Philippine criminal penalty system violates offender rights and fails rehabilitation

Atty.
Arnold Rimon Martinez -1
THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PENALTY SYSTEM

OF THE PHILIPPINES:
A VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE OFFENDERS AND
PROOF OF THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT
TO COMPLY WITH ITS DUTY
A THESIS PRESENTED
TO THE FACULTY OF THE
ATENEO DE MANILA UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF LAW
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE DEGREE JURIS DOCTOR
BY
ARNOLD RIMON MARTINEZ
8 MARCH 2006
Atty. Arnold Rimon Martinez -2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prolegomenon 1
- Background of the Thesis 1
- Statement of the Thesis Problem 5
- Thesis Objectives 6
- Scope and Limitations of the Thesis 7
- Significance of the Thesis 9
- Methodology of the Thesis 11
- Organization of the Thesis 12
- Definition of Terms in the Thesis 14
Chapter One
A Look at the Basic Concepts of Criminal Justice 17
- Theories on the Justification for Punishment in Criminal Law 17
- The Different Schools of Thought in Criminal Justice System and
their Conceptual Implications 19
Chapter Two
Current Framework of the Philippine Criminal Penalty and Penal Systems 23
- Survey of the Basic Concepts in Philippine Criminal Justice System 23
- Review of the Current Penal System 26
- Historical Precedents 26
- The Current Jail Conditions 28
- Official Structures in Jails
30
- Congestion in Jails 33
- The Rehabilitation Programs 35
- Other Problems
36
- A Microcosm 37
Chapter Three
The Present Situation and the Penalty System:
A Violation of the Human Rights of the Convicted Person 42
- The Constitutional Provision 42
- The Right to Life of the Convict
43
- Punishments 48
- International Declarations 52
- Rehabilitation in the Philippines 57
Chapter Four
The Present Situation and the Penalty System:
A State Failure to Exercise its Duty 60

- State Obligation and Responsibility 60
- The Doctrine of Parens Patriae
61
- The Constitution and Police Power 63
Chapter Five
Understanding the Human Being 66
- Philosophical Reflection on Being Human 66
- The Different Concepts of Being Human
67
- Being Human in a Community
72
- The Concepts of Being Human in Law 75
- The 1987 Constitution
75
- The Civil Code Definition of the Human Being
76
- The International Law Definition of Human Being 78
- New Understanding of Being Human vis-à-vis
the Universal Concept of Human Rights 80
- The Human Person: From Medical,
Psychological and Sociological Viewpoints 81
- Theories of Criminal Behavior
82
- Implications 84
Chapter Six
Focus on the Rehabilitation 86
- The Concept of Rehabilitative Ideal 87
- Debate on Rehabilitative Ideal 88
- Modified Rehabilitative Ideal 90
Chapter Seven
Proposed Application of the Concept of Rehabilitation on
Limited List of Crimes and Other Matters 92
- Conclusions 92
- Recommendations 96
- Definition of Rehabilitation 97
- Concrete Steps (General)
97
- Concrete Steps (Particulars) 99
 Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs 100
 Sexual Offenses 100
 Crimes of Violence 101

- Final Words 102
- Annex A: Proposed Law on the Rehabilitative Aspect of Penalty 104
Bibliography 112
ABSTRACT
THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PENALTY SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES:

A VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS AND
PROOF OF THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH ITS DUTY.
A visit to prisons in the Philippines will reveal the sorry state of our
penitentiary system and how the current situation defeats its purpose and intent –
to punish the crimes of offenders and to rehabilitate offenders to become
productive members of society once again.
The Bill of Rights protects every human being from deprivation of “life,
liberty, or property without due process of law,” and guarantees “the equal
protection of law.” Thus, every human being, no matter what his social, economic
and legal standing in the community, remains entitled to the equal protection of
law. Commission of crime does not deprive a person of his or her basic human
rights.
The Constitution provides that “No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against”
the convicts. Another section of the Bill of Rights provides: “Excessive fines shall
not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither
shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The employment of physical, psychological,
or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
dealt with by law.”
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further provides
for the respect of the human rights of offenders. It emphasizes the need for a
penitentiary system that aims the reformation and social rehabilitation of offenders
to prepare them to rejoine the outside community. The same is also provided for in
other international declarations and conventions, especially as provided for in the
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
In addition to reinforcing respect for the human rights of offenders, our
laws prescribe as well that the State ensure the rehabilitation and the reformation
of all those who will be rejoining the outside community by virtue of the doctrine of
parens patriae and the inherent right of the State to exercise its police power.
Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that it is the prime duty of the
government to serve and protect the people, to maintain peace and order, and to
protect life, liberty, and property and to promote the general welfare, which are all
essential for the people to enjoy the blessings of democracy. This two-edged
mandate to enhance the human rights of offenders and to provide for their
rehabilitation bring to fore, not only the present jail conditions in the country but
also the extent of the integration of the rehabilitative penalty system into criminal
justice system.
Justice Jorge Coquia refers to “the prison and correctional systems in the
Philippines as the repository of the criminal justice system that provides for the
safekeeping and the rehabilitation of prisoners and detainees.” However, while our
laws on criminal penalties are strong on the punitive aspect, they seem to be
wanting in the rehabilitative aspect.
This situation makes us face the following questions: “In the absence of the
rehabilitative phase, is our present criminal penalty system violative of the rights of
the convict? What is the responsibility of the State as regards the reformation of
convicts vis-à-vis the human rights of convicts? When the community takes back a
convict who has served his sentence, what is the assurance of the community that
he has truly reformed? What is the liability of the State in case the convict commits
new crimes? Is not the State neglectful of its responsibility to ensure that the
community is welcoming back a supposedly ‘rehabilitated convict?’”
PROLEGOMENON
Background of the Thesis
“The Philippine Penal System’s method of retributive justice

is vengeful and barbaric… Capital punishment is a form of cruelty
and inhumanity unworthy of society that claims to be humane. Since
the death penalty is irrevocable and judicial error is always
possible, the penalty appears as an unpardonable crime committed
by society on its citizens. It is more than a lazy answer, which
hinders the search for effective means of curbing crime and for a
rational system of prevention.”
- Former President Corazon Conjuangco Aquino
Part of the legal exposure of the proponent as a student was the jail
decongestion program initiated by a number of law students for the Human Rights
Center of the Ateneo Law School. Among the sad realities that the author had to
face is the condition of jails in the country and the plight of inmates. What struck
him most, however, was the experience of seeing a youngster turn to a hardened
criminal.
This youngster would be named “Bata.”1 Bata was a seventeen-year-old boy
who was accused and convicted of theft. Because of his tender age, Bata was
considered a youth offender. Initially, the judge who tried Bata sentenced him to
imprisonment for two years and committed him to a juvenile detention center.
1
Bata was not the real name of the youngster but his story was a real life story of an inmate in Pasay
City Jail. He was one of those that the author first met in his work for jail decongestion program in
Ateneo Human Rights Center and his inspiration to embark in a study of the criminal penalty system
in the country and how this affected prisoners.
Unfortunately, as Bata celebrated his eighteenth birthday, the authorities transferred
him to the adult detention center to await his release as soon as he had served his
sentence. While this may be a logical consequence of his offense, present jail and
penology conditions do not assist in an honest-to-goodness rehabilitation or
reformation of Bata. He was detained with hardened criminals, undergoing the
same program as other inmates did. In fact, Bata at a young age was assigned by
the elders of his cell as one of the Bastoneros2 - a role that introduced him to the
power of criminal lords in jail.
At first glimpse, the plight of Bata served as a microcosm of the present
state of the Philippine penal system and the conditions of jails in the country. A
second look at his plight and many of the inmates in the different penal colonies
and jails, however, shows how the current situation defeats the purpose and intent
of the penitentiary system – to punish the crimes of offenders and to rehabilitate
offenders to become productive members of society once again.
The Bill of Rights protects every human being from deprivation of “life,
liberty, or property without due process of law,” and guarantees “the equal
protection of law.”3 This means that every human being, no matter what his social,
economic and legal standing in the community, remains entitled to the equal
protection of law. Commission of crime does not deprive a human person of his or
her basic human rights. Transgressions of the law and the consequent conviction do
2
A Bastonero is one who transmits the orders of the mayor or the jail leader. A Bastonero also
disciplines other inmates upon the mayor’s orders.
3
PHIL. CONST. art. III, sec. 2.
not entitle the State to refuse recognition of the offender’s basic human rights.
In view of this, the Constitution further provides for the proper treatment of
convicted felons. It states: “No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.”4 Another section
of the Bill of Rights stresses the constitutional imperative on human rights:
“Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions
shall be dealt with by law.”5
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prescribes
respect for human rights for criminal offenders, namely:
“1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with

humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human
person.
“2. (a) Accused person shall, save in exceptional
circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be
subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as
convicted persons;
“(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults
and brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.
“3. The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of
prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and
social rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from
4
PHIL. CONST. art. III, sec. 12 cl 2.
5
PHIL. CONST. art. III, sec. 19, cl 1 and cl 2.
Atty. Arnold Rimon Martinez -
adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal

status.”6
In the heart of this International Covenant is the need for a penitentiary
system that will not only punish convicted persons but also treat, reform and
socially rehabilitate prisoners. The Covenant envisions a penitentiary system that
does not only punish, but also rehabilitates prisoners, thus facilitating their return to
society as law-abiding citizens.7
In addition to reinforcing respect for the human rights of offenders, our laws
prescribe as well that the State ensure rehabilitation and reformation of all those
who will be rejoining the outside community. The 1987 Philippine Constitution is
not wanting on this. Article II of the Constitution provides that it is the prime duty
of the government to serve and protect the people, to maintain peace and order, and
to protect life, liberty, and property and to promote the general welfare, which are
all essential for the people to enjoy the blessings of democracy. 8 In fact, the
Constitution mandates Congress to give the highest priority to the enactment of
measures that will protect and enhance the right of all people to human dignity. 9
This two-edged mandate to enhance the human rights of offenders and to provide
for their rehabilitation bring to fore, not only the present jail conditions in the
country but also the extent of the integration of the rehabilitative penalty system
into criminal justice system.

6
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS art. 10, cls. 1 to 3.
7
JORGE R. COQUIA, HUMAN RIGHTS: AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE 166-167 (Central Professional
Books, Inc. 2000).
8
PHIL. CONST. art. II, secs. 4-5.
9
PHIL. CONST. art XIII, sec. 1.
Statement of the Thesis Problem
The ideals of the laws of the land, the vision of an international respect for
human rights, the need for a safe community and the realities of the present
conditions of jails and jail management are the planks on which the issues of this
thesis would be based over. Amidst the existing laws and international treaties, the
thesis poses the question: “Is not the present criminal penalty system of the
Philippines a violation of the human rights of offenders and proof of the
failure of the Government to comply with its duty?”
Justice Jorge Coquia refers to “the prison and correctional systems in the
Philippines as the repository of the criminal justice system that provides for the
safekeeping and the rehabilitation of prisoners and detainees.”10 However, while
laws of the Philippines on criminal penalties are strong on the punitive aspect, they
seem to be wanting in the rehabilitative aspect. Offender-rehabilitation has not been
given much attention. If it is given the attention at all, it seems to be left to the
discretion of persons in authority, depending on their programs. The punitive nature
of punishment is stressed so much so that a convict is reduced to case numbers and
the numbers of years of stay in prison. An offender committed to a jailhouse is left
to himself or to the creativity of the jail management for his reformation.
10
COQUIA, supra note 7, at 3 and 160.
This situation raises the following questions: In the absence of the
rehabilitative phase, is the present criminal penalty system violative of the rights of
the convict? What is the responsibility of the State as regards the reformation of
convicts vis-à-vis the human rights of convicts? When the community takes back a
convict who has served his sentence, what is the assurance of the community that
he has truly reformed? Is not the State neglectful of its responsibility to ensure that
the community is welcoming back a supposedly ‘rehabilitated convict?’
Thesis Objectives
In the present set-up, crimes are punished either with imprisonment and/or
fines. Chapter Two of the Revised Penal Code provides for this.11 However, it
provides for the punitive aspect of punishment only. In view of this, the thesis aims
to do the following:
1) The thesis will restudy the present punitive criminal penalty system of
the Philippines vis-à-vis the need to establish bases for the proposal that Philippine
laws embody the ideals of rehabilitative or reformative criminal penalty system.
2) The thesis will provide a benchmark and a reflective analysis of the
present Philippine penal system in order that the State can positively respond to the
changes and development in the international field of human rights.
11
REVISED PENAL CODE, arts. 25-26.
3) The thesis will offer suggestions on how the State, particularly the
Bureau of Correction and Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, as the one
tasked to rehabilitate criminal offenders, can creatively and actively involve the
family, the community, and psychologists in drawing up programs for the
rehabilitation of criminal offenders.
4) The thesis will also consider the disadvantages of institutionalizing the
rehabilitative aspect of penalties in the Revised Penal Code and the difficulties that
will confront those who will implement such institutionalized rehabilitative
program.
Scope and Limitations of the Thesis
When the penalty system is tackled, it is tempting to take a look on issues
touching on jails and jail management, rights of the offenders behind bars, prison
conditions, juvenile offenders and others. These are not the issues that this thesis
will discuss. Although they may be part of the overall schema to understand the
pertinent issues, these topics will simply be guiding posts for this endeavor.
This thesis recognizes that there is a wide range of criminal offenses in the
Revised Penal Code and other laws. While it may be challenging to discuss each of
them, this thesis will limit the choices of offenses that will be discussed as follows:
1) Limited to the Criminal Penalty System – This thesis will not go into the
wisdom of the present jail management programs and ancillary topics. Rather, it
will investigate how the current penalty system, that is, imprisonment and fines,
affect the lives of offenders and how it achieves the purpose of rehabilitating and
reforming convicts.
2) Existing literatures on the current penalty systems in the Philippines and
psychological studies will be used, especially studies made by those who are
involved personally in jail management and criminal rehabilitation treatments.
3) The criminal offenses, which are the subject of the study, will focus on
crimes that deal with the character of the offender and community relations.
Although the Revised Penal Code is based mainly on the principles of the old or
classical school, it is accepted that there are developments in the positivist
approach.12 This means that some crimes may have been committed not only
because of the free will but also because of the circumstances surrounding the
offender. The context of the choice is –
that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as

such, it cannot be treated and checked by the application of abstract
principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a punishment,
fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of
individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and
individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and
social scientists.13
Thus, the choice envisions criminal offenses, which may be consequences
of some psychological and psychiatric problems or because of circumstances
12
LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW BOOK ONE (ARTICLES 1-113) 22-23
(Rex Book Store 15th ed. 2001) (1952).
13
Id. at 23.
confronting a person within his community. For purposes of this study, then,
priority will be given to the following offenses:
a) Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs.
b) Crimes against public morals, i.e. gambling and betting, offenses
against decency and good customs.
c) Crimes against persons and against chastity
5) The study will not discuss juvenile offenders since there are a number of
theses on this. Rather, the thesis will concentrate on adult offenders.
6) Finally, the thesis will not discuss the international law implication of
whether or not a convicted person can in fact sue the State in a local court and in an
international trial to redress grievances because of the absence of the rehabilitative
aspect in the Philippine criminal penalty system. This topic calls for another thesis.
Significance of the Thesis
For many years, while the Philippine penal system mentioned the punitive
as well as the rehabilitative or reformative aspects of penalties, the reality is that the
present penal system focuses on the punitive aspect. Some theses have attempted to
raise the issue of rehabilitation but has limited their discussion to certain points.
Some of these are the following theses at the Ateneo de Manila School of Law:
1) “The New Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law: A Frustration of
the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Other International Instruments on
Children’s Rights.” This thesis is an analysis of the Rule on Juveniles in Conflict
with the Law vis-à-vis the international instruments dealing with rights of
children.14
2) “Rights Behind Bars: Implementing the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights in the Treatment of Prisoners.” This thesis discusses how –
... actual and effective remedy, which can be made available to

