Reported By:

Carmie J. Arieta
The criminal justice system,
essentially, is the system or process
in the community by which crimes
are investigated, and the persons
suspected thereof are taken into
custody, prosecuted in court and
punished, if found guilty, provisions
being made for their correction and
rehabilitation.
The Philippines, like any other country that
function under a system of a democratic
society, operates its criminal justice system
apparatus whereby society identifies,
investigates, accuses, tries convicts, punishes,
and rehabilitate criminal offenders.
Hence, the Philippines Criminal Justice System may be
viewed in three (3) challenging perspectives, such as the
following:
• It assert the idea of deterrence, the notion that the threat
of sanctions can prevent crimes by creating a fear of
punishment for those who might break the law;
• It adheres on the principles of the retribution, the idea
that criminal offenders deserve to suffer for the harm
they have done, and their punishment should be
proportionate to the harm inflicted; and
• It support on the notion of behavioral change, which
proposes that criminal sanctions should aim to reform
convicted criminal offenders so that they will stay away
from crime in the future.
The CJS is envisioned as being
supported by five pillars, namely: LAW
ENFORCEMENT; PROSECUTION;
COURTS; CORRECTIONS; and the
COMMUNITY. Each of these five
pillars plays a vital role in the
administration of justice and, as such,
their interplay and cooperation is most
necessary for the proper functioning of a
Criminal Justice System.
a. Law Enforcement Pillar
The first pillar is the Law Enforcement Pillar. It
consists mainly of the officers and personnel of the
Philippine National Police, National Bureau of
Investigation, Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency, Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC),
Armed Forces of the Philippines, and 34 other
related agencies. These agencies are “at the
forefront of the Criminal Justice System of the
country. They directly deal with the citizens and are
directly exposed to the criminal elements.” Clearly,
it is thus necessary that the member agencies within
this pillar are both trained and well-oriented with
“the ways of civil society.”
a. Law Enforcement Pillar
Their work consists of the prevention and
control of crimes, enforcement of laws and
effecting the arrest of offenders, including the
conduct of lawful searches and seizures, to
gather necessary evidence so that a complaint
may be filed at the Prosecution’s Office.
Identified as the first point of contact with the
community, this pillar initiates the CJS
machinery upon arresting a person believed
to be a suspect.
b. Prosecution Pillar
The second is the Prosecution Pillar, which is
composed of the National Prosecution Service of the
Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the
Ombudsman, and the Public Attorney’s Office. While
the focus of this pillar is the speedy disposition of
cases, its principal task is the investigation of criminal
complaints emanating from the community and the
law enforcement agencies, and bringing these
complaints to their successful prosecution in the
judicial system. The prosecution pillar conducts
preliminary investigation of cases filed in the
prosecutor’s office and prosecutes cases filed in the
court against alleged offenders after probable cause is
established.
 c. Courts Pillar
The Courts Pillar adjudicates cases and renders
judgment. The Philippine Judiciary is a four-tiered
court system consisting of the Supreme Court as the
highest court of the land; the intermediate courts
consisting of the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan,
and Court of Tax Appeals; the second level courts,
which consist of Regional Trial Courts and Shari’a
District Courts; and the first level courts consisting
of Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial
Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts and Shari’a Circuit Courts.
 c. Courts Pillar
The goal of the Courts Pillar is not merely to
adjudicate cases, but to do so in accordance with the
Rule of Law and “without sacrificing the quality of
justice.” Interestingly enough, the overall performance
of the CJS may be determined by the performance of
the Courts Pillar. Many of the factors that affect the
disposition of a litigation – such as those that are in
relation to the procurement of witnesses and evidence,
the determination of probable cause and the like – are
