sanchez, the senate, and the supremes

not surprised that convicted rapist-killer antonio sanchez had his family lobbying hard for his release by whatever means.  plan A: win a grant of clemency from president duterte through the intercession of imeldific political ally, imelda marcos herself, among other luminaries, helped along by his former legal counsel, now presidential spokesman sal panelo’s FYI (for-your-info) to the bureau of pardons and parole (BPP).  but, of course, now that the shit has hit the fan, panelo and imee marcos (for imelda) say their offices are swamped by letters of request for this and that, and everything is simply forwarded / referred to the offices concerned.  really?  no sifting the grain from the chaff, the valid from the invalid, the bongga from the  basura?  walang due diligence?

plan B: avail of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law that the good senators of the 15th congress so conveniently enacted in 2013, and in such ambiguous terms that even an unrepentant sanchez just might qualify, and he almost did, thanks also to the it-would-seem just-as ambiguous implementing rules and regulations (IRR) crafted by then DOJ sec, now detained senator, leila de lima and then DILG sec mar roxas.  in the first senate hearing DOJ sec menardo guevara didn’t beat around the bush:  the law is not clear and needs to be amended.  read Guevara wants GCTA law amended amid controversy.

Guevarra’s proposed amendments include a clear classification of whether the law should be on reformative and rehabilitative side, or punitive or retributive, and clear definition of “heinous crimes.”

“We came to a conclusion that the intent of the law was to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes, as well as habitual delinquents, escapists, recidivists. But that came only after a tedious and laborous harmonization of the various provisions of this law,” he said.

“Had it been clearly stated in one single provision — stand alone provision — that the benefits of this law shall not apply to these classes of people, then we’ll probably not have a conclusion such as what we have now,” he added.

so.  sino nga ba ang mga senador na ito ng 15th congress who are, at bottom, responsible for the crappy GCTA law.  philstar‘s jess diaz did the research and found that some senators who have been holding forth in the senate hearings, fuming now over the almost-release of sanchez, are among the law’s authors.  such as senators frank drilon, ping lacson, bong revilla, francis pangilinan, and tito sotto.  read ‘Expanded good conduct law was Senate idea’.

Senate Bill 3064 was contained in Committee Report No. 82, which the committee on justice and human rights, and the committee on constitutional amendments, revision of codes and laws submitted on Nov. 17, 2011.

The Senate version consolidated eight similar measures on counting the period of detention as part of a prison term and expansion of GCTA as provided in the Revised Penal Code.

The authors of the eight measures were then senators Manuel Villar Jr., Francis Escudero and Miriam Defensor Santiago.

Villar, Escudero, Santiago, and colleagues Loren Legarda, Antonio Trillanes IV, Franklin Drilon, Ramon Revilla Jr., Sergio Osmeña III, Francis Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Panfilo Lacson, Manuel Lapid, Alan Peter Cayetano, the late Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara, Jinggoy Estrada, Teofisto Guingona III and Vicente Sotto III signed Report No. 82.

the four who did not sign: then senate prez juan ponce enrile, senators gregorio honasan, ralph recto, and pia cayetano. it would be interesting to hear why not. did they think it was badly crafted?  did they perhaps foresee that the likes of the incorrigible antonio sanchez could take advantage of the ambiguities?  or did they share marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza’s opinion that the GCTA law undercuts sentences handed down by courts?

Mendoza told senators in Thursday’s hearing that the GCTA, a law enacted in 2013 to fast-track the release of well-behaved convicts and decongest the country’s jails, could create a constitutional crisis.

… “Once rendered, it ( a sentence) is not subject to change. It is immutable. It must be implemented and rendered as executed by the court,” said Mendoza..

“If the congress which grants excessive time allowance which undercuts the judgments of courts, that might be subject to constitutional question because of our basic principle of separation of powers,” said Mendoza.

read also philstar columnist alex magno’s Sloppy.

The good conduct time allowance law, being so sloppily crafted, allows bureaucrats a wide margin of discretion. That is, we know, always bad.

The vulnerability of any bureaucratic unit to corruption correlates with the width of the margin of discretion of its bureaucrats. This is why administrative reforms in the BIR and the Customs Bureau focus on reducing the margin of discretion and increasing transparency of transactions.

The badly crafted good conduct time allowance law, aggravated by even worse crafted implementing rules and regulations, is more than an invitation to corruption. It is an invitation to an orgy.

It is not surprising that early releases of prisoners have become commodities for sale to the highest bidders. The bigger the bribe, the more expeditious the processing.

clearly, sanchez was trying to buy his way to freedom, one crooked way or another, and without paying up the php12 million plus owed the sarmenta and gomez families, as ruled by the supreme court.  i wonder what the supremes have to say about that.

by the way, di ko gets ang prescriptive period of 10 years, which i am willing to assume is meant to favor the victims’ families – they shouldn’t have to wait longer than that? – but what if it turns out to favor instead the convicted rapist-killer who dares defy the supremes and refuses to pay?

di ko rin gets kung bakit hindi napilit, na-obliga, na-compel si sanchez na magbayad, never mind his continued protestations of innocence.  hindi daw siya, si kit alqueza daw ang mastermind sa pagpatay kay gomez; later, si allan jun sanchez daw, anak niyang kauuwi from london studies ang niregaluhan ng eileen, or so says mon tulfo who heard it first from a “prison official” na inuutangan daw ni sanchez para sa nurse who visited him regularly for his health na nabuntis daw niya.  yeah, it gets murkier and sleazier by the day.

so, whose responsibility was it to make sure that the supremes’ ruling was executed?  the executive branch?  or the judicial branch?  both of the above?  senator drilon is right: it is not for the DOJ to invoke the lapsed prescriptive period.  let the DOJ file a case and let the supremes decide.  i’d love to hear “prescriptive periods” defended when it works in favor of the convicted criminal instead.  i wonder what marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza would say about that.

and here’s hoping that former senator juan ponce enrile also weighs in; after all he was the senate prez when that slapdash slipshod law was passed.  and he sure could use the pogi points, too.