[ G.R. No.

212719, June 25, 2019 ] Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be deducted from thirty (30) years.
INMATES OF THE NEW BILIBID PRISON, MUNTINLUPA CITY,
NAMELY: VENANCIO A. ROXAS, SATURNINO V. PARAS, Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a
EDGARDO G. MANUEL, HERMINILDO V. CRUZ, ALLAN F. period equal to the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense
TEJADA, ROBERTO C. MARQUEZ, JULITO P. MONDEJAR, charged to which he may be sentenced and his case is not yet
ARMANDO M. CABUANG, JONATHAN O. CRISANTO, EDGAR terminated, he shall be released immediately without prejudice to the
ECHENIQUE, JANMARK SARACHO, JOSENEL ALVARAN, AND continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the
CRISENCIO NERI, JR., PETITIONERS, VS. SECRETARY LEILA M. same is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for
DE LIMA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; AND SECRETARY purposes of immediate release under this paragraph shall be the
MANUEL A. ROXAS II, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND actual period of detention with good conduct time
LOCAL GOVERNMENT, RESPONDENTS. allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent
without justifiable cause at any stage of the trial, the court may
ATTY. RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, SR., PETITIONER-INTERVENOR, motu proprio order the rearrest of the accused:  Provided, finally,
That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons
WILLIAM M. MONTINOLA, FORTUNATO P. VISTO, AND charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of
ARESENIO C. CABANILLA, PETITIONERS-INTERVENORS, this Act. In case the maximum penalty to which the accused may be
sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after thirty (30) days of
[G.R. No. 214637] preventive imprisonment.

REYNALDO D. EDAGO, PETER R. TORIDA, JIMMY E. ACLAO, ART. 94. Partial extinction of criminal liability — Criminal liability is
WILFREDO V. OMERES, PASCUA B. GALLADAN, VICTOR M. extinguished partially:
MACOY, JR., EDWIN C. TRABUNCON, WILFREDO A. PATERNO,
FEDERICO ELLIOT, AND ROMEO R. MACOLBAS, PETITIONERS, 1. By conditional pardon;
VS. SECRETARY LEILA M. DE LIMA, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE;
SECRETARY MANUEL A. ROXAS II, DEPARTMENT OF THE 2. By commutation of the sentence; and
INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT; ACTING DIRECTOR
FRANKLIN JESUS B. BUCAYU, BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS; AND 3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he
JAIL CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT DIONY DACANAY MAMARIL, is undergoing preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence.
BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY,
RESPONDENTS. ART. 97. Allowance for good conduct. - The good conduct of
any offender qualified for credit for preventive imprisonment
DECISION pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner in
PERALTA, J.: any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other
The sole issue for resolution in these consolidated cases [1] is the local jail shall entitle him to the following deductions from the period of
legality of Section 4, Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations his sentence:
(IRR) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10592,[2] which states:
1. During the first two years of (his) imprisonment, he shall be allowed
SECTION 4. Prospective Application. - Considering that these Rules a deduction of twenty days for each month of good behavior during
provide for new procedures and standards of behavior for the grant of detention;
good conduct time allowance as provided in Section 4 of Rule V hereof
and require the creation of a Management, Screening and Evaluation 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he
Committee (MSEC) as provided in Section 3 of the same Rule, the shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-three days for each month of
grant of good conduct time allowance under Republic Act No. 10592 good behavior during detention;
shall be prospective in application.
3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his
The grant of time allowance of study, teaching and mentoring and of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for
special time allowance for loyalty shall also be prospective in each month of good behavior during detention;
application as these privileges are likewise subject to the management,
screening and evaluation of the MSEC.[3] 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he
shall be allowed a deduction of thirty days for each month of good
The Case behavior during detention; and

On May 29, 2013, then President Benigno S. Aquino III signed into law 5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be
R.A. No. 10592, amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99 of Act No. allowed another deduction of fifteen days, in addition to numbers
3815, or the Revised Penal Code (RPC).[4] For reference, the one to four hereof, for each month of study, teaching or
modifications are underscored as follows: mentoring service time rendered.
ART. 29. Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of
imprisonment. — Offenders or accused who have undergone An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to
preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service of their the above allowances for good conduct.
sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during
which they have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention ART. 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. - A deduction of one fifth of
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing after being informed of the the period of his sentence shall be granted to any prisoner who, having
effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to abide by the evaded his preventive imprisonment or the service of his sentence
same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code, gives
the following cases: himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or
1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice catastrophe referred to in said article. A deduction of two-fifths of
or more times of any crime; and the period of his sentence shall be granted in case said prisoner
chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the
2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158
they have failed to surrender voluntarily. of this Code.

