I’m staying – Faeldon

HOW SANCHEZ ALMOST GOT AWAY Iluminada Gomez and Maria Clara Sarmenta (left photo) take part in Monday’s Senate hearing on freed heinous crime convicts where Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra and Bureau of Corrections chief Nicanor Faeldon (right photo) also testified. —PHOTOS BY MARIANNE BERMUDEZ

MANILA, Philippines — Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Nicanor Faeldon on Monday declared that he would not resign as he was doing a good job, even after admitting to signing a “memorandum of release” for former Calauan, Laguna, Mayor Antonio Sanchez.

But Faeldon said he recalled the order regarding Sanchez because it had drawn public anger over the impending walk to freedom of the heinous crime convict.

Faeldon claimed the memorandum was not the final order that would have freed Sanchez, and told lawmakers on the Senate justice and human rights committee that he had questioned the recommendation to release the rape and murder convict for good behavior though his hands were tied in the end because of the law.

Republic Act No. 10592 does not exclude any prisoner from good conduct time allowance based on the BuCor’s interpretation of the law, which had been prevailing even before he was appointed to head the agency, Faeldon said.

The public outrage over the announcement that Sanchez would soon be released had triggered questions about his qualification to have time shaved off his seven 40-year terms for the 1993 rape and murder of University of the Philippines Los Baños student Eileen Sarmenta and the murder of her friend Allan Gomez, also a student at the same school.

At Monday’s Senate hearing on the application of RA 10592, the good conduct time allowance law, Sen. Risa Hontiveros asked Faeldon if he would stay on at his post despite his blunders and failure to answer even simple questions about his duties.

“When will you resign from your position as BuCor head?” Hontiveros asked Faeldon after committee members questioned him about his decision to release heinous crime convicts, including drug lords.

Faeldon said he respected the question, but “would defer the question to the appointing authority.”

Asked by Hontiveros if he thought he should resign, he replied, “I believe no, ma’am,” and answered in the affirmative when she asked if he thought he was doing a good job.

“You believe you’re doing a good job? So far, what is coming out in this committee hearing [points] in the opposite direction,” Hontiveros retorted.

Sen. Panfilo Lacson presented an Aug. 20 document signed by Faeldon for Sanchez’s release.

It said Sanchez was found to have “served 40 years upon retroactive application of Republic Act 10592 pursuant to the provisions of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code.”

Not final release order

Faeldon claimed the document was not a “final release order,” but simply a memorandum starting the process for setting Sanchez free.

The final order is issued by the national penitentiary’s superintendent, he said.

“I signed the document, memorandum of release, but that is not the release order because after my office, it goes to several other offices and it will go to the superintendent who issues the final release order,” he said.

He said he stopped the process before it could become final because he had to review the good conduct time allowance granted to Sanchez. This was after the BuCor’s legal officer strongly objected to his action and told him he could not stop the release of prisoners, he said.

But Lacson pointed out that paragraph 4 of the Aug. 20 document directed officials to “submit report of compliance to the office of the director general of the Bureau of Corrections within five days from the actual date of release.”

The chief of the document section was also ordered to be given a copy of the report.

Lacson also noted that the wording of the document was similar to the Aug. 16 memorandum for the release of the convicts in the 1997 rape and murder of sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong of Cebu City.

This document was signed by Technical Chief Supt. Maria Fe Marquez on Faeldon’s behalf.

Faeldon confirmed that the convicts in the Chiong case had been released.

What’s the difference?

“Then it’s the same. The first release order for Sanchez was only preempted because of public uproar, but in this case, this one got away,” Lacson said.

“So what makes the difference between the release order signed for you by Maria Fe Marquez and the release order signed by you in favor of Antonio Sanchez?” he asked.

Faeldon told the committee that he questioned the release of Sanchez when he was given the recommendation to free the former Calauan mayor.

According to him, he signed the memorandum order to start the process for Sanchez’s release “only after I have continuously consulted with the lawyers why are we signing this.”

He also said he did not know that Sanchez’s application for executive clemency was denied a few months earlier.

Faeldon admitted to meeting with Sanchez’s family, but denied that he assured them that Sanchez would be released.

He said the family came to see him to ask about Sanchez and that he told them that the former mayor would be released if he qualified for good conduct credit.

No prisoner excluded

But at that time, the processing of Sanchez’s papers was already halted because the BuCor wanted to certify if the credit granted to him was not in violation of prison rules, he said.

He had also by then announced publicly that Sanchez “may not qualify” for good conduct time allowance, he said.

According to Faeldon, the BuCor’s implementation of RA 10592 has been the same ever since, and “it does not exclude any convict of any crime,” based on its manual.

All prisoners, regardless of their crimes, are granted good conduct time allowance if they behave well, he said.

“What is very glaring here is the process they used has never changed,” he added.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra seconded Faeldon on this matter.

“What the chief of the Bureau of Corrections said seems to be the prevailing rule before public outrage happened in the case of Mayor Sanchez. So up to that point, it was technically a possibility that he may actually enjoy the benefit of the [good conduct] law precisely because of the interpretation given since 2014,” Guevarra said.

Section 3 of RA 10592 states that sentenced prisoners can benefit from the good conduct time allowance without making an expressed qualification of their crimes as heinous or not, he said.

This is the basis for the grant of good conduct time allowance to all inmates, he added.

Second look at the law

But because of the people’s anger over Sanchez’s impending release, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had a chance to take a second look at the law and for this he was grateful, he said.

“Now we had an opportunity to review the provisions of this law because of the public outcry and we [are thankful] that this incident happened because it proved to be a blessing in disguise,” he said.

The DOJ has tried to harmonize the various provisions of RA 10592, Guevarra said.

He noted that in Section 1 of the law concerning preventive imprisonment, those who are habitual delinquents, escapees, recidivists, and those charged with heinous crimes are not entitled to good conduct credit.

The DOJ tried to harmonize it with Section 3, which applies to convicts qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment or to any convicted prisoner, he said.

Its conclusion was that the proper interpretation of the law should be to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes from the good conduct time allowance, he added.

Drug convict’s release

Faeldon said the BuCor was adopting the new DOJ interpretation and was now reviewing its manuals.

Lacson also raised questions about the release of drug convict Chen Chang from Davao Prison and Penal Farm to the Bureau of Immigration in April.

Chen was released to the immigration bureau because his time served with special time allowance for loyalty had exceeded 40 years.

Lacson contended that Corrections Sr. Supt. Melencio Faustino, head of the penal farm, was not authorized under the law to release Chen. Only the BuCor chief had the authority to do so, he said.

Faustino explained that the release memorandum from Faeldon was the beginning of the process, and it was also his authorization to discharge Chen to the immigration bureau.

He produced a copy of an endorsement from Guevarra of Chen’s release to the immigration bureau on the recommendation of the BuCor.

Guevarra told Lacson that the inmates who had been released to the immigration bureau were still in the agency’s custody.

He said he had directed the bureau to defer their deportation.

Exclusion bill

To make things clearer, Sen. Sonny Angara filed a bill that would exclude recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and prisoners convicted of heinous crimes from the grant of good conduct time allowance.

His bill would require prison authorities to publish the list of prisoners being considered for release for good behavior to allow interested parties to submit written objections, comments, or information relevant to the case in 30 days.

Prison authorities would also have to notify the offended party or immediate relatives.

The bill would also forfeit a prisoner’s good conduct time allowance for violating prison rules or committing an offense.