Inmates of New Bilibid Prison v. De Lima (2019): Retroactive GCTA

Republic Act No. 10592 was signed into law on May 29, 2013 and took effect on June 6, 2013. It amended Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of the Revised Penal Code. Among other changes, it rewrote Article 97 on the deductions a prisoner earns for good conduct, and added a deduction for study, teaching or mentoring.

The Secretaries of Justice and of the Interior and Local Government issued the implementing rules on March 26, 2014. They took effect on April 18, 2014. Section 4, Rule 1 of these rules said that the good conduct time allowance, the time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and the special time allowance for loyalty would apply only prospectively, that is, only from then on. The rules explained that new procedures and a new screening committee were needed first.

In June 2014, convicted prisoners of the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa filed a petition in the Supreme Court against the two Secretaries. A lawyer and other prisoners joined as intervenors. Another group of prisoners filed a second petition, and the Court consolidated the two cases.

Is Section 4, Rule 1 of the implementing rules valid in making the allowances under Republic Act No. 10592 apply only to the future?

The Supreme Court granted the petitions. It declared Section 4, Rule 1 of the implementing rules invalid insofar as it provided for the prospective application of the three allowances.

The Court relied on Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code:

Its reasons:

• The law reduces punishment. Republic Act No. 10592 does not define a crime or set a penalty. But its provisions have the purpose and effect of reducing the punishment, because they shorten the time a prisoner stays in jail. That is enough for Article 22 to apply.
• Prospective-only rules lengthen sentences. Denying prisoners the time off they are entitled to, in practice, extends their sentence and increases their punishment. This goes against Article 22.
• Rules cannot add conditions the law does not set. Nothing in Republic Act No. 10592 made the new screening committee a precondition before the allowances could be applied. The law only allowed the two Secretaries to issue rules to carry it out. The Court said "an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress".
• Nothing new was needed to compute. The standard was still "good conduct", which had not changed through the years, and prison records already showed each prisoner's behavior and schooling. The Court found it hard to see why retroactive computation would be complex.

The Court required the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology to re-compute, with reasonable dispatch, the time allowances due to the petitioners and all those similarly situated. They must then release those who have fully served their sentence, unless they are held for another lawful cause. The decision was made immediately executory. One Justice wrote a separate concurring opinion.

The good conduct time allowance, the time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and the special time allowance for loyalty under Republic Act No. 10592 apply retroactively under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code, because they reduce punishment and favor the accused; implementing rules cannot limit them to the future.

Many people were already in prison or in jail when the 2013 law took effect. Under the 2014 rule, the new allowances applied only prospectively, so they would not have counted for time already served. After this ruling, the allowances of the law must be re-computed for that time too, so some sentences end earlier.

The ruling also confirms a general principle: implementing rules issued by a department must follow the law they implement. They cannot add a condition that Congress did not write, such as first setting up a new screening committee.

Made-up illustration: Rodel began serving a prison sentence in 2010 and kept good behavior. Under this ruling, his allowance for the time he served before the new rules is also computed under Article 97 as amended, for example 20 days for each month of good behavior in his first two years. If the re-computed total shows that he has fully served his sentence, the ruling calls for his release, unless he is held for another lawful cause. This is only an illustration: the prison authorities compute the actual allowance, and other rules not covered here may affect who qualifies.