If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same

disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in
writing with the assistance of a counsel and shall be credited in the
service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he has
undergone preventive imprisonment.
This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving sentence.
G.R. No. 214637
ART. 99. Who grants time allowances. - Whenever lawfully justified,
the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau On October 24, 2014, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition[15] was
of Jail Management and Penology and/or the Warden of a filed by Reynaldo D. Edago, Peter R. Torida, Jimmy E. Aclao, Wilfredo
provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for V. Omeres, Pascua B. Galladan, Victor M. Macoy, Jr., Edwin C.
good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked. Trabuncon, Wilfredo A. Paterno, Federico Elliot, and Romeo R.
(Emphases ours) Macolbas (Edago et al.), who are all inmates at the Maximum Security
Pursuant to the amendatory law, an IRR was jointly issued by Compound of the NBP, against DOJ Secretary De Lima, DILG
respondents Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Leila M. De Lima Secretary Roxas, BUCOR Acting Director Franklin Jesus B. Bucayu,
and Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) and BJMP Chief Superintendent (Officer-in-Charge) Diony Dacanay
Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II on March 26, 2014 and became effective Mamaril. The grounds of the petition are as follows:
on April 18, 2014. [5] Petitioners and intervenors assail the validity of its A.
Section 4, Rule 1 that directs the prospective application of the grant of
good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, SECTION 4, RULE I OF THE IRR PROVIDING FOR A
teaching and mentoring (TASTM), and special time allowance for PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. 10592
loyalty (STAL) mainly on the ground that it violates Article 22 of the WAS ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING
RPC.[6] TO LACK OR EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND THEREBY VOID
AND ILLEGAL FOR BEING CONTRARY AND ANATHEMA TO R.A.
G.R. No. 212719 10592.
a. R.A. 10592 does not state that its provisions shall have
On June 18, 2014, a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition (with Prayer prospective application.
for the Issuance of a Preliminary Injunction) [7] was filed against
respondents DOJ Secretary De Lima and DILG Secretary Roxas by b. Section 4 of the IRR of R.A. 10592 is contrary to Article 22 of
Atty. Michael J. Evangelista acting as the attorney-in-fact[8] of convicted the Revised Penal Code providing that penal laws that are
prisoners in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP), namely: Venancio A. Roxas, beneficial to the accused shall have retroactive application.
Saturnino V. Paras, Edgardo G. Manuel, Herminildo V. Cruz, Allan F.
Tejada, Roberto C. Marquez, Julito P. Mondejar, Armando M.
Cabuang, Jonathan O. Crisanto, Edgar Echenique, Janmark Saracho, c. Section 4, Rule I of the IRR contravenes public policy and
Josenel Alvaran, and Crisencio Neri, Jr. (Roxas et al.). Petitioners filed the intent of Congress when it enacted R.A. 10592.
the case as real parties-in-interest and as representatives of their B.
member organizations and the organizations' individual members, as a
class suit for themselves and in behalf of all who are similarly situated. SECTION 4, RULE I OF THE IRR WAS ISSUED BY RESPONDENTS
They contend that the provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are penal in nature WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR
and beneficial to the inmates; hence, should be given retroactive effect EXCESS OF JURISDICTION BECAUSE IT IS PATENTLY
in accordance with Article 22 of the RPC. For them, the IRR contradicts UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
the law it implements. They are puzzled why it would be complex for a. Section 4, Rule I of the IRR violates the Equal Protection
the Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) and the Bureau of Jail Clause of the Constitution.
Management and Penology (BJMP) to retroactively apply the law when
the prisoners' records are complete and the distinctions between the b. Section 4, Rule I of the IRR violates substantive due
pertinent provisions of the RPC and R.A. No. 10592 are easily process.[16]
identifiable. Petitioners submit that the simple standards added by the Per Resolution[17] dated November 11, 2014, respondents were
new law, which are matters of record, and the creation of the ordered to file their comment to the petition. In compliance, BJMP
Management, Screening and Evaluation Committee (MSEC) should Chief Mamaril filed a Comment [18] on December 10, 2014, while the
not override the constitutional guarantee of the rights to liberty and due OSG did the same on February 9, 2015[19] in behalf of all the
process of law aside from the principle that penal laws beneficial to the respondents.
accused are given retroactive effect.
Subsequently, Edago et al. filed a Motion with Leave of Court to File
Almost a month after, or on July 11, 2014, Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag, and Admit Reply,[20] attaching therein said Reply. On July 28, 2015, We
Sr. filed a Petition (In Intervention). [9] He incorporates by reference the granted the motion and noted the Reply.[21]
Roxas et al. petition, impleads the same respondents, and adds that
nowhere from the legislative history of R.A. No. 10592 that it intends to The Court's Ruling
be prospective in character. On July 22, 2014, the Court resolved to
grant the leave to intervene and require the adverse parties to The petition is granted.
comment thereon.[10]
Procedural Matters
Another Petition-in-Intervention[11] was filed on October 21, 2014. This
time, the Free Legal Assistance Group (FLAG) served as counsel for
Actual case or controversy
