Topic 3: Historical Background of Probation (Continuation of topic 2)

This topic is a continuation of topic two (2). The lessons under this topic include:
Emergence of probation in United States, England, and Philippines. The main purpose of this
topic is to let you know how probation came to existence, who are the initiators and how
probation become a law.

Objectives:

At the end of this topic, the students will be able to:

 Trace the emergence of probation

 Identify and explain the forerunners of probation
 Point out the pioneering personalities and give their significant contributions
in the development of probation
 Discover how probation emerge in America, England and in the Philippines

LESSON 1: Historical background of Probation in the Unites States (Esmeralda, R. M.

(2015)

In the United States, particularly in Massachusetts, different practices were being

developed. "Security for good behavior," also known as “good aberrance,” was much like
modern bail: the accused paid a fee as collateral for good behavior. Filing was also practiced
in cases that did not demand an immediate sentence. Using this procedure, indictments were
"laid on file" or held in abeyance. To mitigate unreasonable mandatory penalties, judges often
granted a motion to quash based upon minor technicalities or errors in the proceedings.
Although these American practices were precursors to probation, it is the early use of
recognizance and suspended sentence that are directly related to modern probation.

The first state to enact a real probation law in United States is Massachusetts. The first
practical demonstration of probation, first use of the term as court service, and the enactment
of the first probation law occurred in Massachusetts.

Volunteer services evolved in Maryland. The prisoners Aid Association of Maryland,

organized in 1869, employed agents to visit the prison and assist released prisoners and
gradually they began to investigate cases and assist offenders before the Baltimore courts. A
1894 law provided that any court in the state might release on probation for “good conduct” a
person convicted of any offense not capital, if no previous conviction was proved against
him, upon his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, and during such period
as the court may direct to appear and received judgment when called upon, and in the
meantime to keep the peace and be of good behavior. (Esmeralda, R. M. (2015).

Another state adopting a partial measure was Missouri with its “parole of convicted
person’s law of 1897.”

The second state to enact a real probation law. The Vermont like Missouri and unlike
Massachusetts provided for probation only after suspension of the execution of sentence. The
bills in both states were supported by the state correctional agencies. Many features of the
Massachusetts law were incorporated, with several innovations since followed elsewhere.
Vermont was the first to adopt a county plan. (Esmeralda, R. M. (2015).

The third state to enact a real probation law is Rhode Island. A complete state-
administered probation system appeared first in Rhode Island. The Act of 1899 empowered
the board of state charities and corrections to appoint a state probation officer and additional
probation officers, “one of whom at least shall be a woman,” to serve all courts in the state.
The Act followed Massachusetts in permitting the use of probation before the imposition of
sentence and even without conviction but the limitation of probation to less serious offenses
was an unfortunate departure from the laws of Massachusetts and Vermont.

Success of probation became known in other English speaking countries. Illinois and
Minnesota in 1899 Plan for children only. New Jersey and New York enacted probation law
in 1900.

Finally, on March 4, 1925 the UNITED STATES FEDERAL PROBATION ACT

was enacted.

LESSON 2: Historical background of Probation in England (Esmeralda, R. M. (2015)

Early in the 19th century the English magistrates initiated experiments to save young
and inexperienced offenders from stigma of prison. They made use of the latitude allowed
then under the common law to bind over defendants, who should be brought back for
sentence if the conditions of release were violated. The need for supervision and assistance to
those so released was met by assigning the young offender to the care and guardianship of his
parents or his employer with an occasional check on his progress by the police.

Mathew Davenport Hill is considered the father of probation in England. He left an

interesting account of his experiments in the Birmingham court. He was in the forefront of
reforming juvenile offenders. He finds persons who act as guardians of the juvenile offender.
Then at an unexpected period, the confidential officer visits the guardian, makes inquiries and
keeps notes of information received.

He conducted his experiment in the Birmingham Court. Beginning in the early years
of 1481, he acted for and in behalf of juvenile offenders, when he believes:

 The individual is not fully corrupt

 There was reasonable hope of reformation

 When there could be found persons to act

As guardian they are kind enough to take charge of the young convict. In the belief
that there is better hope for reformation under such guardians than in prison. At unexpected
period, confidential officers visit the guardians, make inquiries and register facts. He was thus
informed and records were kept.