prisoners in the Philippines by the enactment of a law which shall
enumerate and define all the rights possessed by the prisoners, and
formulate a process by which such may be protected, as required by the
Constitution and the international treaties acceded to by the Philippines.15
3) “The Prison Conditions in the Philippines: Setting-Up a Constitutional
Challenge.” This thesis proposes a standard by which prison conditions may be
determined within constitutional limits.16
14
JACKLYN MARIE SICANGCO ARELLANO, THE NEW RULE ON JUVENILES IN CONFLICT WITH THE
LAW: A FRUSTRATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND OTHER
INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON CHILDREN’S RIGHTS (2003) (unpublished Juris Doctor, thesis,
Ateneo de Manila School of Law) (on file with the Ateneo Professional School Library).
15
VALERIE ANN D. GONZALES, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS: IMPLEMENTING THE INTERNATIONAL
COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (2001)
(unpublished Juris Doctor thesis, Ateneo de Manila School of Law) (on file with the Ateneo
Professional School Library).
16
CLARINDA P. HIPOLITO, PRISON CONDITIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES: SETTING-UP A
CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE (1996) (unpublished Juris Doctor thesis, Ateneo de Manila School of
Law) (on file with the Ateneo Professional School Library).
While the above-mentioned theses may have made inroads to call attention
to the need for the rehabilitative aspect in Philippine criminal justice system, they
have failed to address the core problem – the present penal system. Since this thesis
aims to address the lack of discussion of the rehabilitative aspect of the penal
system itself, it is significant because the thesis itself will advocate
institutionalizing the rehabilitative aspect of penalties and recognizing the positivist
theory as a supplemental part of the classical theory in our criminal justice system.
Beyond clarification of theories and academic discussion of laws and international
treaties, the thesis opens practical considerations for creative lawmaking as regards
penalties. Hopefully, this will provoke more discussions and draw more interest on
how penalties are crafted in our jurisdiction.
Methodology of the Thesis
The following methods of study and research will be employed to arrive at
the most coherent and integrated approach to the problem:
1) Review of the present laws – Basically, the whole Title Three of the
Revised Penal Code will be reviewed and commented on.
2) Review of the existing penal colony rules and regulations and programs –
This is necessary to enable the author and the readers to understand how jails are
managed and how these affect offenders or inmates.

3) Review of existing literatures on those who are still serving sentence and
those who have already left prison – This will allow a more in-depth study of the
situation and its effect on the inmates themselves based on their personal
experiences.
4) Review of literatures touching on the studies made on the criminal justice
system – Insights coming from those who wield power to penalize individuals will
surely embellish administration of justice.
5) Evaluation of the gathered data.
6) Deconstruction of the existing laws of the Philippines vis-à-vis realities
and demands for a rehabilitative and punitive program in the Philippine criminal
penalty system.
Organization of the Thesis
The thesis has seven chapters. They are the following:
1) Chapter One: A Look at the Basic Concepts of Criminal Justice System –
The chapter will be a comparative study of the different school of thoughts on the
criminal justice system. This allows a better appreciation of the context of the
problem at hand.
2) Chapter Two: Current Framework of the Criminal Penalty and Penal
System – The chapter is a review of all existing Philippine frameworks on the

criminal penalty and penal system. This will put into localized context the issues,
which need resolution.
3) Chapter Three: An Evaluation of the Criminal Penalty and Penal System
on the Human Rights of the Convicted Person – The chapter will evaluate the
current framework of the criminal penalty and penal system vis-à-vis the human
rights of the convicted person.
4) Chapter Four: An Evaluation of the Criminal Penalty and Penal System
on the State’s Responsibility – The chapter will evaluate the current framework of
the criminal penalty and penal system vis-à-vis the responsibility of the State to
ensure rehabilitation of the convicted person in view of the community’s peace and
order.
5) Chapter Five: Understanding the Human Beings – This chapter will
introduce readers to a reflection about the existence of the human person and his
relation to his community, mores, laws and customs. The chapter is necessary in
understanding the need for reformative penalties, vis-à-vis human being’s nature
and dignity.
6) Chapter Six: Focus on the Rehabilitative Ideal – The chapter will discuss
the advantages and disadvantages of institutionalizing the rehabilitative ideal. It
will weigh the debates for and against the rehabilitative ideal.
7) Chapter Seven: Proposed Application of the Rehabilitative Ideal on
Limited List of Crimes – This chapter is the practical suggestion of the author as to
how the rehabilitative ideal should be applied.

Definition of Terms in the Thesis
The following terms will have the following meanings based largely on
Black’s Law Dictionary,17 except when noted as coming from other sources:
1. Penal institutions – Generic terms to describe all places of confinement
for those convicted of crime such as jails, prisons, workhouses, houses of
correction, and other correctional institutions.
2. Penal – Punishable; inflicting a punishment; containing a penalty, or
relating to a penalty.
3. Penalty – An elastic term with many different shades of meaning; it
involves idea of punishment, corporeal or pecuniary, or civil or criminal, although
its meaning is generally confined to pecuniary punishment.
4. Punitive – Relating to punishment; having the character of punishment or
penalty; inflicting punishment or a penalty.
5. Reformatory – A penal institution for youthful offenders where the
emphasis is on reformation of the juvenile’s behavior.
6. Rehabilitation – Investing or clothing again with some right, authority, or
dignity. Restoring a person or thing to a former capacity; reinstating; qualifying
17
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1132-1133, 1234, 1281, 1287 (West Publishing Co. 6th ed. 1990)
(1891).
again. Restoration of individual to his greatest potential, whether physically,
mentally, socially, or vocationally.
7. Rehabilitative ideal – Measures employed to treat the convicted offender
which serve a therapeutic function; such measures designed to effect changes in the
behavior of the convicted person in the interest of his own happiness, health, and
satisfactions and in the interest of social defense.18
8. “Classical School of Thought – This school of thought assumes that men
have free will: that they know what is right and what is wrong; and as rational
beings, they are guided by thought that a crime carries with it a corresponding
penalty.”19
9. “Positivist School of Thought – “That crime is essentially a social and
natural phenomenon, and as such, it cannot be treated and checked by the
application of abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of
a punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the enforcement of
individual measures in each particular case after a thorough, personal and
individual investigation conducted by a competent body of psychiatrists and social
scientists.”20
18
FRANCIS A. ALLEN, THE BORDERLAND OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ESSAY IN LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY)
26 (University of Chicago Press 1974).
19
ROLANDO A. SUAREZ, INTRODUCTION TO LAW 213 (Rex Book Store 2003).
20
REYES, supra note 12, at 7.
To conclude this prolegomenon, it may be good to remember that even the
Lord, the Supreme Judge, has upheld the dignity of prisoners and of convicted
offenders.21
21
Matthew 25:31-46.
CHAPTER ONE:
A LOOK AT THE BASIC CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Theories on the Justification for Punishment in Criminal Law
What is the justification for punishment?
At the heart of the discussion on the inherent power of the legislative body
to prohibit and punish any act as a crime is the justification for such power. Experts
in criminal law posited at least five theories for justifying such power, namely the
prevention theory, the self-defense theory, the reformation theory, the exemplarity
theory, the retribution theory and the restitution theory.22
The prevention theory sees punishment as a deterrent to the commission of
future crimes by the offender. The State punishes criminal acts to prevent offenders
from committing a prohibited action. Thomas W. Simon explained:
Traditional utilitarian thinking has concluded that having laws