William M. Montinola, Fortunato P. Visto, and Arsenio C. Cabanilla
(Montinola et al.), who are also inmates of the NBP. The petition
Respondents contend that the petition of Edago et al. did not comply
argues that Section 4, Rule I of the IRR is facially void for being
with all the elements of justiciability as the requirement of an actual
contrary to the equal protection clause of the 1987 Constitution; it
case or controversy vis-a-vis the requirement of ripeness has not been
discriminates, without any reasonable basis, against those who would
complied with. For them, the claimed injury of petitioners has not
have been benefited from the retroactive application of the law; and is
ripened to an actual case requiring this Court's intervention: First, the
also ultra vires, as it was issued beyond the authority of respondents to
MSEC has not been constituted yet so there is effectively no authority
promulgate. In a Resolution dated November 25, 2014, We required
or specialized body to screen, evaluate and recommend any
the adverse parties to comment on the petition-in-intervention. [12]
applications for time credits based on R.A. No. 10592. Second, none of
petitioners has applied for the revised credits, making their claim of
On January 30, 2015, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a
injury premature, if not anticipatory. And third, the prison records
Consolidated Comment[13] to the Petition of Roxas et al. and Petition-in-
annexed to the petition are neither signed nor certified by the BUCOR
Intervention of Atty. Saguisag, Sr. More than two years later, or on July
Director which belie the claim of actual injury resulting from alleged
7, 2017, it filed a Comment[14] to the Petition-in-Intervention of
extended incarceration. What petitioners did was they immediately filed
Montinola et al.
this case after obtaining their prison records and computing the
purported application of the revised credits for GCTA under R.A. No.
10592.
 need to actually apply for the revised credits, considering that such
application would be an exercise in futility in view of respondents'
insistence that the law should be prospectively applied. If the assailed
We disagree.
provision is indeed unconstitutional and illegal, there is no better time
than the present action to settle such question once and for all. [28]
It is well settled that no question involving the constitutionality or
validity of a law or governmental act may be heard and decided unless
the following requisites for judicial inquiry are present: (a) there must
be an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial
power; (b) the person challenging the act must have the standing to Legal standing
question the validity of the subject act or issuance; (c) the question of We do not subscribe to respondents' supposition that it is the Congress
constitutionality must be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the which may claim any injury from the alleged executive encroachment
issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.[22] As to of the legislative function to amend, modify or repeal laws and that the
the requirement of actual case or controversy, the Court stated challenged acts of respondents have no direct adverse effect on
in Province of North Cotabato, et al. v. Gov't of the Rep. of the Phils. petitioners, considering that based on records, there was no GCTA
Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain (GRP), et al.:[23] granted to them.
The power of judicial review is limited to actual cases or controversies.
Courts decline to issue advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or It is a general rule that every action must be prosecuted or defended in
feigned problems, or mere academic questions. The limitation of the the name of the real party-in-interest, who stands to be benefited or
power of judicial review to actual cases and controversies defines the injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of
role assigned to the judiciary in a tripartite allocation of power, to the suit.
assure that the courts will not intrude into areas committed to the other
branches of government. Jurisprudence defines interest as "material interest, an interest in issue
and to be affected by the decree, as distinguished from mere interest in
An actual case or controversy involves a conflict of legal rights, an the question involved, or a mere incidental interest. By real interest is
assertion of opposite legal claims, susceptible of judicial resolution as meant a present substantial interest, as distinguished from a mere
distinguished from a hypothetical or abstract difference or dispute. expectancy or a future, contingent, subordinate, or consequential
There must be a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and interest." "To qualify a person to be a real party-in-interest in whose
enforced on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence, x x x. name an action must be prosecuted, he must appear to be the present
real owner of the right sought to be enforced."
Related to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the
requirement of ripeness. A question is ripe for adjudication when the "Legal standing" or locus standi calls for more than just a generalized
act being challenged has had a direct adverse effect on the individual grievance. The concept has been defined as a personal and
challenging it. For a case to be considered ripe for adjudication, it is a substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will
prerequisite that something had then been accomplished or performed sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being
by either branch before a court may come into the picture, and the challenged. The gist of the question of standing is whether a party
petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to
injury to itself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of
he has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
injury as a result of the act complained of.[24] constitutional questions.

