Scribd
Upload
4K views2 pages

Inmates of New Bilibid Prison Vs de Lima

Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592 is invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty. The court held that penal laws which are favorable to the accused must be applied retroactively according to the principle in criminal law. The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592 works to the disadvantage of petitioners and lengthens their prison stay, making their punishment more onerous. Administrative IRRs must be in harmony with the law and cannot expand or amend an act of Congress.

Uploaded by

Bryan Jay Nuique
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
4K views2 pages

Inmates of New Bilibid Prison Vs de Lima

Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592 is invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special time allowance for loyalty. The court held that penal laws which are favorable to the accused must be applied retroactively according to the principle in criminal law. The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592 works to the disadvantage of petitioners and lengthens their prison stay, making their punishment more onerous. Administrative IRRs must be in harmony with the law and cannot expand or amend an act of Congress.

Uploaded by

Bryan Jay Nuique
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Inmates of New Bilibid Prison vs.

De Lima
G.R. No. 212719June 25, 2019

FACTS:
Then President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law RA 10592, amending Articles 29,
94, 97, 98 and 99 of the RPC. The IRR was jointly issued by respondents DOJ
Secretary Leila M. De Lima and DILG Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II. Petitioners assail
the validity of its Section 4, Rule 1 that directs the prospective application of the grant of
good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring
(TASTM), and special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) mainly on the ground that it
violates Article 22 of the RPC.
They contend that the provisions of RA 10592 are penal in nature and beneficial to the
inmates, hence, should be given retroactive effect in accordance with Article 22 of the
RPC. Further, they contend that IRR contradicts the law it implements.
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition was filed by Edago et al, who are all inmates at the
Maximum Security Compound of the NBP, against the respondents. They contend that:
Sec. 4 of Rule I, IRR provides for a prospective application of the provisions of 10592
and was issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction and thereby void and illegal for being contrary and anathema to RA 10592
and that:
a. R.A. 10592 does not state that its provisions shall have prospective application.
b. Section 4 of the IRR of R.A. 10592 is contrary to Article 22 of the Revised Penal
Code providing that penal laws that are beneficial to the accused shall have
retroactive application.
c. c. Section 4, Rule I of the IRR contravenes public policy and the intent of
Congress when it enacted R.A. 10592
Section 4, rule I of the IRR was issued by respondents with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction because it is patently unconstitutional and:
a. Section 4, rule I of the IRR violates the equal protection clause of the
constitution.
b. Section 4, rule I of the IRR violates substantive due process.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR of R.A. No. 10592, insofar as it provides for
the prospective application of the grant of GCTA, TASTM and STAL, is valid and within
the scope of the law?

HELD:
Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10592
is invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective application of the grant of good
conduct time allowance, time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special
time allowance for loyalty.

In criminal law, the principle that penal laws which are favorable to the accused are
given retroactive effect is well entrenched. This exception to retroactivity was inspired
by sentiments of humanity, and accepted by science.

The court concur in the petitioners’ assertion. The prospective application of the
beneficial provisions of R.A. No. 10592 actually works to the disadvantage of petitioners
and those who are similarly situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty attached
to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, making more onerous
the punishment for the crimes they committed.

Except for the benefits of TASTM and the STAL granted to a prisoner who chose to stay
in the place of his confinement despite the existence of a calamity or catastrophe
enumerated in Article 158 of the RPC, the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are mere
modifications of the RPC that have been implemented by the BUCOR prior to the
issuance of the challenged IRR. In view of this, the claim of "new procedures and
standards of behavior" for the grant of time allowances is untenable
Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the
Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the provisions
of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying the law's general
provisions into effect. The law itself cannot be expanded by such IRRSs, because
an administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress.

You might also like