Russel Jess S.
Heyrana I-Arrellano
Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) Law
The RA 10592 or otherwise known as the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law
(GCTA) was passed in 2013, this law could take away half of an inmate’s sentence if he
had been in good behavior. 11,000 inmates around the country could have been
granted freedom if not for the controversy that arose from the case of convicted
murderer and rapist Antonio Sanchez.
“Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to the
possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced
and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to
the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate release
under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct time
allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable cause at
any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the
accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons
charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment.”
The law says that persons charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the
coverage of this act and now the House of Representatives is planning to pass a bill
amending the law which excludes criminals convicted with heinous crimes from availing
the Good Conduct Time Allowance Law (GCTA), which is contrary to the purpose of the
former Administration which was to keep up with restorative justice, which also means
that convicted criminals can be reformed and deserves a second chance.
Excluding those criminals that committed heinous crimes from the coverage of
this act defeats the intent of the law which is to reform convicted criminals even those
who have committed heinous crimes. If the Lawmaking body’s intent in creating Good
Conduct Time Allowance Law was to reform convicted criminals then it should not be
limited to those who committed lesser grave crimes, it must be served to everyone even
to those who have committed heinous crimes because all must be equal before the law
and are entitled without any discrimination.
One of the main reasons why death penalty was abolished in the Philippines is
because we believe that death penalty does not see good in people, people can change
and that people should be allowed second chances. These “good in people” and these
second chances would be pointless if the GCTA law would only be afforded to those
people who have committed lesser grave crimes because the intent of the lawmaking
body or reforming convicted criminals would have been a perfect chance for those who
have committed heinous crimes which should’ve been punished with death penalty and
that the abolishment of death penalty for the reason that people deserves second
chances wouldn’t be pointless.
”People don’t change fundamentally but they do evolve, they grow and become self-
aware. Give someone a second chance and you might end up being surprised”
-Katie Donnelly
Therefore the Government should not exclude criminals convicted with heinous
crimes in availing the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law but instead they
should revise the guidelines that behavior inside the prison should be the basis of
disqualifying an inmate in availing the GCTA and not the crime he or she had
committed. Inmates who committed heinous crimes may also not be disregarded at all
but instead lose points that could shorten his sentence.
