By Rey Panaligan Several persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) at the New Bilibid Prisons (NBP) have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to stop the government from implementing the restrictions spelled out in the new implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the expanded Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law under Republic Act No. 10592. (MANILA BULLETIN FILE PHOTO) In a petition filed late last week, the SC was told the restrictions in the new IRR crafted by a joint committee of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) “are disadvantageous to prisoners.” While the petition was filed by PDLs at NBP, it was termed as a class suit on behalf of other prisoners in various detention facilities in the country. Specifically, the PDLs – through lawyer Rolito Abing – asked the SC to stop the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) from retroactively applying the exclusions introduced under Section 1 and Section 3 of RA 10592. They sought the nullification of provisions in the new IRR which exclude recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and those charged with heinous crimes from benefitting from the expanded GCTA, Time allowance for Studying, Teaching and Mentoring (TASTM) and Special Time Allowance for Loyalty (STAL). The new IRR also states that heinous crime convicts, who were convicted after the law became effective in 2013, shall not be entitled to any type of GCTA. The petitioners said that Section 1 of RA 10592, amending Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), and Section 3, thereof, amending Article 97 of the RPC, cannot be applied retroactively due to prohibition against ex post facto law. “The retroactive application of disadvantageous provisions of RA 10592 would work to the prejudice of petitioners and those who are similarly situated. The same would preclude the decrease in the penalty attached to their respective crimes and lengthens their prior stay,” they said. An ex post facto law is unconstitutional because “it retroactively criminalizes an act or changes the rules of evidence to easily convict an offender.” The petitioners told the SC that under RA 10592 any and all convicted prisoners are entitled to GCTA, TASTM and STAL, thus, the IRR of the expanded GCTA went beyond what is provided under the law. They said the exclusion of disqualified convicts from any GCTA constitute a violation of their right to equal protection of the law. “Assuming arguendo that doubt exists in the interpretation of the law, still the same should be resolved in favor of the offender,” they stressed. They added that “the deprivation of application of greater GCTA and consequent prolongation of imprisonment of herein, petitioners and those similarly situated constitute violation of their substantive rights.” “Absent any showing that they are not eligible for GCTA, they have to be made beneficiaries of the same, regardless of the nature of the crime they were convicted of. They must be accordingly released by the DOJ and BuCor regardless of whether the same will cause public outrage,” they stressed. Thus, they asked the SC to compel the BuCor and the BJMP “to re-compute with reasonable dispatch the time allowances due the petitioners and all those who are similarly situated and, thereafter, to cause their immediate release from imprisonment in case of full service of sentence, unless they are being confined for some other lawful cause.” In June this year, the SC ruled that the expanded GCTA should be applied retroactively. It ordered the immediate implementation of its decision.