clearly outside of the control of the Judiciary.
Nevertheless, because the litigation process brings all
these factors together, “[t]he performance of the courts
therefore would serve to synthesize to a large extent
the overall performance of the criminal justice
system.”
d. Corrections Pillar
Comprising the Corrections Pillar are the jails
and prisons administered by the Bureau of
Corrections (BUCOR), the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology, and by the local
government units with regard to provincial
and subprovincial jails. The Philippine
National Police likewise maintains detention
facilities in its different police stations
nationwide.
d. Corrections Pillar
The Corrections Pillar may also be classified
into two: institution-based and community-
based corrections. On one hand, the
institution-based corrections include prisons
and jails which house prisoners serving terms
of imprisonment; under detention status; and
those for safekeeping in selected cases. On the
other hand, community-based corrections
pertain to probation and parole. These are
being managed by the Parole and Probation
Administration of the DOJ.
d. Corrections Pillar
PPA conducts a post-sentence investigation of
petitioners for probation as referred by the courts, as
well as pre-parole/pre-executive clemency
investigation for those referred by the Board of
Pardons and Parole, to determine the suitability of
the offender to be reintegrated in the community
instead of serving their sentence inside an institution
or prison. The PPA further supervises probationers,
parolees and conditional pardonees to promote
their rehabilitation and reintegration to the
mainstream of society. It mobilizes the community
resources, especially through volunteer probation
aides.
e. Community Pillar
The Community Pillar is composed of
institutions such as the Department of
Social Welfare and Development,
Commission on Human Rights, National
Commission on Indigenous Peoples, Public
Attorney’s Office , barangays, civic
organizations, and non-governmental
organizations. Members of the Community
Pillar are regarded to be both duty holders
and claimholders in the administration of
justice.
e. Community Pillar
As duty holders, they have the responsibility
to assist law enforcement and the courts in
solving crime by providing information, by
community participation in crime
prevention and creating a culture of peace,
and by supporting the mobilization of
resources for peace and order. As
claimholders, they are the beneficiaries of
the justice system and they play critical roles
in holding system duty holders accountable.
e. Community Pillar
The importance of the Community Pillar cannot be
overemphasized. In its own manner, it ideally
participates in two main responsive roles of the CJS: first,
that of crime prevention, and second, that of victim
prevention. As for the first, this pillar collectively
imposes limitations on individual behavior of citizens
that deter criminality and criminal behavior for the
common good of civilized and democratic society.
Meanwhile, in relation to the second, it has been
recommended that communities must disseminate more
information regarding the roles and functions of the
other components of the CJS, as well as broaden its own,
in order to responsively contribute to victimization
prevention.
e. Community Pillar
Ultimately, criminals will come from the
community and some will return to it. From this
alone, it can be seen how much impact the
Community Pillar can have in the rendition of
justice. By participating in government programs, though not
entirely related to the criminal justice system such as livelihood
programs and the like, the community can therefore help lessen
the crimes by diverting what would be criminal enterprise into
something more productive.
Additionally, by aiding in the capturing of criminals
and in their subsequent prosecution, they can
likewise ensure proper and just redress for crimes.
 The Interrelation and
Cooperation Between and Among
the Pillars of the CJS
Given that the pillars operate in just one system, the
efficiency and effectiveness of one can easily be hampered
by the inefficiency and incompetence of the other,
notwithstanding the fact that they function separately.
This is because “[n]o pillar can operate in isolation for the
performance of each impacts on the other.” The system is a
step-by-step process, where many of the roles are
“independent, interconnecting and overlapping.”
