Political prisoner ordered released in plea that also questioned revised GCTA rules
MANILA, Philippines (Updated 8:32 a.m., Dec. 21) — A local court ordered the release of political prisoner Juanito Itaas following his petition for habeas corpus that also questioned the controversial amendment to the rules of the Good Conduct Time Allowance law.
The Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court Branch 204, in a ruling dated November 8 but made public only Monday, granted the Petition for Habeas Corpus filed by Itaas’ son, Jarel, arguing that the prisoner should be released as he "has already served his sentence."
Presiding Judge Gener Gito ordered the release of Itaas as the court also held that Section 2, Rule IV of the 2019 Amended Implementing Rules and Regulation of Republic Act 10592 is invalid for being ultra vires, or in excess of what the law mandates.
This is the second known legal challenge against the Department of Justice’s Implementing Rules and Regulation on Republic Act 10592, the law that expanded time allowances for good conduct.
In 2019, the DOJ released its Revised IRR following the controversial reported early release of murderer-rapist Antonio Sanchez through the said law. In its revised rules, convicts of heinous crimes are held ineligible to benefit from the law.
Free Legal Assistance Group lawyer Theodore Te said they welcome the decision and hope that Itaas will be able to join his family for the holidays.
"Judge Gito’s decision is clear, cogent, and compelling. His decision to grant Mr. Itaas the benefit of the GCTA is founded on both the facts and the law and his ruling declaring as invalid the IRR provisions that made it more difficult for detainees to benefit from the GCTA is consistent with the Constitution and the law," he added.
Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra, under whose leadership the department revised the IRR, said they will discuss the matter with the Office of the Solicitor General once they officially receive a copy of the decision.
EXPLAINER: Good law, bad man: RA 10592 and rape-slay convict Antonio Sanchez
Itaas' case
Itaas was convicted for murder for the killing of US Army Col. James Rowe and the frustrated murder of the American soldier’s driver Joaquin Binuya.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and penalty of reclusion perpetua for the murder case, but modified the local court's penalty for frustrated murder where he was sentenced to a minimum of six years and a maximum of nine years and six months.
The petitioner told the court that Itaas was granted amnesty for the attempted murder conviction, but even as he was excluded from it, he should still be entitled to release "since he has already earned GCTA totaling 10,698 days or equivalent of 29.31 years" which Bureau of Corrections officials supposedly refused to credit him.
Court resolution
Reviewing the amnesty grant cited by the petitioners, the court held that the attempted murder conviction was covered in the grant, which means that the only penalty he should be serving is reclusion perpetua.
The court also gave weight to the petitioners’ argument that the duration of reclusion perpetua in his case is 30 years, and not 40 years, as the former was held under Article 27 of the Revised Penal Code, prior to the amendment by RA 7659 in 1993.
"Based on the foregoing disquisition, the inevitable conclusion is that Mr. Itaas has already served his sentence… Using Mr. Itaas’ Prison Record, his actual service of imprisonment is 32 years, one month and 12 days as of October 19, 2021. Clearly, Mr. Itaaas is deemed to have fully served the sentence imposed upon him," the ruling read.
Questions on GCTA law’s revised IRR
But what if the amnesty does not cover the attempted murder conviction, will Itaas be considered as having served his sentence? The court said this will depend on whether he is entitled to benefit from the GCTA law.
The court noted that the prohibition on the grant of benefits of RA 10592 to heinous crimes convicts only came to being in 2019, and the 2019 Amended IRR insofar as excluding from the benefits of the GCTA law those already serving final judgment for heinous crimes, cannot be applied retroactively. "Thus, Mr. Itaas is entitled to the benefits of RA 10592," it said.
But Itaas also questioned the validity of the 2019 Amended IRR, specifically that it expanded exceptions from benefits provided by RA 10592. He argued that the revised IRR added an exception that prohibited heinous crimes convicts from benefiting from the GCTA, when there is nothing in the law to do that.
The petitioner argued that the term “heinous crimes” was only mentioned in Section 1 of RA 10592 in excluding a person from the benefits of deducting the period of his preventive imprisonment from the sentence.
To recall, the contradicting views of the BuCor, then under Nicanor Faeldon, and Guevarra also resulted in confusion. Faeldon was of the view that all convicts are granted GCTA, but Guevarra said the DOJ reviewed the implementation of the law and concluded that “the proper interpretation of that law in so far as the exclusions are concerned is... to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes from the benefit of the GCTA."
EXPLAINER: Excluded from GCTA or not? Why Sanchez's release was 'a possibility'
'In excess of the law'
The court in resolving this held that Section 2, Rule IV of the Amended IRR, which listed those who are not entitled to any GCTA, as being in excess of what the law mandates.
The BuCor, respondent in the case, said the exclusion of heinous crimes convicts is based on Article 29 of the PRC, specifically the last paragraph that said: "recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act."
But the court did not agree. It said the cited phrase cannot be used as justification to expand the exceptions as it only pertains to those undergoing preventive imprisonment as covered by Art. 29 of the RPC. Preventive imprisonment refers to the time in detention before an accused is convicted.
"A complete and meticulous reading of the provision would reveal that the benefit of 'credit for preventive imprisonment, or release if period of preventive imprisonment is already equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged or GCTA', is not available to those who are 'recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons charged with heinous crimes,'" the court said.
"Therefore, from all the foregoing discussion, Mr. Itaas is entitled to be credited the equivalent days of the GCTAs earned by him," the court added.
Based on the statutory guidelines, the court’s computation showed that Itaas is entitled to 10,758 days or 29 years, five months and 23 days reduction from his sentence.
“Under the two (2) convictions, Mr. Itaas has to serve a total of thirty-nine (39) years and six (6) months imprisonment. Considering that he has already served thirty-two (32) years, one (1) month and twelve (12) days and applying GCTAs he has already earned, which is ten thousand seven hundred fifty-eight (10,758) days or twenty-nine (29) years, five (5) months and twenty-three (23) days, Mr. Itaas is deemed to have already served his sentence for his two convictions," the court held.
(Editor's note: An earlier version of this article reported that the petition is the first to challenge the implementing rules of the GCTA law. It is the second.)
- Latest
- Trending
