SC orders gov’t to answer Bilibid inmates’ petition vs GCTA IRR
MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has asked the government to comment on the petition filed by inmates of the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) that challenges the legality of several provisions of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act 10592 or the Expanded Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law.
Chief Justice Lucas Bersamin said the Supreme Court leaves the rule-making to the Department of Justice (DOJ), but since there is already a case filed before them, “we gave [respondents] time to comment.”
“Rule-making is internal to the DOJ. Hindi kami nakikialam (We do not interfere) but now, if the guidelines were already issued and there is case that is filed, we have to require the other party to comment and that is the government [through the] Solicitor-General,” Bersamin said.
The eight inmates through lawyer Rolito Abing wants the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) to nullify provisions of the new IRR which exclude recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees, and those charged with heinous crimes from benefitting from the expanded GCTA; Time allowance for Studying, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM); and Special Time Allowance for Loyalty (STAL).
They argued that the said provisions of the IRR violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto law.
An ex post facto law is defined “as one which makes an action done before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action; or which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when committed.”
The petitioners pointed out that Section 1 of R.A. 10592, amending Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, and Section 3, thereof, amending Article 97 of the RPC, cannot be applied retroactively due to prohibition against ex post facto law.
“The retroactive application of disadvantageous provisions of R.A. 10592 would work to the prejudice of petitioners and those who are similarly situated. The same would preclude the decrease in the penalty attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prior stay,” the petition read.
“As a result, the law made more onerous the punishment for the crimes they committed. This is not allowed under the constitutional provision against ex post facto laws,” it added.
The petitioners insisted that under R.A. 10592 any and all convicted prisoners are entitled to GCTA, TASTM and STAL; thus, the IRR of the expanded GCTA went beyond what is provided under the law. /je
RELATED STORY
