The Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) has asked the Supreme Court (SC) to issue clear guidelines on the implementation of Republic Act (RA) No. 10592, the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law.

GCTA credits for good behavior of a person deprived of liberty (PDL) shorten the period of his or her jail sentence.

“It is our earnest hope that this issue be taken up during the tripartite Justice Sector Coordinating Council (JSCC) national summit scheduled next month where the problem of congestion in prison facilities will be discussed,” BuCor Director General Gregorio Pio P. Catapang Jr. said in a statement on Monday, Nov. 13.

The JSCC -- created in 2010 with the SC, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) as members -- had announced it will hold a National Jail Decongestion Summit on Dec. 6 to 7 to address congestion in the countries detention facilities.

The holding of the summit was disclosed by Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo when he and other SC justices visited the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) in Muntinlupa City and the Pasay City jail last October during the observance of the National Correctional Consciousness Week.

Catapang said BuCor had submitted to the SC the bureau's position paper on the GCTA law.

He said that "while the GCTA is a good law  it’s application is confusing.”

He pointed out that in the 2021 decision in Gil Miguel vs. the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the SC ruled that PDLs "who were convicted of murder and other heinous crimes were disqualified to the grant of GCTA.”

But, he said, "in the recent case of Maclang vs. Hon. Leila de Lima where the former was convicted of heinous crime of Kidnapping for Ransom, the SC applying the Inmates of Bilibid case, held that he is entitled to the benefits of RA 10592 and referred the case to the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa Branch 206 for the determination of the length of time in actual confinement, computation of GCTA and whether he is entitled to immediate release from confinement on account of the full service serve.” 

Catapang informed the SC that BuCor, as of March 17, had listed 136 PDLs who have overserved the maximum 40-year period of imprisonment if the GCTA was to be applied to them, however, “what is holding the bureau from releasing them and processing the papers of other deserving PDLs is the Miguel case and the 2019 amended IRR (implementing rules and regulations) of the GCTA law.”

He said that BuCor wanted “Section 2, Rule IV of the 2019 Amended IRR be declared void and illegal insofar as it disqualifies PDLs from the benefits of GCTA and other benefits for those who committed heinous crimes.”

He noted that the 2019 IRR, which amended the 2014 IRR, state that “during Service of Sentence where the good conduct of a PDL by final judgement in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall entitle him to the deductions described in Section 3 of the GCTA, from the period of his sentence while recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and PDL charged or convicted of heinous crimes shall not be entitled to GCTA.”

Prior to this, he said that in 2014 the SC issued a ruling declaring the law’s IRR as “invalid insofar as it provides for its prospective application since it works to the disadvantage of petitioners because it precludes the decrease in the penalty attached to their crimes and lengthen their prison stay.” 

The BuCor also sought clarification from the SC on “the duration of penalties if it is computed at 30 years or 40 years” as well as to issue “clear guidelines specifically on the correct formula on how to compute GCTA, Special Time Allowance for Loyalty, Time Allowance for Teaching and Mentoring, and Credit for Preventive Imprisonment.”

The bureau also informed the SC that BuCor, in computing the GCTA credits, is currently following the Definite 40 Rule which states “the penalty of three reclusion perpetua is subject to the forty-year limit  in the People vs. Vidal, 127 SCRA 168 [1984].”