There is an actual case or controversy in the case at bar because there A party challenging the constitutionality of a law, act, or statute must
is a contrariety of legal rights that can be interpreted and enforced on show "not only that the law is invalid, but also that he has sustained or
the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. Respondents stand for the is in immediate, or imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as
prospective application of the grant of GCTA, TASTM, and STAL while a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in
petitioners and intervenors view that such provision violates the some indefinite way." It must [be] shown that he has been, or is about
Constitution and Article 22 of the RPC. The legal issue posed is ripe for to be, denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled, or
adjudication as the challenged regulation has a direct adverse effect on that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by
petitioners and those detained and convicted prisoners who are reason of the statute complained of.[29]
similarly situated. There exists an immediate and/or threatened injury In this case, petitioners are directly affected by Section 4, Rule 1 of the
and they have sustained or are immediately in danger of sustaining IRR because they are prisoners currently serving their respective
direct injury as a result of the act complained of. In fact, while the case sentences at the NBP. They have a personal stake in the outcome of
is pending, petitioners are languishing in jail. If their assertion proved to this case as their stay in prison will potentially be shortened (if the
be true, their illegal confinement or detention in the meantime is assailed provision of the IRR is declared unlawful and void) or their
oppressive. With the prisoners' continued incarceration, any delay in dates of release will be delayed (if R.A. No. 10592 is applied
resolving the case would cause them great prejudice. Justice demands prospectively). It is erroneous to assert that the questioned provision
that they be released soonest, if not on time. has no direct adverse effect on petitioners since there were no GCTAs
granted to them. There is none precisely because of the prospective
There is no need to wait and see the actual organization and operation application of R.A. No. 10592. It is a proof of the act complained of
of the MSEC. Petitioners Edago et al. correctly invoked Our ruling rather than an evidence that petitioners lack legal standing. Further,
in Pimentel, Jr. v. Hon. Aguirre.[25] There, We dismissed the novel the submission of certified prison records is immaterial in determining
theory that people should wait for the implementing evil to befall on whether or not petitioners' rights were breached by the IRR because,
them before they could question acts that are illegal or unconstitutional, to repeat, the possible violation was already fait accompli by the
and held that "[by] the mere enactment of the questioned law or the issuance of the IRR. The prison records were merely furnished to show
approval of the challenged action, the dispute is said to have ripened that respondents have prospectively applied R.A. No. 10592 and that
into a judicial controversy even without any other overt act." Similar petitioners will be affected thereby.
to Pimentel, Jr., the real issue in this case is whether the Constitution
and the RPC are contravened by Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR, not Propriety of legal remedy:
whether they are violated by the acts implementing it. Concrete acts
are not necessary to render the present controversy ripe. [26] An actual Respondents argue that the petitions for certiorari and prohibition, as
case may exist even in the absence of tangible instances when the well as the petitions-in-intervention, should be dismissed because such
assailed IRR has actually and adversely affected petitioners. The mere petitions are proper only against a tribunal, board or officer exercising
issuance of the subject IRR has led to the ripening of a judicial judicial or quasi-judicial functions. Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR is an
controversy even without any other overt act. If this Court cannot await administrative issuance of respondents made in the exercise of their
the adverse consequences of the law in order to consider the rule-making or quasi-legislative functions.
controversy actual and ripe for judicial intervention, [27] the same can be
said for an IRR. Here, petitioners need not wait for the creation of the True, a petition for certiorari and prohibition is not an appropriate
MSEC and be individually rejected in their applications. They do not remedy to assail the validity of the subject IRR as it was issued in the
exercise of respondents' rule-making or quasi-legislative function. ministerial functions, ordering said entity or person to desist from
Nevertheless, the Court has consistently held that "petitions further proceedings when said proceedings are without or in excess of
for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to raise said entity's or person's jurisdiction, or are accompanied with grave
constitutional issues and to review, prohibit or nullify the acts of abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy
legislative and executive officials." [30] In Araullo v. Aquino III,[31] former and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Prohibition lies
Associate Justice, now Chief Justice, Lucas P. Bersamin, explained against judicial or ministerial functions, but not against legislative or
the remedies of certiorari and prohibition, thus: quasi-legislative functions. Generally, the purpose of a writ of
prohibition is to keep a lower court within the limits of its jurisdiction in
What are the remedies by which the grave abuse of discretion order to maintain the administration of justice in orderly channels.
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or Prohibition is the proper remedy to afford relief against usurpation of