LESSON 3: Historical Background of Probation in the Philippines

 In the Philippines, provisions for juvenile probation has been embodied in Article 80
of the Revised Penal Code since its enactment in 1932. Thus, sentence was suspended for
offenders under 16 years of age accused of a grave or less grave felony, who were then
placed in the care and custody of public or private entities. This was amended on December
10, 1974 by Presidential Decree No. 603, known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and
by Presidential Decree No. 1179 which set the age of minority to below 18 years of age at the
time of the commission of the offense. Likewise, Republic Act No. 6425 or the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972 provided for the suspension of sentence and probation of a first-offender
under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense but not more than 21 years
at the time when judgment should have been promulgated.

The move to integrate adult probation in the Philippine criminal justice system began
early in the twentieth century when the Philippine Legislature approved Act No. 4221 on
August 7, 1935. This created a Probation Office under the Department of Justice, and
provided probation for first offenders 18 years of age and above who were convicted of
certain crimes. Unfortunately, there were defects in the law’s procedural framework so that,
on November 16, 1937, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the case of People
of the Philippines vs. Vera on the grounds of “undue delegation of legislative power” and
violation of the “equal protection of the law” clause.

A second attempt was made when then Teodulo C. Natividad and Ramon D.
Bagatsing introduced House Bill No. 393 during their last months in Congress. Passed in the
Lower House, this was pending in the Senate when Martial Law was proclaimed in 1972.

The agitations for the adoption of an adult probation law continued. In 1973, the
technical staff of the Bacolod City Police Advisory Council, headed by Lt. Col. Arcadio S.
Lozada and assisted by US Peace Corps Volunteer Alvin L. Koenig, prepared a proposed
Probation Decree which incorporated pertinent provisions of the Natividad and Laurel Bills.
This was submitted to the Secretary of Justice and the National Police Commission after a
thorough perusal by a study committee of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and
subsequent endorsement by its national Board of Directors.

Late in 1975 the National Police Commission, sitting en banc and headed by Defense
Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile who was the concurrent Chairman of NAPOLCOM, heard the
report “Meeting the Challenge of Crime” of the Philippine delegation to the 5th United
Nations Congress held in Geneva, Switzerland in September 1975. At that time, the
Philippines was among the few participating countries without an adult probation system.
Citing the role of probation in an integrated approach to crime prevention, the delegation
urged priority action on the establishment of the system. This was the turning point that led to
the passage of the law. The Inter-Disciplinary Committee on Crime Prevention created in
1974 by Secretary Enrile and chaired by Commissioner Teodulo Natividad, then pursued the
preparation of the probation decree. Eighteen technical hearings were conducted, attended by
60 resource persons, after which the draft decree was presented at the Seminar on the
Probation System sponsored by the NAPOLCOM, Philippine Constabulary and Integrated
National Police, and the University of the Philippines Law Center on April 24, 1976. This
was studied and overwhelmingly endorsed by 369 participants representing various sectors of
society. A final draft of the decree was subsequently prepared, then reviewed and endorsed to
the President of the Philippines by the Minister of Justice, Minister of National Defense, and
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
 Thus, the law was born on July 24, 1976. It was during the closing ceremonies of the
First National Conference on a Strategy to Reduce Crime held at Camp Aguinaldo, Quezon
City, that President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 968,
otherwise known as the Probation Law of 1976, in the presence of nearly 800 representatives
of the country’s criminal justice system.

DEVELOPMENT

Under Executive Order No. 292, “The Administrative Code of 1987” which was
promulgated on November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed “Parole and
Probation Administration” and given the added function of supervising prisoners who, after
serving part of their sentence in jails are released on parole pardon with parole conditions

Moreover, the investigation and supervision of First Time Minor Drug Offenders
(FTMDO) placed under suspended sentence became another added function of the
Administration pursuant to Sections 66 – 70 of Republic Act 9165, “The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” and by virtue of the Memorandum of Agreement between the
Dangerous Drugs Board and Administration dated 17 August 2005. Likewise, pursuant to
Section 57 of Republic Act 9165, the Administration was designated as the authorized
representative of the Dangerous Drugs Board under the Voluntary Submission Program.

The Agency was placed in the forefront in relation to crime prevention, treatment of
offenders in the community-based setting, and in the overall administration of criminal
justice by mandating the revitalization of the Volunteer Probation Aide (VPA) Program
pursuant to Executive Order 468 dated October 11, 2005.

Under Republic Act No. 10389, “Recognizance Act of 2012”, the Administration was
directed to monitor and evaluate the activities of the person on release on recognizance.