GCTA’s IRR not ‘scrutinized well’ during term of De Lima, Roxas – Año
MANILA, Philippines — Interior Secretary Eduardo Año said Friday that the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) for the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law was not “scrutinized well” when Senator Leila De Lima and former Senator Mar Roxas were Justice Secretary and Interior Secretary, respectively.
“Sa tingin ko, ‘yung IRR na napirmahan ng time nina Sec. De Lima at Sec. Roxas hindi na-scrutinize mabuti (I think the IRR signed during the time of Sec. De Lima and Sec. Roxas was not scrutinized well),” Año told reporters in a chance interview.
The DILG chief said he noticed “ambiguities” in Republic Act 10592 or the GCTA law as well as in the manual for its implementation, opening doors for different interpretations of its provisions.
He noted that the purpose of the IRR should have been to clarify these “ambiguities and uncertainties” in the law.
DILG and the Department of Justice have started a review of the GCTA law’s IRR, and the uniform policy and guidelines on the recomputation of credits and allowances provided under RA 10592. The review, covering 10 working days, started on August 29 and will end on September 12.
Año said there should not be any confusion in Section 1 of the law – which excludes recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes from the GCTA, and Section 3 – which mentions “any offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail.”
“Kung ako ang mag-iinterpret non, napakasimple lang non eh. They should not be in conflict… Very obvious naman na kung ‘yun ang inilagay sa Section 1 automatically covered niya rin ‘yung Section 3. Bakit nagkaroon ng maling interpretation ‘yung BuCor?” he said.
(If I will be the one to interpret that, it’s just simple. They should not be in conflict. It is very obvious that what was mentioned in Section 1 also covers Section 3. So why did BuCor has a wrong interpretation?)