instrumentality of the Government may be determined under the jurisdiction or power by an inferior court, or when, in the exercise of
Constitution? jurisdiction in handling matters clearly within its cognizance the inferior
court transgresses the bounds prescribed to it by the law, or where
The present Rules of Court uses two special civil actions for there is no adequate remedy available in the ordinary course of law by
determining and correcting grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack which such relief can be obtained. Where the principal relief sought is
or excess of jurisdiction. These are the special civil actions to invalidate an IRR, petitioners' remedy is an ordinary action for its
for certiorari and prohibition, and both are governed by Rule 65. A nullification, an action which properly falls under the jurisdiction of the
similar remedy of certiorari exists under Rule 64, but the remedy is Regional Trial Court. In any case, petitioners' allegation that
expressly applicable only to the judgments and final orders or "respondents are performing or threatening to perform functions
resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on without or in excess of their jurisdiction" may appropriately be enjoined
Audit. by the trial court through a writ of injunction or a temporary restraining
order.
The ordinary nature and function of the writ of certiorari in our present
system are aptly explained in Delos Santos v. Metropolitan Bank and With respect to the Court, however, the remedies of certiorari and
Trust Company: prohibition are necessarily broader in scope and reach, and the writ
of certiorari or prohibition may be issued to correct errors of jurisdiction
In the common law, from which the remedy of certiorari evolved, the committed not only by a tribunal, corporation, board or officer
writ of certiorari was issued out of Chancery, or the King's Bench, exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions but also to set
commanding agents or officers of the inferior courts to return the right, undo and restrain any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting
record of a cause pending before them, so as to give the party more to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
sure and speedy justice, for the writ would enable the superior court to Government, even if the latter does not exercise judicial, quasi-judicial
determine from an inspection of the record whether the inferior court's or ministerial functions. This application is expressly authorized by the
judgment was rendered without authority. The errors were of such a text of the second paragraph of Section 1, supra.
nature that, if allowed to stand, they would result in a substantial injury
to the petitioner to whom no other remedy was available. If the inferior Thus, petitions for certiorari and prohibition are appropriate remedies to
court acted without authority, the record was then revised and raise constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit or nullify the
corrected in matters of law. The writ of certiorari was limited to cases in acts of legislative and executive officials.
which the inferior court was said to be exceeding its jurisdiction or was
not proceeding according to essential requirements of law and would Necessarily, in discharging its duty under Section 1, supra, to set right
lie only to review judicial or quasi-judicial acts. and undo any act of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction by any branch or instrumentality of the
The concept of the remedy of certiorari in our judicial system remains Government, the Court is not at all precluded from making the inquiry
much the same as it has been in the common law. In this jurisdiction, provided the challenge was properly brought by interested or affected
however, the exercise of the power to issue the writ of certiorari is parties. The Court has been thereby entrusted expressly or by
largely regulated by laying down the instances or situations in necessary implication with both the duty and the obligation of
the Rules of Court in which a superior court may issue the writ determining, in appropriate cases, the validity of any assailed
of certiorari to an inferior court or officer. Section 1, Rule 65 of legislative or executive action. This entrustment is consistent with the
the Rules of Court compellingly provides the requirements for that republican system of checks and balances. [32]
purpose, viz.:
In view of the foregoing, We shall proceed to discuss the substantive
x x x x issues raised herein so as to finally resolve the question on the validity
of Section 4, Rule 1 of the IRR, which is purely legal in nature. This is
The sole office of the writ of certiorari is the correction of errors of also because of the public importance of the issues raised, [33] and the
jurisdiction, which includes the commission of grave abuse of interest of substantial justice,[34] not to mention the absence of any
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. In this regard, mere abuse dispute as to any underlying fact.[35]
of discretion is not enough to warrant the issuance of the writ. The
abuse of discretion must be grave, which means either that the judicial
or quasi-judicial power was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic Hierarchy of courts
manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, or that the
respondent judge, tribunal or board evaded a positive duty, or virtually
refused to perform the duty enjoined or to act in contemplation of law, Respondents contend that the petition for certiorari and prohibition, as
such as when such judge, tribunal or board exercising judicial or quasi- well as the petitions-in-intervention, should still be dismissed for failure
judicial powers acted in a capricious or whimsical manner as to be to observe the rule on hierarchy of courts. According to them, this
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. Court's jurisdiction over actions assailing the validity of administrative
