(Eagle News)–Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon believes there is legal basis to order the re-arrest of convicts of heinous crimes who have been released under the Good Conduct Time Allowance law.
Drilon said “it was clearly established” after all that the procedure for the release of 1914 convicts, including three convicted of the rape-slay of the Chiong sisters, was “not followed.”
He said the good conduct of convicts was wrongly computed as none of their bad conducts were reflected in their carpetas, and some of the release orders were signed by officials who are not authorized under the law to do so.
Under the 2015 Department Order No. 953 issued by then-acting justice secretary and now Supreme Court Associate Justice Benjamin Caguioa, the release of prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua or high-risk inmates, including former Mayor Antonio Sanchez, shall only be implemented with the prior approval of the justice secretary.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra admitted he did not approve the release of the prisoners nor did it go through his office.
Drilon said the department order is in keeping with the provision of Republic Act 10575, or the Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013, which clearly mandates that “DOJ shall retain authority over the power to review, reverse, revise, or modify the decisions of the BuCor in the exercise of its regulatory or quasi-judicial functions.”
Drilon said the re-arrest would also be in accordance with the case of People vs. Tan,where the Supreme Court ordered the re-arrest of a person who was erroneously released by a jail warden based on the GCTA law.
The SC said “the prisoner’s re-arrest 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.”
“Neither would his re-arrest deprive him of liberty and without due process of law, because he was not yet entitled to liberty at the time he was released,” Drilon quoted the SC decision as saying.
According to Drilon, those against it could question the re-arrest in the High Court.
“The law should be interpreted to give justice to the victims. An interpretation that unqualifiedly and unjustly favors the oppressor, rather than the victims, may cause people’s trust in our justice system to erode,” he said.