forbidding certain kinds of behavior on pain of punishment, and having
machinery for the fair enforcement of these laws, is justified by the fact that
it maximizes expectable utility. Misconduct is not to be punished just for its
own sake, malefactors must be punished for their past acts, according to
law, as a way of maximizing expectable utility.23
22
For the thorough discussion of the different theories please see, MARIANO A. ALBERT, THE LAW
ON CRIMES 3 (Imprenta del Dr. G. A. Pobre 1925).
23
THOMAS W. SIMON, LAW PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION WITH READINGS 459 (McGraw-Hill
2001).
The self-defense theory regards punishment as a way to repel an attack or
even kill the attacker. It is the individual’s and the State’s response to possible
injury and annihilation. It is a response for self-preservation.24
The reformation or rehabilitation theory recognizes the capacity of the
good citizen to take care of him/herself and the need of the convict for assistance to
reform. This theory grows out of the theory of humanitarian philosophers like Jean-
Jacques Rousseau. This theory advocates effecting reforms not through fear but
through penalties aimed at softening a hardened criminal.25 “Rehabilitation theorists
want to affect the current wrongdoer’s future behavior.”26
The theory of exemplarity upholds the view that crimes are “best checked
by exhibiting to the public the most horrible penalties inflicted on the criminal
himself.”27 This theory argues that to scare people from committing the same crime,
punishment must be exhibited as a form of example.28
The theory of retribution justifies punishment because of the moral
culpability of the offender. According to this theory, “a retributivist punishes
because, and only because, the offender deserves it.”29 It is a restatement of the
Golden Rule and a face for the jus talionis principle. Immanuel Kant, in defending
retributivism, wrote: “Judicial punishment can never be used merely as a means to
24
ALBERT, supra note 22, at 2.
25
ALBERT, supra note 22, at 2-3.
26
SIMON, supra note 23, at 455.
27
28
29
promote some other good for the criminal himself or for civil society but
instead it must in all cases be imposed on him only on the ground that he has
committed a crime.”30
Finally, the restitution theory presents a paradigm shift. Simply put, the
restitution theory views crime as an offense by a person against another. “The
victim has suffered a loss. Justice consists of the culpable offender making good the
loss he has caused. It calls for a complete refocusing of our image of crime…
where we once saw an offense against society, we now see an offense against an
individual victim.”31
The Different Schools of Thought in
Criminal Justice System and their Conceptual Implications
Of course, all of these theories, one way or the other, may have been present
in criminal laws. However, underneath all these theories justifying the presence of
penalties in criminal laws are two schools of thought – namely, the Classical School
of Thought and the Positivist School of Thought.
Briefly, the Classical School of Thought presumes free volition in a human
being, who can distinguish between right and wrong. It assumes that a human being
is a rational being.32 For those who framed the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, on
30
SIMON, supra note 23, at 455-456.
31
32
SUAREZ, supra note 19, at 213.
which the Revised Penal Code was based, 33 “man is essentially a moral creature
with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. They assert that man
should only be adjudged and held accountable for wrongful acts, so long as that
free will appears unimpaired.”34 Associate Justice Guillermo F. Pablo in his
decision in People vs. Piosca and Peremne explains the concept of the classical
theory in this manner:
“Human nature is eminently ethical, always thinking of good or

doing good. It is extraordinary to do bad, think bad or believe in things that
are bad. It could be assured that 98 percent of criminals are generally
good, legitimate and moral. Their bad acts, crimes being committed only in
moments of moral aberration.”35
Under this school of thought, the stress is upon the effect or result of the
felonious act, or the actus reus, rather than the offender. It gives scant regard to the
human element.36 Its purpose is retribution because of the voluntariness of the act
or the omission of the offender. It “requires that the offender be repaid with
commensurate punishment.”37 It establishes specific and predetermined penalty for
the offense committed. “The penalty is mechanically determined in direct
proportion to the crime committed.”38
The Positivist School of Thought regards free will as a myth and a subject
for debate. Its main principle is that a –
33
ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL LAW VOLUME 1 7 (GIC Enterprises and Co.,
Inc. 2002).
34
Id. at 5.
35
People vs. Piosca and Peremne, 86 Phil. 34 (1950). Translation from the Spanish version comes
from ABELARDO T. DOMONDON’S A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL LAW VOLUME 1, p. 6, see supra note 33.
36
REYES, supra note 12, at 22-23.
37
LEONOR D. BOADO, NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE 6 (Rex Book Store 2002).
38
Id. at 7.
man is subdued occasionally by a strange and morbid phenomenon

which constrains him to do wrong in spite of or contrary to his volition. It is
for this reason that the central idea of all positivist thinking is the defense
of the community from the anti-social activities, whether actual or
potential, against the morbid type of man who is called ‘socially dangerous
person.’39
The proponents of this school of thought view a human being as inherently
good while the offender is socially sick. The criminal convict within this context is
a product of biological factors and environment. “His thoughts and actions are
influenced by his upbringing, social environment and associations.”40
Because the focus of the positivists is on the offender or the mens rea (the
criminal intent) and not on the offense, it aims at the reformation or rehabilitation
of the offender. The importance given to the offender and his/her rehabilitation
springs from the fact that the offender is a product of his/her environment. Thus,
within this context punishment must be corrective or curative to facilitate reform of
the convicted person.41 Because the purpose of penalty within the context of the
positivist approach is reform, Reyes writes:
[crime] cannot be treated and checked by the application of

abstract principles of law and jurisprudence nor by the imposition of a
punishment, fixed and determined a priori; but rather through the
enforcement of individual measures in each particular case after a
thorough, personal and individual investigation conducted by a competent
body of psychiatrists and social scientists.42
39
DOMONDON, supra note 33, at 6.
40
BOADO, supra note 37, at 7.
41
BOADO, supra note 37, at 7.
42
Admittedly, the Revised Penal Code may have some characteristics of the
Positivist School as found in the provisions for the punishment of impossible
crimes, the special treatment of juveniles. However, since it is merely a retouching
of the Spanish Penal Code of 1870, the Revised Penal Code belongs largely to the
classical or juristic school of criminal law. 43 But what exactly is the contour of the
present framework of the Philippine criminal penalty and penal system?
43
DOMONDON, supra note 33, at 7.
CHAPTER TWO:
CURRENT FRAMEWORK OF
THE PHILLIPPINE CRIMINAL PENALTY AND PENAL SYSTEM
Survey of the Basic Concepts in Philippine Criminal Justice Systems
The genesis of the Revised Penal Code may be traced to the Spanish Penal
Code of 1870, which was extended by virtue of the Royal Order of December 17,
1886 to the Philippines.44 The late Justice Anacleto Diaz chaired the Code
Committee that drafted the Revised Penal Code. The Code Committee considered
and integrated in the draft penal legislation, the Philippines statute books, the
rulings of the Supreme Court, the conditions in the different parts of the Philippines
then, and various penal laws during early part of the American rule.45
The Revised Penal Code defines a felony “as any act or omission
punishable by law.”46 Generally, the elements of felonies consist of (a) an act or
omission, and (b) the punishment by the Revised Penal Code, (c) and dolo or
culpa.47
44
U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321, 323 (1915).
45
ANTONIO L. GREGORIO, FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 13 (Rex Book Store 1997).
46
REVISED PENAL CODE, art. 3.
47
REYES, supra note 12, at 31, citing People vs. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 309, 324 (1990).
As earlier pointed out, the Revised Penal Code was enacted within the
context of the Classical Theory. This theory sees a human being as possessing an
absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. As a result of this, the penalty
in the Revised Penal Code “signifies pain; in its juridical sphere, penalty means
suffering undergone, because of the action of society, by one who commits a
crime.”48
In his concurring opinion in the case of People vs. Mape, Justice Perfecto
described how the system of penalties is treated in the Revised Penal Code. He
wrote,
The system of penalties adopted by the Revised Penal Code is both

rigid and elastic. Its rigidity lies in the classification of the specific penalty
to be imposed within the range of each class, period or degree of penalty.
The elasticity has further been enlarged by the Law of Indeterminate
Sentence, not only in the range of penalty, but in its actual application.49
Meanwhile, authors in criminal law described the juridical conditions of
penalty as follows:
1. It must be productive of suffering but the limit is the integrity of

