Rearrest GCTA-freed convicts

“Joyous” is the word that comes to mind with the firing of Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) chief Nicanor Faeldon after he has failed — not once, but twice — the President. In his first stint under this administration, Faeldon failed to deliver at the Bureau of Customs by letting P6.3 billion worth of shabu slip right under his nose.

Now, with BuCor, he failed to put a stop to the continuous exit of criminals convicted of heinous crimes from exiting the gates of our prisons. It might have been better off removing the locks of their cells!

Now comes the tricky part — the President ordered the rearrest of all those wrongfully freed by the faulty interpretation of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law. It is reported that 1,914 heinous crimes convicts were released since 2014, all of which I am positive are thinking of ways of getting out of the country. The Philippine National Police (PNP) has announced the formation of “tracker teams” to trace these convicts like they’re deer during hunting season. I can also imagine a nationwide version of “Hunger Games” where all authorities are alerted on the whereabouts of these convicts.

More stories will come out on the next days as to who were released, particularly those involved in high-profile cases. To recall, the BuCor refused to name these people for supposed “data privacy” reasons. However, under the Data Privacy Act, information that is necessary to carry out the functions of a public authority is not covered by the law (Section 4, Republic Act 10173). We heard about the release of the convicted rapists in the Chiong sisters’ case. Now, we hear that even the convicts from the Scintilla Juris fraternity involved in the killing of Dennis Venturina back in 1994 were also released under the GCTA Law.

Justice Secretary Menardo Guevara, my law professor in Remedial Law, readily offered legal basis for the directive of President Duterte to rearrest said convicts in the form of two Supreme Court cases, which are good as law. In both People v. Fidel Tan (GR L-21805, 25 February 1967) and City Warden of Manila City Jail v. Estrella, et al. (GR 141211, 31 August 2001), the GCTA Law was not yet in effect, but the SC recognized the validity of a rearrest pursuant to an invalid or void release order.

In the 2001 case, the SC made reference to the 1967 case with the following excerpt: “We are constrained to order the rearrest of all of respondents. This can be done without placing them in double jeopardy of being punished for the same offense because their reincarceration is merely a continuation of the penalties that they had not completely served due to the invalid crediting of good conduct time allowances in their favor.”

In both cases, the release orders were issued by lower ranked BuCor officials, where it must have been the BuCor chief. The stark difference, thus, from the two cases with the issue at hand is that now it is the BuCor chief himself that issued the release orders, based on the erroneous implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the GCTA Law. Regardless the reason may be, the SC ruled that the act of rearresting wrongfully released convicts is a legal act. And if the judiciary can order the rearrest, then the President, as head of the Executive branch, most definitely has the complete authority to do the same.

One may argue that all BuCor chiefs involved, which notably include now Sen. Ronald “Bato” de la Rosa, were just merely following the law in so ordering the release of these convicts. Political considerations carry weight, and we expect none — including Faeldon — to be administratively charged. But we do foresee a “witch hunt” in the next months, which may dangerously turn into an iteration of Oplan “Tokhang.”

What was revealed with the GCTA controversy is a gap in legislation, or a void between the enactment of what is good law and its faulty interpretation in the IRR. This is supposed to be addressed in the oversight function of Congress. With the parallel hearings being conducted in both houses of Congress, we can expect an immediate revision of the GCTA Law and more involvement in the later crafting of the IRR.

“If the judiciary can order the rearrest, then the President, as head of the Executive branch, most definitely has the complete authority to do the same.

“Under the Data Privacy Act, information that is necessary to carry out the functions of a public authority is not covered by the law.