Although similar to prohibition in that it will lie for want or excess of issuances is primarily appellate in nature by virtue of Section 5(2)(a),
jurisdiction, certiorari is to be distinguished from prohibition by the fact Article VIII of the Constitution. [36] An action assailing the validity of an
that it is a corrective remedy used for the re-examination of some administrative issuance is one that is incapable of pecuniary
action of an inferior tribunal, and is directed to the cause or proceeding estimation, which, under Batas Pambansa Bilang (B.P. Blg.) 129, the
in the lower court and not to the court itself, while prohibition is a Regional Trial Court (RTC) has exclusive original jurisdiction. Further,
preventative remedy issuing to restrain future action, and is directed to a petition for declaratory relief filed before the RTC, pursuant to
the court itself. The Court expounded on the nature and function of the Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules, is the proper remedy to question the
writ of prohibition in Holy Spirit Homeowners Association, Inc. v. validity of the IRR.[37]
Defensor:
Indeed, under Section 19(1) of B.P. Blg. 129, the question presented
A petition for prohibition is also not the proper remedy to assail an IRR here is a matter incapable of pecuniary estimation, which exclusively
issued in the exercise of a quasi-legislative function. Prohibition is an and originally pertained to the proper RTC.[38] Fundamentally, there is
extraordinary writ directed against any tribunal, corporation, board, no doubt that this consolidated case captioned as petition
officer or person, whether exercising judicial, quasi-judicial or for certiorari and prohibition seeks to declare the unconstitutionality
and illegality of Section 4 Rule 1 of the IRR; thus, partaking the nature as to special laws,[53] such as Act No. 2126, [54] Presidential Decree No.
of a petition for declaratory relief over which We only have appellate 603,[55] R.A. No. 7636,[56] R.A. No. 8293,[57] R.A. No. 8294,[58] R.A. No.
jurisdiction pursuant to Section 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the Constitution. 9344,[59] and R.A. No. 10586,[60] to cite a few.
In accordance with Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules, the special civil
action of declaratory relief falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the But what exactly is a penal law?
RTC.
A penal provision or statute has been consistently defined by
Nevertheless, the judicial policy has been to entertain a direct resort to jurisprudence as follows:
this Court in exceptional and compelling circumstances, such as cases A penal provision defines a crime or provides a punishment for one. [61]
of national interest and of serious implications, and those of
transcendental importance and of first impression. [39] As the petitions Penal laws and laws which, while not penal in nature, have provisions
clearly and specifically set out special and important reasons therefor, defining offenses and prescribing penalties for their violation. [62]
We may overlook the Rules. Here, petitioners Edago et al. are correct
in asserting that R.A. No. 10592 and its IRR affect the entire Properly speaking, a statute is penal when it imposes punishment for
correctional system of the Philippines. Not only the social, economic, an offense committed against the state which, under the Constitution,
and moral well-being of the convicts and detainees are involved but the Executive has the power to pardon. In common use, however, this
also their victims and their own families, the jails, and the society at sense has been enlarged to include within the term "penal statutes" all
large. The nationwide implications of the petitions, the extensive scope statutes which command or prohibit certain acts, and establish
of the subject matter, the upholding of public policy, and the penalties for their violation, and even those which, without expressly
repercussions on the society are factors warranting direct recourse to prohibiting certain acts, impose a penalty upon their commission.[63]
Us.
Penal laws are those acts of the Legislature which prohibit certain acts
Yet more than anything, there is an urgent necessity to dispense and establish penalties for their violations; or those that define crimes,
substantive justice on the numerous affected inmates. It is a must to treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. [64]
treat this consolidated case with a circumspect leniency, granting
petitioners the fullest opportunity to establish the merits of their case The "penal laws" mentioned in Article 22 of the RPC refer
rather than lose their liberty on the basis of technicalities. [40] It need not to substantive laws, not procedural rules.[65] Moreover, the mere fact
be said that while this case has been pending, their right to liberty is on that a law contains penal provisions does not make it penal in nature.
[66]
the line. An extended period of detention or one that is beyond the
period allowed by law violates the accused person's right to liberty.
[41]
 Hence, We shunt the rigidity of the rules of procedure so as not to In the case at bar, petitioners assert that Article 22 of the RPC applies
deprive such birthright. [42] The Court zealously guards against the because R.A. No. 10592 is a penal law. They claim that said law has
curtailment of a person's basic constitutional and natural right to liberty. become an integral part of the RPC as Articles 29, 94, 97, 98 and 99
[43]
 The right to liberty, which stands second only to life in the hierarchy thereof. Edago et al. further argue that if an amendment to the RPC
of constitutional rights, cannot be lightly taken away. [44] At its core, that makes the penalties more onerous or prejudicial to the accused
substantive due process guarantees a right to liberty that cannot be cannot be applied retroactively for being an ex post facto law, a law
taken away or unduly constricted, except through valid causes that makes the penalties lighter should be considered penal laws in
provided by law.[45] accordance with Article 22 of the RPC.