human personality.
2. It must be proportionate to the crime in the sense that different
penalties are prescribed for different felonies.
3. It must be personal as it must be imposed only upon the criminal
and no other.
4. It must be legal as it must be the consequence of a judgment
according to law.
5. It must be certain so that one cannot escape from it.
6. It must be equal in the sense that it applies to all persons
regardless of circumstances.
7. It must be correctional.
48
GREGORIO, supra note 45, at 199.
49
People vs. Mape 44 O. G. 1140, 1145 (1947).
Concretely, the framers of the Revised Penal Code outlined the
classification of penalties, their duration and effects, the application of penalties
and the execution and service of penalties in Article 25 to 88. The Code provides
the penalties that may be imposed included the capital punishment or death as
provided by law; the afflictive penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal,
perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary special
disqualification, and prision mayor; the correctional penalties of prision
correccional, aresto mayor, suspension, and destierro; the light penalties of arresto
menor and public censure; the penalties common to the three preceding clauses –
namely fine, bond to keep the peace, and the accessory penalties of perpetual or
temporary absolute disqualification, perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the profession or
calling, civil interdiction, indemnification, forfeiture or confiscation of instruments
and proceeds of the offense, and payment of cost.50
In sum, penalties may be classified as corporal (death), deprivation of
freedom (reclusion, prision, arresto), restriction of freedom (destierro), deprivation
of rights (disqualification and suspension), pecuniary (fine) and public censure.51
50
REVISED PENAL CODE, art 25 (1999).
51
Review of the Current Penal System
While the Philippine system of penalty within the Revised Penal Code lacks
a rehabilitative aspect, efforts in the current penal or prison system also seem to fail
in this respect.
Historical Precedents –
In fact, the condition of the Philippine penal institutions and penology has
been the subject of numerous studies. In 1969, as chairman of the Committee on
Justice in the Senate, Senator Salvador H. Laurel published the “Laurel Report on
Penal Reforms: The State of Philippine Penal Institutions and Penology.” 52 Even
then, he saw the need for penal reforms.
Penal institutions in the Philippines formally trace their roots to the “Carcel
y Presidio Correccional,” or the Old Bilibid Prison built in 1866 at the then
Mayhaligue Estate in Manila. Because of the growing number of prisoners, the Old
Bilibid Prison became congested. To solve the problem of congestion,
Commonwealth Act No. 67 was enacted. In November 15, 1940, the authorities
transferred prisoners from the Old Bilibid Prison to the New Bilibid Prison in
Muntinlupa, Rizal.
52
SALVADOR H. LAUREL, LAUREL REPORT ON PENAL REFORMS: THE STATE OF PHILIPPINE
INSTITUTIONS AND PENOLOGY (Committee on Justice, Senate of the Republic of the Philippines
1969).
On February 14, 1931, women prisoners found a home in the Correctional
Institution for Women, in Welfareville, at Mandaluyong, Rizal. After the liberation
of the Philippines, Fort Bonifacio Prison was handed over to the Philippine
government, which turned it into a facility for the confinement of maximum-
security prisoners.
During the Spanish rule, the idea of establishing a penal colony was also
floated. The plan was to build it in Puerto Princesa. However, this dream was only
realized in November 16, 1904 with the establishment of the Iwahig Penal Colony.
Later, under the Philippine Government, the Davao Penal Colony was established
on January 21, 1932 in Tagum. From then on, more and more jails and prisons were
built and established as the number of inmates grew.53
Unfortunately, while prison authorities struggled to maintain better prison
facilities, the effort was not successful. In fact, even during the time of Senator
Laurel, prisons were already in sorry state. One may even say that nothing much
has changed. Laurel in his findings and recommendations wrote:
The living conditions in most jails are sub-human. Cells are

congested, unkempt and dingy. Toilet facilities are inadequate and prisoners
bathe with cheap laundry soap supplied by prison authorities. The
committee discovered that the inmates of the provincial jail of a first class
province are allowed to go out of their cells for sunshine only once a week
and for only one hour. Most inmates do not have uniforms and stay in their
cells half-naked.54
Psychiatric services are unheard of the insular prisons. At the New
Bilibid Prison, only 8 guidance counselors serve the needs of the more than
53
Please see for the detailed discussion of the history of the Philippine prison in LAUREL, supra note
52, at 25-44.
54
LAUREL, supra note 52, at 265.
9,000 prisoners confined therein. At the Manila City Jail, drug addicts are
not even treated while they are detained.55
Most of the inmates of closed penal institutions in the Philippines
are virtually forced to spend their time in idleness. In the New Bilibid
Prison where substantial efforts are already exerted by the present Director
of Prisons to provide vocational training for all inmates, only 1 out of 8
prisoners are engaged in such training programs.56
Many prisoners are not visited by their friends and relatives because
of the great distance between the penitentiary and his residence.57
With the exception of the Correctional Institution for Women, no
penal institution has adopted a substantial pre-release program. Inmates
are, therefore, not given the opportunity to readjust properly to normal
social life.58
The above are just some of the findings that the committee of Senator
Laurel discovered. While these findings have been around for more than three
decades, not much has changed in the present prison system.
The Current Jail Conditions –
In a February 17, 1996 article, then Associate Justice Alfredo Benipayo of
the Court of Appeals revealed that jails are twenty-two percent (22%) congested.
Prisons all over the country can hold a total capacity of 14,700 inmates only but in
1996 they held 17,946 inmates. 59 As of 1996, inadequate prison facilities were not
the only problem. In the same article, the author listed “poor delivery of service,
lack of separate quarters for men and women, inadequate funding for food and
55
56
57
58
59
Nati Nuguid, Porous Jails, Crooked System, PHILIPPINE FREE PRESS, February 17, 1996, at 14.
other basic needs, lack of adequate skills program and psychosocial
interventions, inadequate rehabilitation programs for probationers, paroled and
pardoned criminals and security measure.”60 Worst of all, according to the same
article, qualified correctional personnel refused to accept jobs with the Bureau of
Corrections because of low salaries and lack of incentives. This sacrificed the
rehabilitative aspect of the prison and penalty systems.61
In 1999, in celebration of the 5th National Correctional Consciousness
Week, an article revealed the state of Philippine jails: “In fact, no less than the US
State Department, in its Philippines Country Report on Human Rights Practices in
1998, expressed shock over the state of the country’s prisons and jails. It described
prison conditions in the Philippines as ‘harsh and life-threatening.’”62
Just like the previous years, prison facilities remained the main problem
because of their congestion. Other problems include inadequate sanitation, the lack
of healthy food, and the absence of medicines for sick inmates.63 The same article
also showed the lack of programs, such as basic education and entrepreneurial
training, to assist unlettered inmates. Because of this, “some fear that with the
paucity of training programs, released convicts would have the same attitudes and
learning deficiencies that they had before their imprisonment.”64
60
Id. at 15.
61
Id. at 16.
62
Philippine Corrections Today, PHILIPPINE PANORAMA, October 24, 1999, at 13.
63
Id. at 13.
64
Id. at 17.
The article also exposed the sorry state of the rehabilitative aspect of the
correction system. “Only seven percent of the Bureau of Correction’s custodial
personnel are involved in this activity, not to mention that there are only 13
psychologists in NBP, or one for every 1,577 inmates.” 65 Thus, as they were, the
physical conditions and the readiness of the personnel to assist inmates were
barriers to the rehabilitation process.
The sorry state of the prison system came to fore again with the attempted
jailbreak of alleged Muslim extremists this year (2005). Most of the complaints
focused on the cramped facilities, absence of adequate food, and lack of medicines.
However, generally in all prisons the problems include “dirty tap water, fetid air,
substandard toilets and showers, unrelieved filth and less than satisfactory food.”66
Official Structures in Jails –
Under the Philippine prison system, the agencies involved in the
confinement and correction of offenders are the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor),
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), the Philippine National Police
(PNP), the provincial governments, and the Department of Social Welfare and
Development.67
65
Id. at 17.
66
Editorial, Our Own Ghraib,
http://www.manilatimes.net/national/sept/18/yehey/opinion/2004091opi1.html (July 6, 2005).
67
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE UNITED
NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL SURVEY OF INMATES & INSTITUTIONAL
ASSESSMENT: FINAL REPORT 2-11 to 2-14 (July 2003), available at http://www.apjr-sc-
phil.org/filemanager (last checked July 4, 2005).
The Bureau of Corrections is under the Department of Justice (DOJ). It is
mandated to carry out the institutional rehabilitation program of the government for
national offenders, or those sentenced to more than three years of imprisonment. It
maintains seven national penitentiaries.68
Created as a line bureau of the Department of the Interior and Local
Government (DILG) by virtue of Republic Act 6975, which took effect on January
2, 1991, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology is the main agency
mandated to direct, supervise and control the administration and operation of all
district, city and municipal jails nationwide. Jails are different from national
penitentiaries because the former are located in provinces, cities and municipalities.
Offenders who receive short-term sentences (sentence of three years or less) and
those awaiting trial and final judgment are confined in jails.
As an institution, the mandate of the BJMP is clearly reflected in its
objectives. The objectives call for the adoption of the norms, standards, and
principles contained in the United Nations conventions/ treaties and instruments.
The objectives are:
 To improve the living conditions of offenders in accordance with