Therefore, in order for the system to operate smoothly,
cooperation, coordination and concerted efforts of the
pillars, namely the police, the prosecutors, the judiciary
as well as the correctional services are necessary. The
figure below shows the interaction between and among
the Pillars of the Philippine CJS.
FIGURE 2.1 THE FIVE PILLARS OF THE PHILIPPINE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
 The Interrelation and
Cooperation Between and Among
the Pillars of the CJS
Acknowledging that each pillar depends on the other, it
cannot be stressed enough that for the Philippine CJS to
be effective, coordination between and among the
different pillars must be strengthened. A stronger CJS
will, undoubtedly, not only result in a safer and more just
society but also, inevitably, contribute to the economic
development of the country. This is because it is
believed that there exists a link between economic
development and “amenities” such as low crime rate.
For a developing country like the Philippines, there is
thus more reason to engage in the assessment and
improvement of its CJS. An investment of effort in this
exercise can certainly prove to be economically
beneficial for all.
 2019 UPDATE
• Reinstate death penalty for heinous crimes
related to illegal drugs and plunder
When he started his term as President, Duterte wanted
to bring back the death penalty "especially for drug
traffickers." He reiterated this plea in his 2017 SONA.
Two years later, in his 2019 SONA, Duterte included
plunder among the crimes punishable by death.
 2019 UPDATE
Plunder was included in a death penalty House bill in
the 17th Congress, but was later removed in early
2017, along with rape and treason. The House
passed that bill in March 2017, but it has languished
there since.
In the current 18th Congress, Senators Bong Go and
Manny Pacquiao had already filed bills seeking to
reinstate the death penalty for illegal drugs. In Go's
bill, plunder was included as a capital offense.
 Pacquiao, Bong Go file bills on
death penalty for illegal drugs
cases
Senator Christopher 'Bong' Go says he included
plunder in his version of the death penalty bill
because President Rodrigo Duterte is 'desperate' to
end corruption.
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – Two senators
on Tuesday, July 2, filed bills seeking to reinstate
the death penalty for illegal drugs cases.
Senator Christopher "Bong" Go filed Senate Bill No.
207 which seeks to amend Republic Act (RA) No.
9346 which abolished death penalty in the country.
 Pacquiao, Bong Go file bills on
death penalty for illegal drugs
cases
SB 207 seeks to imposed the punishment of death
through lethal injection, reviving Republic Act No.
8177 which legalized this method of capital
punishment.
Go said he included plunder as a crime punishable
by because the President was "desperate" to end
corruption.
He said that he would be open to deliberations on the
bill, particularly on the quantity of illegal drugs
involved and the amount of money that would qualify
for crimes punishable with death.
 Pacquiao, Bong Go file bills on
death penalty for illegal drugs
cases
Under RA 7080 which defined plunder, any public officer
who acquired ill-gotten wealth amounting to a total of at
least P50 million shall be guilty of plunder and punished
by life imprisonment.
Also on Tuesday, Senator Manny Pacquiao filed SB 189
seeking to reimpose the death penalty for cases
involving illegal drug manufacturing and trafficking.
His version of the death penalty bill also seeks to amend
Article II Section 4 of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, to increase the penalties
for violating importation, selling of illegal drugs, and
maintenance of a drug den.
 Pacquiao, Bong Go file bills on
death penalty for illegal drugs
cases
Top cop-turned-senator Ronald dela Rosa earlier
expressed intention to file a bill reinstating death penalty,
but only for high-level drug traffickers. He has yet to file his
bills, as filing is according to seniority.
So far, 10 other senators have earlier expressed support
for its reimposition: Senate President Vicente Sotto III,
Sherwin Gatchalian, Cynthia Villar, Imee Marcos, Aquilino
Pimentel III, Juan Edgardo Angara, Pia Cayetano, Bong
Revilla, Francis Tolentino, and Lito Lapid.
Senators Grace Poe and Nancy Binay are against it.
The 17th Congress senators rejected the passage of the
bill, while the House of Representatives passed it on third
and final reading. – Rappler.com
2019 UPDATE

