Scribd
Upload
423 views4 pages

GCTA Mayor Sanchez

This document discusses the controversy surrounding the potential early release of ex-Mayor Antonio Sanchez from prison under the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law due to accumulating time off his sentence for good behavior in detention. While some argue heinous criminals should be excluded from the law's benefits, the document argues that Sanchez is entitled to release based on: 1) the law not explicitly excluding heinous criminals, 2) the intent of the law to favor convict's rights, and 3) Sanchez having served his sentence based on accumulated time off under the GCTA calculation. It examines the context and intent of the GCTA Law to support releasing Sanchez.

Uploaded by

Joycee Armillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
423 views4 pages

GCTA Mayor Sanchez

This document discusses the controversy surrounding the potential early release of ex-Mayor Antonio Sanchez from prison under the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law due to accumulating time off his sentence for good behavior in detention. While some argue heinous criminals should be excluded from the law's benefits, the document argues that Sanchez is entitled to release based on: 1) the law not explicitly excluding heinous criminals, 2) the intent of the law to favor convict's rights, and 3) Sanchez having served his sentence based on accumulated time off under the GCTA calculation. It examines the context and intent of the GCTA Law to support releasing Sanchez.

Uploaded by

Joycee Armillo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

GCTA or The Release of Sanchez?

When the news broke about Ex-Mayor Antonio Sanchez as a recipient of


the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law, the media and netizens were
suddenly furious and questioned the said law. They remembered the brutal fate
of Eileen and Allan which was a well-published case that shocked the nation in
1993. But is it Mayor Sanchez or the GCTA Law that entitles him for an early
release from prison that we do not agree with?

Whether or not Antonio Sanchez is covered by Republic Act of 10592?

We stand that Antonio Sanchez is entitled and covered by RA 10592 for the
following grounds:

1. absence of exclusion of those convicted of heinous crimes to the granting of


the GCTA law;
(https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/09/12/opinion/columnists/ra-10592-does-not-e
xclude-convicted-heinous-criminals/614948/)

2. law is enacted to favor the rights of convicts


(https://www.manilatimes.net/2019/09/12/opinion/columnists/ra-10592-does-not-e
xclude-convicted-heinous-criminals/614948/); and

3. application of the GCTA law resulted to Sanchez already served his sentence.

(GCTA Law)

Absence of exclusion of those convicted of heinous crimes to the granting


of the GCTA law

HB 417, which contained an exception excluding those charged with


heinous crimes, in addition to recidivists, habitual delinquents and escapees, only
focused on the eligibility of detainees to count the period of their preventive
imprisonment toward their sentences should they be found guilty of the crimes
they are being charged with. But SB 3064, which expanded the time allowances
for good conduct, or GCTA, did not contain such exception, in the same way that
the RPC did not discriminate among crimes in the awarding of GCTA.

Sen. Franklin Drilon has admitted to the failure of the Senate to exclude
those convicted of heinous crimes. And it is apparent that the version crafted by
the bicameral conference committee, and ratified by the Senate and the House
plenaries, was merely a joined version that did not show evidence of any
reconciliation. Congress did not even attempt to edit the text, as revealed by the
fact that Section 1 of the law retained the original wording of HB 417.

RA 6975 created the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP),


which is tasked to “enhance public safety by providing humane safekeeping and
development of inmates in all district, city and municipal jails.” Included in its
powers is to “ensure the provision of quality services for the custody,
safekeeping, rehabilitation and development of district, city and municipal
inmates, any fugitive from justice, or person detained.”

On the other hand, the IRR of RA 10575 mandates the Bureau of


Corrections (BuCor), which has jurisdiction over national penitentiaries housing
convicts whose sentences exceed three years, to “promote the general welfare
and safeguard the basic rights of every prisoner incarcerated in our national
penitentiary by promoting and ensuring their reformation and social reintegration,
creating an environment conducive to rehabilitation and compliant with the United
Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Treatment of Prisoners (UNSMRTP).”

The IRR of RA 10575, in particular, as the law that governs the penal institutions
that administer persons convicted of more serious offenses, including those
convicted of heinous crimes, devotes several provisions detailing the
mechanisms focusing on rehabilitation and reformation. There is no attempt to
discriminate among types of criminals. In fact, it even specifically mandates a
more politically correct labeling of persons convicted by referring to them as
persons deprived of liberty, or PDLs. This penal philosophy was installed around
the time that RA 10592 was passed by the 15th Congress, which therefore leads

Law is enacted to favor the rights of convicts

It is in this context that one could extrapolate and implicate this penal philosophy
on RA 10592, leading one to conclude that having a system of awarding time
allowance for good conduct to all PDLs, regardless of the crime they committed,
heinous crimes included, is logical, coherent and consistent with the prevailing
policy climate towards convicted criminals at the time. After all, it was also the
time when we abolished the death penalty for heinous crimes. This legal
predisposition to favor the rights of convicts is also deeply rooted in our judicial
system, with the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto application of laws,
and with the Supreme Court reiterating recently the retroactive application of
laws that would benefit convicts, and by implication, a prospective application
when it would be to their detriment.

In sum, it seems that on the question of whether persons convicted for a


heinous crime should benefit from GCTA, the answer is that they would.
The law is vaguely constructed, if not silent on the issue. The framers of the law
failed to address the issue, and there is no articulated intent to support a
particular position. The prevailing penal philosophy favors rehabilitation and
reformation. Jurisprudence favors the rights of convicts.

How to apply GCTA?

As indicated in the GCTA Law Section 3 and 4.

Section 3. Article 97 of the same Act is hereby further amended to read as


follows:

"ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of 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 shall entitle him to the following deductions
from the period of his sentence:

"1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of
twenty days for each month of good behavior during detention;

"2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during
detention;

"3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment,
he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good
behavior during detention;
"4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during
detention; and

"5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another
deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each
month of study, teaching or mentoring service time rendered.

"An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above
allowances for good conduct."

Applying the above provision on the calculation, ex-Mayor Sanchez is already


entitled to be released under the GCTA Law. While there were questions of the
latter’s good behavior since he was charged of illegal possession of illegal drugs
in 2006, it was not mentioned in the provision that a misconduct will eliminate all
the accumulated allowance he gained during those period that he observes good
conduct.

You might also like