accepted standards set by the United Nations for the treatment
of prisoners and detainees;
 To enhance the rehabilitation and reformation of offenders in
preparation for their eventual reintegration to the mainstream of
society upon release; and
 To provide and develop professionalized jail services.69
68
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra note 67, at 2-12.
69
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra note 67 at 4-1.
While administration and operation of all district, city and municipal jails
should actually be under the BJMP, it shares the responsibility with the Philippine
National Police. In fact, 61% of the total facilities within the jurisdiction of the
BJMP are manned by the PNP. This arrangement may be temporary, but because of
the limited capacity of the BJMP, such may be the reality, which may have its toll
on the implementation of behavioral modification and rehabilitation programs for
inmates.70
By virtue of the Local Government Code (RA 7160), provincial
governments are authorized to maintain jails and detention facilities. These
facilities are intended to serve offenders convicted with a prison sentence of six
months and one day to three years and detainees whose cases are being tried by
Regional Trial Courts.71
The Department of Social Welfare and Development is tasked to run
juvenile centers by virtue of the Philippine Child and Youth Welfare Code (PD
603). “Youth offenders or minors in conflict with the law (CICL), which include
those whose cases are still pending in court and those who have been convicted to
serve prison terms, are placed in DSWD regional rehabilitation centers until they
reach the age of 18.”72
70
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra note 67 at 2-17 to 2-12.
71
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra note 67 at 2-17 to 2-13.
72
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra Note 67 at 2-13.
Congestion in Jails –
One of the biggest problems confronting the prison system is congestion. In
the case of People vs. De los Santos, the Supreme Court cited the impressions of
the trial judge, Honorable Andres Reyes, of the situation in the New Bilibid
Prisons. In sum, he described how congested the prison facilities were, how it
smelled of human flesh and perspiration, how hardened criminals were mixed with
light offenders, and where their only safety in the jungle called prison seemed to lie
in gangs and other support groups.73 In the light of this situation, the Supreme Court
refused to impose death penalty upon the accused, saying:
The members of the Court cannot in conscience concur in the death