The recent directive of President

Rodrigo Duterte to strip the
Philippine National Police(PNP)
and the National Bureau of
Investigation(NBI) of the power
to conduct anti-illegal drug
operations so both agencies can
cleanse their ranks of scalawags
is a “temporary setback” to our
law enforcement.
 2019 UPDATE
The Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law
has been at the center of controversy after initial
news about the possible early release of
convicted murderer-rapist Antonio Sanchez
broke.
As government officials backtracked on cutting
short the prison term of Sanchez, the debate has
now focused on whether or not those convicted
of heinous crimes should benefit from the GCTA.

But how did the law come to be? What are the
arguments for amendments?
 2019 UPDATE
December 1930

The Revised Penal Code is signed into law.

Chapter 2 lays out the specifics of "partial
extinction of criminal liability," including
conditional pardon, commutation of sentence,
and good conduct allowances.

November 5, 2012

The Senate passes Senate Bill No. 3064 which

amends several articles of the Revised Penal
Code.
 2019 UPDATE
January 18, 2013

The House of Representatives passes House Bill 417

which amends Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code.

May 29, 2013

Then-president Benigno Aquino III signs Republic Act No.

10592 or the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law,
which amended several articles under the Revised Penal
Code, including Article 97, which lays out the allowance for
good conduct for persons deprived of liberty (PDLs).

The GCTA law allows for a reduction of sentences of PDLs,

depending on how well they abide by rules and regulations
inside “any penal institution, rehabilitation, or detention
center or any other local jail.”
 2019 UPDATE
March 26, 2014

The law’s Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)

document is released. Penned by then-justice secretary
Leila de Lima and interior secretary Mar Roxas, the IRR
provides for a prospective application of the GCTA law.

Prospective application is seen in Section 4 of the IRR,

which provides “for new procedures and standards of
behavior for the grant of good conduct time allowance" and
requires "the creation of a Management, Screening and
Evaluation Committee.”

The IRR takes effect on April 18 of the same year.

 2019 UPDATE
June 18, 2014

At least 13 Bilibid inmates, represented by lawyer Michael

Evangelista, file a petition for certiorari and prohibition against
Roxas and De Lima, contesting the prospective application of the
GCTA Law.

The inmates include Venancio Roxas, Saturnino Paras, Edgardo

Manuel, Heminildo Cruz, Allan Tejada, Roberto Marquez, Julito
Mondejar, Armando Cabuang, Jonathan Crisanto, Edgar
Echenique, Janmark Saracho, Josenel Alvaran, and Crisencio
Neri Jr.

July 14, 2014

Lawyer Rene Saguisag files a petition-in-intervention, saying that

RA 10592’s legislative history shows no intent of being
prospective in character. The High Court grants the leave to
intervene.
 2019 UPDATE
October 21, 2014

Three NBP inmates file another petition-in-intervention

against the provision. Inmates William Montinola, Fortunato
Visto, and Arsenio Cabanilla are represented by the Free
Legal Assistance Group (FLAG).
The provision, FLAG said at the time, “discriminates, without
any reasonable basis, against those who would have been
benefited from the retroactive application of the law.”

October 24, 2014

Ten inmates at the NBP’s Maximum Security Compound file a

petition for certiorari and prohibition against the prospective
application of the law, saying that the IRR was “issued with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction.”
 2019 UPDATE
June 25, 2019

Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court grants the

petition and makes the GCTA law retroactive.

In his concurring opinion, SC Associate Justice Marvic

Leonen says that the prospective provision of the 2014
IRR “implies that all inmates detained or convicted prior
to its effectivity can no longer be rehabilitated for a
successful reintegration into society, effectively
trampling upon their dignity as human beings.”

August 20, 2019

Reporters receive unverified information that convicted

rapist and murderer Antonio Sanchez might soon be
walking free.
 2019 UPDATE
August 22, 2019

Bureau of Correction(BuCor) Director General Nicanor

Faeldon said that Sanchez is eligible to avail himself of
the GCTA, he might still have to stay in Bilibid for several
years because of misdemeanors he reportedly
committed, like stashing drugs in his jail cell and
smuggling in luxuries like kubol, television, and air-
conditioning unit.

August 23, 2019

Justice Secretary Guevarra had an explanation: the
wording of Section 1 and Section 3 of the law means that
only inmates eligible for credit of preventive
imprisonment (CPI) are also eligible for GCTA. Because
people charged of heinous crimes are not eligible for CPI,
then they are also not eligible for GCTA.