We concur.
Substantive Issues
While R.A. No. 10592 does not define a crime/offense or
Every new law has a prospective effect. Under Article 22 of the RPC, provide/prescribe/establish a penalty [67] as it addresses the
however, a penal law that is favorable or advantageous to the accused rehabilitation component [68] of our correctional system, its provisions
shall be given retroactive effect if he is not a habitual criminal. These have the purpose and effect of diminishing the punishment attached to
are the rules, the exception, and the exception to the exception on the the crime. The further reduction on the length of the penalty of
effectivity of laws.[46 imprisonment is, in the ultimate analysis, beneficial to the detention
and convicted prisoners alike; hence, calls for the application of Article
In criminal law, the principle favorabilia sunt amplianda adiosa 22 of the RPC.
restrigenda (penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given
retroactive effect) is well entrenched. [47] It has been sanctioned since The prospective application of the beneficial provisions of R.A. No.
the old Penal Code.[48] 10592 actually works to the disadvantage of petitioners and those who
are similarly situated. It precludes the decrease in the penalty attached
x x x as far back as the year 1884, when the Penal Code took effect in to their respective crimes and lengthens their prison stay; thus, making
these Islands until the 31st of December, 1931, the principle underlying more onerous the punishment for the crimes they committed. Depriving
our laws granting to the accused in certain cases an exception to the them of time off to which they are justly entitled as a practical matter
general rule that laws shall not be retroactive when the law in question results in extending their sentence and increasing their punishment.
favors the accused, has evidently been carried over into the Revised [69]
 Evidently, this transgresses the clear mandate of Article 22 of the
Penal Code at present in force in the Philippines through article 22 x x RPC.
x. This is an exception to the general rule that all laws are prospective,
not retrospective, variously contained in the following maxims: Lex In support of the prospective application of the grant of GCTA, TASTM,
prospicit, non respicit (the law looks forward, not backward); lex and STAL, respondents aver that a careful scrutiny of R.A. No. 10592
defuturo, judex de proeterito (the law provides for the future, the judge would indicate the need for "new procedures and standards of
for the past); and adopted in a modified form with a prudent limitation in behavior" to fully implement the law by the BUCOR (as to persons
our Civil Code (article 3). Conscience and good law justify this serving their sentences after conviction) and the BJMP (as to accused
exception, which is contained in the well-known aphorism: Favorabilia who are under preventive detention). It is alleged that the amendments
sunt amplianda, odiosa restringenda. As one distinguished author has introduced are substantial and of utmost importance that they may not
put it, the exception was inspired by sentiments of humanity, and be implemented without a thorough revision of the BUCOR and the
accepted by science.[49] BJMP operating manuals on jail management. In particular, the
establishment of the MSEC is said to be an administrative mechanism
According to Mr. Chief Justice Manuel Araullo, the principle is "not as a to address the policy and necessity that the BUCOR superintendents
right" of the offender, "but founded on the very principles on which the and the BJMP jail wardens must follow uniform guidelines in managing,
right of the State to punish and the commination of the penalty are screening and evaluating the behavior or conduct of prisoners prior to
based, and regards it not as an exception based on political their recommendation to the heads of the two bureaus on who may be
considerations, but as a rule founded on principles of strict justice." [50] granted time allowances.
Further, case law has shown that the rule on retroactivity under Article Respondents fail to persuade Us.
22 of the RPC applies to said Code [51] and its amendments,[52] as well
 detention or convicted prisoner consisting of active involvement in
Except for the benefits of TASTM and the STAL granted to a prisoner rehabilitation programs, productive participation in authorized work
who chose to stay in the place of his confinement despite the existence activities or accomplishment of exemplary deeds coupled with faithful
of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of the RPC, the obedience to all prison/jail rules and regulations"[84]
provisions of R.A. No. 10592 are mere modifications of the RPC that
have been implemented by the BUCOR prior to the issuance of the Among other data, an inmate's prison record contains information on
challenged IRR. In view of this, the claim of "new procedures and his behavior or conduct while in prison. [85] Likewise, the
standards of behavior" for the grant of time allowances is untenable. certificate/diploma issued upon successful completion of an
educational program or course (i.e., elementary, secondary and
It appears that even prior to February 1, 1916 when Act No. 2557 was college education as well as vocational training) forms part of the
enacted,[70] prisoners have already been entitled to deduct the period of record.[86] These considered, the Court cannot but share the same
preventive imprisonment from the service of their sentences. In sentiment of Roxas et al. It is indeed perplexing why it is complex for
addition, good conduct time allowance has been in existence since respondents to retroactively apply R.A. No. 10592 when all that the
August 30, 1906 upon the passage of Act No. 1533. [71] Said law MSEC has to do is to utilize the same standard of behavior for the
provided for the diminution of sentences imposed upon convicted grant of time allowances and refer to existing prison records.
prisoners in consideration of good conduct and diligence. [72] Under Act
No. 1533 and subsequently under Article 97 of the RPC, the time WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are GRANTED. Section 4,
allowance may also apply to detention prisoners if they voluntarily offer Rule 1 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
in writing to perform such labor as may be assigned to them. [73] Such 10592 is DECLARED invalid insofar as it provides for the prospective
prerequisite was removed by R.A. No. 10592. application of the grant of good conduct time allowance, time
Subject to the review, and in accordance with the rules and allowance for study, teaching and mentoring, and special time
regulations, as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Public allowance for loyalty. The Director General of the Bureau of
Instruction, the wardens or officers in charge of Insular or provincial Corrections and the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and
jails or prisons were mandated to make and keep such records and Penology are REQUIRED to RE-COMPUTE with reasonable dispatch
take such further actions as may be necessary to carry out the the time allowances due to petitioners and all those who are similarly
provisions of Act No. 1533. [74] When the RPC took effect on January 1, situated and, thereafter, to CAUSE their immediate release from
1932,[75] the Director of Prisons was empowered to grant allowances imprisonment in case of full service of sentence, unless they are being
for good conduct whenever lawfully justified. [76] With the effectivity of confined thereat for any other lawful cause.
R.A. No. 10592 on June 6, 2013, such authority is now vested on the
Director of the BUCOR, the Chief of the BJMP and/or the Warden of a This Decision is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
provincial, district, municipal or city jail.[77]
SO ORDERED
Under the IRR of R.A. No. 10592, the MSECs are established to act as
the recommending body for the grant of GCTA and TASTM. [78] They
are tasked to manage, screen and evaluate the behavior and conduct
of a detention or convicted prisoner and to monitor and certify whether
said prisoner has actually studied, taught or performed mentoring
activities.[79] The creation of the MSEC, however, does not justify the
prospective application of R.A. No. 10592. Nowhere in the amendatory
law was its formation set as a precondition before its beneficial
provisions are applied. What R.A. No. 10592 only provides is that the
Secretaries of the DOJ and the DILG are authorized to promulgate
rules and regulations on the classification system for good conduct and
time allowances, as may be necessary to implement its provisions.
[80]
 Clearly, respondents went outside the bounds of their legal mandate
when they provided for rules beyond what was contemplated by the
law to be enforced.

