DOJ: Duterte based his order to rearrest freed convicts on two High Court rulings

President Rodrigo Duterte’s order to rearrest more than a thousand convicts of heinous crimes was based on two Supreme Court rulings in 1967 and 2001, according to the Department of Justice.

From 2014 to 2019, the BuCor released 1,914 inmates convicted of heinous crimes such as rape, murder, robbery with violence or intimidation, and drug-related offenses on the basis of reduced prison terms under the good conduct time allowance (GCTA) law.

The processing of prison terms under the GCTA has been suspended.

“Basis for rearrest is not a law but jurisprudence, which forms part of the law of the land,” Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra said late Wednesday.

According to the President, it was Guevarra who relayed to the Cabinet the legal justification for the rearrest order.

The jurisprudence consisted of the People of the Philippines vs. Fidel Tan, and City Warden of the Manila City Jail vs. Raymond S. Estrella. In both cases the SC ordered the rearrest of inmates who were freed based on “invalid” credits under the GCTA.

In the current situation, it was not any court that ordered the convicts who were released based on the GCTA to surrender within 15 day but the President.

On Wednesday, Duterte warned the freed convicts that they would be treated as fugitives if they do not give themselves up to authorities.

Tracker teams of the Philippine National Police are now locating them.

Calls for rearresting the freed inmates mounted after officials noted that Republic Act No. 10592, or the law increasing GCTAs and other time allowances, should exclude prisoners heinous crime convicts.

But human rights lawyers contend that even an erroneous granting of the GCTA could not justify the rearrest because the same law says that once awarded it could no longer be revoked.

People vs. Tan

In People vs. Tan, a man was detained at the Samar provincial jail instead of being transferred to the New Bilibid Prison despite having been convicted with finality. The provincial jail warden eventually released him earlier than his full prison term because of good conduct credits.

But the SC found no justification to back the warden for “usurping the authority of the Director of Prisons”—the Bureau of Corrections chief—in granting the man good credit time allowances. “Article 99 of the Revised Penal Code vests such authority exclusively on the Director and no one else,” the High Court ruled.

RA 10592 amended Article 99 in 2013.

The law now reads: “Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked.”

In its 1967 ruling, the SC noted that even assuming that Tan was entitled to the GCTA, his release was “premature” because his good conduct time allowances were miscalculated. Based on the SC’s computation, he had an unserved sentence of 11 months and five days.

“The prisoner’s re-arrests would not place him twice in jeopardy because his re-incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalty that he had not completely served due to the erroneous act of the warden, it is not a new or subsequent conviction,” the SC ruled.

“Neither would his re-arrest deprive him of liberty without due process of law, because he was not yet entitled to liberty at the time he was released. Service of penalties and allowance for good conduct are specifically, even elaborately, governed by the Penal Code and do not depend upon the good faith of the warden and of the prisoner,” it said.

City Warden vs. Estrella

Thirty-four years later, the SC invoked People vs. Tan in another case involving inmates at the Manila City Jail.

In this case, 34 inmates asked the city jail warden to release them after learning they already fully served their sentences based on their good conduct time allowances. Though the warden denied their request, saying only the BuCor chief can grant the GCTA, he issued certifications of good behavior indicating the dates of releases for the prisoners when their good conduct time allowances were factored in.

The inmates then went to court citing the warden’s certifications, questioning their continued detention. It subsequently turned out that 22 of the 34 inmates had already been freed.

A Manila court then held that the certifications were “sufficient basis” release the convicts. It invoked Article 9 of the Civil Code, which says “no judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.”

At that time, the issue was who could grant good conduct time allowances to local prisoners when the BuCor chief, as the sole authority to do so under the law, no longer holds authority over city and municipal jails, leaving them “with no one to dispense benefits under Art. 97.”

The SC reversed the trial court’s ruling, saying the trial court “could not rely on the certifications issued by the City Warden in crediting respondents with time allowances for good conduct.”

It cited the People vs. Tan, where the Court had ruled that the power to grant time allowances for good conduct was “exclusively in the Director and no one else.”

“In that case, the prisoner was under the suspension and control of the provincial warden, but the authority of the Director to grant good conduct time allowances was upheld,” the Court said.

The SC also found errors in the certifications. Though it remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings, it ordered the rearrest of the freed prisoners for the time being.

“This can be done without placing them in double jeopardy of being punished for the same offense because their re-incarceration is merely a continuation of the penalties that they had not completely served due to the invalid crediting of good conduct time allowances in their favor,” the Court said. —VDS, GMA News