benefit from R.A. 10592 familiarly known as The Good Conduct Time
Allowance (GCTA).

GCTA is a sentence reduction provision provided prisoners who show good behavior. RA 10592,
amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of the RPC, which sought to expand the application of
the GCTA to those under preventive imprisonment or those detained prior and during criminal
trial, who are deemed too dangerous for release; increase the number of days that may be credited
for GCTA; allow an additional sentence deduction of 15 days for each month of study, teaching,
or mentoring service; and expand the special time allowance for loyalty and make it applicable to
those under preventive imprisonment.

Inmates who display "good behavior and have no record of breach of discipline or violation of
prison rules and regulations" may be eligible for GCTA. However, Recidivists or those who "have
been convicted previously twice or more times of any crime," habitual delinquents, escapees and
persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from its coverage, according to section 1 of RA
10592.

Such provision of RA 10592 with regard to those persons excluded from benefiting under the
GCTA particularly those convicted of heinous crimes triggered a public outraged and further
clarification on the applicability of the law. Thus raising the question of whether persons convicted
of heinous crimes could be entitled to benefit under the GCTA.
Heinous crimes under RA 7659 or the Death Penalty Act, heinous crimes are: "grievous, odious
and hateful offenses and which, by reason of their inherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness,
atrocity and perversity are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of
decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." Under RA 7659, murder, as well as
rape are classified as heinous crimes which are punishable by death or life imprisonment.
The plain-meaning rule states that "where the law speaks in clear and categorical language, there
is no room for interpretation. There is only room for application." The letter of GCTA is clear with
regard to persons excluded from benefitting under the GCTA. Those persons charged with heinous
crimes are excluded and should never be given a second thought or further deliberation.

Indeed, laws should always favor the accused and convicted particularly criminal law since the
purpose of criminal law is to rehabilitate, to give second chances and not to deny every criminal a
life that is different from their previous one.

Ideally, rehabilitation is a very sound goal for punishment. It's satisfying and scenic to visualize a
society where criminals are reoriented. However, the world of ideas where criminals could be
successfully rehabilitated and the problem of crime is eradicated is sadly far different from the
world of forms where we live in, most especially, those convicted of heinous crimes, where getting
killed by them has a higher possibility of happening than rehabilitating them. Since Death penalty
is suspended under the Philippine law, life imprisonment should and never be evaded by criminals
who committed heinous crimes as it is the only thing closest to the punishment that they deserve.

In light of the recent case concerning the application of the GCTA, the government before
implementing such law must be stripped from all forms of biases and implement the law with strict
compliance in order for not only an effective law but also beneficial to the public as well as to the
family of the victims.

On the recent issue of The Good Conduct Time allowance, there were already 1,700 or more
criminals who were set free by the Government and it is now became a National issue that demands
an immediate action not only from the Executive branch but also from the Legislative, who in the
first place started such a mess.

As a solution, The President ordered that those who benefited under the Good Conduct Time
Allowance must surrender instantly or else as he jokingly said, “I will pay you smiling. I-balik ko
'yan sa preso, makakain pa yung p*********g yan. Gagastos pa ako,” he added.1

The Philippine National Police (PNP) said they already have special teams on standby and ready
to track locations of the freed convicts who refused to surrender. However, this may be seen as a
bond aid solution by many.

1https://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/17/19/dead-or-alive-duterte-vows-p1m-bounty-for-
capture-of-gcta-freed-convicts
On the part of the Legislative, Lawmakers and authors of the law have argued that heinous-crime
convicts are excluded from the GCTA coverage, after a former prisons bureau chief these convicts
are included in the coverage. An immediate review and amendment of its IRR were under scrutiny
since there are still conflict on how GCTA should be applied.

The burden should not only be given to the Executive department but also to the Legislative who
crafted the RA 10592, to review, repeal, or amend the law if necessary since many criminals who
committed heinous crime have already evaded their life imprisonment sentence.
Feelings run deep in the wake of a crime most particularly the side where second chances will
never become a reality but only a word that means nothing. Yes, all things are considered, everyone
deserves a second chance but if heinous crimes were committed, the persons who are crafting laws
must also bear in mind the families who were denied of endless possibilities and chances to be
with their beloved someone. Most especially when such law that they are drafting will only give a
loophole in the justice system that already broken and unreliable. At least they must ensure that
the criminals of heinous crimes who denied a second chance to their victim must also be denied to
them.