Indeed, administrative IRRs adopted by a particular department of the

Government under legislative authority must be in harmony with the
provisions of the law, and should be for the sole purpose of carrying
the law's general provisions into effect. The law itself cannot be
expanded by such IRRSs, because an administrative agency cannot
amend an act of Congress.[81]

The contention of Edago et al. stands undisputed that, prior to the

issuance of the assailed IRR and even before the enactment of R.A.
No. 10592, a Classification Board had been handling the functions of
the MSEC and implementing the provisions of the RPC on time
allowances. While there is a noble intent to systematize and/or
institutionalize existing set-up, the administrative and procedural
restructuring should not in any way prejudice the substantive rights of
current detention and convicted prisoners.

Furthermore, despite various amendments to the law, the standard of

behavior in granting GCTA remains to be "good conduct." In essence,
the definition of what constitutes "good conduct" has been invariable
through the years, thus:

Act No. 1533: "not been guilty of a violation of discipline or any of the

rules of the prison, and has labored with diligence and fidelity upon all
such tasks as have been assigned to him."[82]

BUCOR Operating Manual dated March 30, 2000: "displays good

behavior and who has no record of breach of discipline or violation of
prison rules and regulations."[83]

IRR of R.A. No. 10592: "the conspicuous and satisfactory behavior of a