penalty imposed, because they find it impossible to ignore the contributory
role played by the inhuman conditions then reigning in the penitentiary,
vividly described by the trial Judge in his decision. It is evident that the
incredible overcrowding of the prison cells, that taxed facilities beyond
measure and the starvation allowance of ten centavos per meal for each
prisoner, must have rubbed raw the nerves and dispositions of the
unfortunate inmates, and predisposed them to all sorts of violence to seize
from their owners the meager supplies from outside in order to eke out their
miserable existence. All this led inevitably to the formation of gangs that
preyed like wolf packs on the weak, and ultimately to pitiless gang rivalry
for the control of the prisoners, abetted by the inability of the outnumbered
guards to enforce discipline, and which culminated in violent riots.74
As of 2003, according to the Bureau of Corrections, the actual population in
the New Bilibid Prison stood at 16,134. However, the prison’s capacity is only
8,700 – an 85% congestion rate. In San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in
73
People vs. De los Santos, 14 SCRA 703-705 (1965).
74
Id. at 712.
Zamboanga, the actual population was 951 against the capacity of 500. It
must be noted, however, that according to the same report, there is no congestion in
the following national penitentiaries: Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm in Palawan
(1,974 againt 3,500 capacity), Correctional Institution for Women in Metro Manila
(3,005 against 3,100 capacity), Davao Prison and Penal Farm in Davao del Norte
(1,000 against 1,300 capacity), Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Occidental
Mindoro (1,050 against 1,500 capacity), and the Leyte Regional Prison (888
against 1,000 capacity).75 As of 2006, based on the recent statistics from the Bilibid
Prison, the actual population in the New Bilibid Prison stood at 18,796; vis-à-vis
the 8,700 prison capacity of the New Bilibid Prison – as of this year, the congestion
rate is 116%.76
According to the BJMP and the BuCor as of 2003, the total population of
offenders detained or confined in prisons is: 39,847 under the BJMP, 1,747 under
the PNP, 25,002 under the BuCor and 18,104 under provincial governments. Youth
offenders have been estimated at 20,000, half of them were under the supervision
of the DSWD.77 However, based on the 2006 data of BJMP, the total population of
offenders detained or confined from the National Capital Region, to the
Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), to the Cordillera Autonomous
Region (CAR), to Region 1 to Region 10, is 62,297.78
75
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra note 67 at 2-13.
76
New Bilibid Prison Sobra ng 10,000 Bilanggo, http://www.journal.com.ph/news (March 2006).
77
78
Data and Statistics, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, http://www.bjmp.gov.ph./ (March
2006).
Jail congestion is not simply a facility problem. It breeds other problems
such as human right abuses and physical, sociological, emotional, psychological
stress. All these contribute to disturbances, violence, desire to escape, suicide,
mental illness and other disciplinary infractions. The Manila City Jail experience
can attest to this. Based on the BJMP records, an increase of 233% of death rates
happened in year 2002, when the congestion rate increased from 186% in year 2001
to 218% in year 2002.79
The Rehabilitation Programs –
As it is, the rehabilitation program of the BJMP is aimed at changing an
inmate’s pattern of criminal behavior and reforming him into a law-abiding and
productive citizen. BJMP refers to these rehabilitation programs as a treatment
program for inmates. This includes services for the basic needs of inmates, health
services, education and skills training, religious services, guidance and counseling
services, recreation, sports and entertainment, work programs (livelihood projects),
visitation services and mail services.80
While it may seem that the rehabilitation program of BJMP is in place,
some factors may have also jeopardized the same program. One of these is the
sharing of responsibilities between the BJMP and the PNP. Although the BJMP has
been operational for more than 13 years now, it still shares the administration of
79
CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., supra note 67, at 4-14 to 4-15.
80
district, city and municipal jails with the PNP. While the majority of jail
inmates are supposed to be under the BJMP, the PNP mans 61% of the jail facilities
under the jurisdiction of the BJMP. This reality compromises the quality of
rehabilitation services for the inmates because sound practices in crime prevention
and control requires that police service must be distinct and separate from
correction and rehabilitation.81
Other Problems –
In another study made by the CPRM Consultants, Inc. under the
Department of Justice project, “Strengthening the Other Pillars of Justice through
Reforms in the Department of Justice” (under the auspices of the Government of
the Philippines-UNDP Governance Portfolio), the following institutional issues on
the corrections system have been identified:82
1. Correctional facilities are outdated, outmoded and dilapidated.
2. The conduct of corrections and restoration activities by several
government agencies are overlapping. For instance, the DOJ, the DILG, the DSWD
and the provincial governments have similar mandates relative to the management
and supervision of prisons, jails and rehabilitation centers.
3. Absence or lack of information technology systems and expertise impede
proper assistance to inmates in terms of processing of records and of providing
81
82
needed services in view of correction and rehabilitation programs.
4. There is a need to improve the overall management capacity and
resources to develop policies, programs, project and activities for correction and
rehabilitation of offenders, to address congestion in jails and prisons, and for
effective operations management and strategic planning.
5. Unattractive compensation, emoluments and benefits package discourage
experts from immersing themselves in the correction system work.
6. Correction personnel and officers are inadequately trained to handle the
facets of rehabilitation.
A Microcosm –
The personal account of Raymund E. Narag, an acquitted inmate in Quezon
City Jail (QCJ), in his book “Freedom and Death Inside the Jail: A Look into the
Condition of the Quezon City Jail,” gives face to the hard data above. It is
instructive of the present condition of jails in the Philippines, because he outlined
the culture and subculture, the authorities within the authorities, the problems and
the hopes in Quezon City Jail.
Officially, in the QCJ, as of November 2003, there were 126 personnel,
composed mainly of professionals such as licensed nurses, criminologists, social
workers, and law graduates. A Warden heads the jail. He reports directly to the
Assistant Regional Director of the BJMP National Capital Region. The Warden is
assisted by the Deputy Warden for operations and for administration. He is the
officer-in-charge when the Warden is not around. He oversees the day-to-day
activities of the jail – from food rationing to routine head-counts to jail assemblies.
He is also in charge of personnel matters – appointments and promotions, moral
and welfare, deployment, and orientation of newly committed inmates. There are
eight divisions under the deputy warden: Custodial, Escort, Medical, Paralegal,
Records, Mess, Intelligence/Investigation, and Rehabilitation.83
However, in reality, inmates have also created jail structures outside the
“official and authorized structures.” Aside from the usual segregation scheme in
jails, the subculture created the Pangkat System that determines the social structure
in QCJ. There are at least four pangkat affiliations in QCJ, Batang City Jail (BCJ),
Sigue-Sigue Sputnik (SSS), Sigue-Sigue Commando (SSC) and Bahala na Gang
(BNG). Of course, there are some inmates who do not belong to any pangkat and
thus they belong to the querna.84
With inadequate personnel, the pangkat and the querna devised a political
hierarchy to assist jail personnel. This hierarchy is called the panunungkulan
system. Under this system, the most coveted position is the nanunungkulan, who
maintains the peace and order inside the cell. The cell structure is composed of the
mayor, the bise-mayor, and the bastonero. The bigger structure, on the other hand,
83
RAYMUND E. NARAG, FREEDOM AND DEATH INSIDE THE JAIL: A LOOK INTO THE CONDITION OF
THE QUEZON CITY JAIL 22 (Supreme Court of the Philippines with the help of the United Nations
Development Programme 2005). As of this writing, the book of Mr. Narag has not yet been
published. However, he provided the proponent with his manuscript/ template. With his permission,
the proponent is citing pertinent data.
84
Id. at 70-84. Querna is the group where prisoners who do not belong in any of the pangkats.
Brigada by querna is similar to a federal government where cells act as independent bodies.
is called the Brigada structure. With the Brigada ng Pangkat, the basic structure is
headed by the mayor de mayores. He is assisted by the tayman or the magulang
(the advisers), the jury (those who decide whether an inmate is guilty of the charges
against him or her), and the assistant mayor de mayores. Underneath are the
panlabas (one who evaluates the security situation outside the cell), the bantay
pinto (one who controls the cell’s gate to monitor the movements of inmates), chief
bastonero (oversees the daily activities in the cell), kulturero (in-charge of the head
count, hearings, and other custodial needs of the inmates). Underneath the third row
of officers are the coordinators, secretary, treasurer, auditor and the cell officers.
For the pangkats, they devised their own way of electing their leaders while for the
querna, the Jail Warden himself chooses the mayor and the mayor de mayores.85
Aside from the social and political structures, the jail subculture has created
also its own judicial structure and economic structure. The judicial structure is
called Batas ng Kulungan. The system is embodied in the patakaran, which
requires inmates to respect jail officers, fellow inmates, and visitors; which
prohibits inmates from engaging in intrigues, excessive jokes, baryo-baryo or
cliques; and which requires inmates to settle obligations on time, to participate in
jail activities, to observe cleanliness and to maintain security. This ensures law and
order in the jail and compliments the lack of program for conflict mediation and
grievance mechanism in jail.86
85
Id. at 84-96.
86
Id. at 96-104.
As to the economic system, each cell maintains its own funds. The treasurer
takes care of the funds, which are kept in kaha, publicly displayed and properly
guarded. It is audited publicly during cell assemblies. The mayor has the sole
authority to disburse funds for cell expenses. To raise funds, the inmates are
required to pay calling fee, tax from businesses operated in the jail, palakpak fee or
contributions for departing inmates, VIP fee or fees from inmates who want to be
exempt from cell obligations, commitment fee from those who are new in the cell,
kubol fees from those who want his/her own cubicle. Inmates also raise funds
through the store income, donations, and fund raising activities, such as Bingo
Socials, raffle draws and sponsored movie viewing.87
These systems, however, are born out of actual situations in jails,
particularly in QCJ. They operate as the coping mechanism of the inmates for the
inadequacy of penal programs. Narag identified some root causes of the problems,
namely inadequate facilities and basic services, inadequate personnel, inadequate
programs, loopholes in police operations and the slow judicial work.
The BJMP Manual provides that prisoners should be provided at the usual
hour with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome
quality, well prepared and served. In reality, the national government can only
provide P30 and the city government of QCJ can only provide P10 a day for every
inmate. Together, QCJ inmates have P40 as daily food budget, spread over
breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snack.
87
Id. at 104-107.
Aside from the food shortage, QCJ also experienced brownouts as a cost-
cutting measure, water supply shortages, and overflowing human wastes in toilet
bowls. Inmates also experience lack of sleeping facilities, which may jeopardize the
health and the psychological well-being of inmates. When inmates get sick, not
much can be done also because only P106.64 is allotted for medical expenses for
every inmate a year. Because there is not much space, contagious diseases easily
spread.
While the rehabilitation of inmates is a necessity in the penal system, the
facilities for psychological treatment are wanting. Licensed psychological testing
materials are also absent. Worst of all, a resident psychologist has to attend to at
least ten patients everyday and come up with a report by conducting interviews,
administering tests, and studying medical histories within a short a time. As it is,
there is no sustainable and long-term rehabilitation and reformation planning. As
wardens change, new projects and programs are also initiated. The present state of
rehabilitation is no longer a matter of right, but a matter depending on the capacity
of the local government or the institution in charge of the jail.88
88
Id. at 31-77.
CHAPTER THREE:
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE PENALTY SYSTEM:
A VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE CONVICTED PERSON
The Constitutional Provision
The fundamental questions are: “Do prisoners or convicts have rights? Do
they have the right to rehabilitation?”
The 1987 Philippine Constitution is replete with provisions on respect for
the human dignity and human rights of a person. Section 11, Article II on State
Policies provides that “the State values the dignity of every human person and
guarantees full respect for human rights.”89 This provision affirms that the
“individual enjoys certain rights which cannot be modified or taken away by the
lawmaking body.”90 This emanates from a strong belief that all human beings,
irrespective of his race, color, sex, religion, property and other status, are equal.
Thus, it is within this context that a prisoner or convicted person can lay claim to
some fundamental human rights, which no conviction nor legislation can ever
subvert.
89
PHIL. CONST., art II, sec. 11.
90
HECTOR S. DE LEON, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND CASES VOLUME 1 161
(Rex Book Store 1999).
The Bill of Rights grants, at the least, two pertinent provisions on the
human rights of a prisoner or convicted person as embodiment of Section 11,
Article II. The first is Section 1, Article III, providing: “No person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.”91 Second, Section 19, Article III grants
pointedly the rights of the prisoners in this manner:
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or

inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.92
The right to life of the Convict –
Under the first provision, Section 1, Article III, due process must be
observed before the convicted person can be denied some civil, political, and
economic rights. In addition, no convicted person or prisoner may be deprived of
his life without due process of law.
Life, within the scope of the definition of the 1987 Constitution, must be
seen in the light of Sections 9 and 11 of Article II. The right to life, based on these
provisions, embraces the right to a good quality of living and a life of “dignity.”93
91
PHIL. CONST., art III, sec. 1.
92
PHIL. CONST., art III, sec. 19.
93
ALBERTO T. MUYOT, PHILIPPINE LAW & JURISPRUDENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS 102 (Institute of
Human Rights, University of the Philippines Law Center 1999).
Consistent with the principle of equal protection of the laws, a convicted
person deserves to enjoy a life of dignity, just like other human beings, while under
the custody of the State. Although they have lost their right to liberty and even to
property, they retain their right to life. As the case of Hudson vs. Palmer holds, a
convicted person remains protected under the Constitution and retains all the rights
that an ordinary citizen has except those that the law denies him/her.94
Of course, one may argue that prisoners should not enjoy the same good life
as other free citizens of the country – after all, even outside the confines of prisons,
people live different qualities of lives. Rightly, Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J. points
out that such equality before the law is not a disembodied equality. The State can
recognize and can act upon factual differences between individuals and classes.95
However, a conviction that requires only incarceration should not be interpreted as
condemnation of a prisoner to a life of constant danger of death because of the
circumstances within the control of the State. In the American case of Siegel v.
Ragen, although the district court was reluctant to intervene in prison conflict, it
held that incarceration in a penitentiary under conviction for felonies does not
deprive convicts of the right to invoke the provisions of the Civil Rights Act. The
law applies to all person within the United States jurisdiction.96
94
Hudson vs. Palmer, 468 US 517 (1984).
95
FR. JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S. J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES: A
COMMENTARY 136-137 (Rex Book Store 2003).
96
Siegel v. Ragen, 88 F.Supp. 996 (N.D.Ill.1949).
Under the present situation in penal institutions, one may wonder whether
prisoners have been unwittingly condemned to a slow death in prison. As pointed
out by the US State Department in its Philippine Country Report on Human Rights
Practices in 1998, Philippine prison and jail conditions, at the least, are shocking,
and worst, harsh and life-threatening.97 Thus, from day one, a convicted person
remains in constant danger of death because of the sorry state of penal institutions.
When one is imprisoned, he or she must be prepared to die because, as one QCJ
inmate shared, many who get sick do not make it to the hospital.98
One may argue that there is no law degrading the rights of the convicted
persons, and thus without the State institutionalizing such inequality, the State does
not therefore violate the rights of the prisoner. This line of argument brings to the
fore the question regarding the State role: “Whether or not equal protection clause
merely prohibits the state from institutionalizing inequality or does it command the
state to take positive measures to eradicate inequalities that have arisen not
necessarily through state action?”99 Fr. Bernas admits that equal protection clause
comes from a country that depends greatly on private sector initiative and that does
recognize a duty on the part of State to raise everyone to a minimum acceptable
standard of living. However, Fr. Bernas points out that in the Philippines some
97
PHILIPPINE PANORAMA, supra note 62, at 13.
98
NARAG, supra note 83, at 42. Romano Gatmaitan of Sigue-Sigue Commando shared his
experiences as medical coordinator: “These are what we experience in the Commando: 1) the spread
of TB; 2) the growing number of those afflicted with boils because of the stifling heat inside the
brigade; 3) there are times when a fellow inmate dies due to lack of medicines; 4) there also times
when a patient needs to be brought to the hospital but because of too much paper work required
before the judge can give us an order, the patient does not usually make it to the hospital anymore;
and 5) above all, we lack water.”
99
FR. BERNAS, S. J., supra note 95, at 159.
positive measures have been adopted to achieve some semblance of equality – as
for instance in the requirement of free court transcripts for indigents. This bold
action is not without constitutional foundation. The Preamble declares the need to
address boldly and take positive action regarding the demand for equality in
Philippine society, as also enshrined in the command to promote social justice in all
phases of national development and in Article XIII on Human Rights. 100 It is also
contained in the provision that commands Congress to “give highest priority to the
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity.”101
The American case of Morales v. Schmidt is instructive on the issue of
equal protection of the law. District Judge James E. Doyle lengthily explained his
position on equal protection when he proposed as his thesis that convicted persons
continue to share with the general population the full latent protection of the
Fourteenth Amendment. The District Judge, however, differentiated the challenges
confronting this issue. He wrote in his decision:
I believe that this governmental classification for the purpose of

differential treatment should not escape the judicial scrutiny borne by other
governmental classifications for the purpose of differential treatment. If a
challenge is made to a statute or regulation distinguishing between those
convicted of crime and those not convicted of crime, ordinarily the burden
will be upon the challenger to show that in the particular context, the
distinction is arbitrary and unreasonable. On the other hand, if the
distinction between the two classes bears upon an individual interest
considered to be ‘fundamental,’ such as the expression of ideas or the
100
FR. BERNAS, S. J., supra note 95, at 159-160.
101
PHIL. CONST., art XIII, sec. 1.
exercise of religion, then the burden will be upon the government to show a
compelling state interest in the differential in treatment.102
However, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that this ruling of the
district court, in so far as the application of the principles developed under the
constitutional guaranty of equal protection is concerned, is defective. Thus, it was
remanded.103
There were attempts, however, to create a conceptual framework for
constitutional litigation on the rights of prisoners.104 The United States Supreme
Court in a series of cases (Bell v Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520; Wolff v. McDonnel, 418
U.S. 539; Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266) enunciated four principles related to the
status of the convicted person before the law:
(1) Prison residents do not forfeit all their constitutional

protections; “there is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and
the prisons of this country.”
(2) Constitutional rights of prisoners, however, are subject to
restrictions and limitations “justified by the considerations underlying our
penal system”; a prisoner “simply does not possess the full range of
freedoms of an unincarcerated individual.”
(3) Essential goals of maintaining institutional security and
preserving internal order and discipline may require limitation or retraction
of constitutional rights retained by persons in confinement. “Prison
officials must be free to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of
inmates and correctional personnel and to prevent escape or unauthorized
entry.” Even practices infringing constitutional rights as important as those
102
Morales v. Schmidt, 340 F.Supp. 544 (W.D.Wis.1972).
103
Morales v. Schmidt, 494 F.2d 85 (7th Cir.1974).
104
The following excepts are cited in SHELDON KRANTZ’ THE LAW OF CORRECTIONS AND
PRISONERS’ RIGHTS 308. Here, the standard in the American Bar Association 1980 Standards
Relating to Legal Status of Prisoners is cited, to wit: “Prisoners retain the rights of free citizens
except: (a) As specifically provided to the contrary in these standards; or (b) When restrictions are
necessary to assure their orderly confinement and interaction; or (c) When restrictions are necessary
to provide reasonable protection for the rights and physical safety of all members of the prison
system and the general public.”
under the first amendment are to be evaluated “in the light of the central
objective of prison administration, safeguarding institutional security.”
(4) Because penal administration is inherently difficult, prison
administrators “should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the
adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are
needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain
institutional security.”105
Punishments –
The second provision (Section 19, Article III) usually refers to what the
State cannot impose as punishment upon convicted persons. This section, however,
clearly provides the State with basic guidelines on the treatment of convicted
persons. First, the provision prohibits excessive fines, and cruel, degrading, or
inhuman punishments. Second, it prohibits death penalty, except for compelling
reasons. Third, it prohibits employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
punishments. Finally, it prohibits the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions.
All these prohibitions point to the desire of the framers to recognize the
rights of the convicted under the Constitution. The prohibition against cruel,
degrading, or inhuman punishment recognizes the basic dignity of every human
being, despite the transgression and conviction of the person. A human being must
not go through punishment that involves torture or lingering death (burning alive,
mutilation, starvation, drowning, and other barbarous penalties) and that “brings
105
SHELDON KRANTZ, THE LAW OF CORRECTIONS AND PRISONERS’ RIGHTS: CASES AND
MATERIALS 309 (West Publishing Company 3rd edition 1986) (1973).
shame and humiliation to the victim, or exposes him to contempt or ridicule, or
lowers his dignity and self-respect as a human being.” 106 For a penalty or
punishment to come under the prohibition, the following guidelines may be used as
measure:
(1) A punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the

dignity of human beings. (2) It must not be applied arbitrarily. (3) It must
not be unacceptable to contemporary society. (4) It must not be excessive,
i.e., it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than less severe
punishment would.107
It must be noted that in the 1935 Philippine Constitution and in the Eight
Amendment to the United States Constitution the framer used the phrase “cruel and
unusual punishment.” In the present Constitution, the framers chose “cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment.” This is not simply a stylistic device. The Bill
of Rights Committee of the 1986 Constitutional Commission considered the use of
the 1935 vintage of “cruel and unusual” as prohibitive of “penological”
experimentation.108
The proponent would like to interpret this formulation of The Bill of Rights
Committee and of the whole Constitutional Commission as openness to other kinds
106
DE LEON, supra
note 90, at 925.
107
FR. JOAQUIN G.
BERNAS, S. J., THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: A REVIEWER-PRIMER 212
(Rex Book Store 2002). Fr. Bernas cited the Concurring opinion of Justice Brennan of the US
Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972).
108
FR. BERNAS, S. J., supra note 95, at 550.
of penalty aside from fines, incarceration, and disqualification. The
discussion on this particular provision is enlightening. The debate among Fr.
Bernas, Mr. Rama, and Mr. Garcia concerned the death penalty. Fr. Bernas called
on Mr. Garcia to explain a finding of Amnesty International on the deterrent effect
of death penalty in crime rates. Mr. Garcia explained:
Mr. Garcia. Actually, there has been authoritative studies done by

Amnesty International and also by the United Nations in 1980. One source
that I would like to quote is the study that Amnesty International presented
last year which states that the comparison of crime rates in different
countries that have retained or abolished the death penalty does not
indicate that the threat of execution has been effective in preventing capital
crimes. Studies on the death penalty indicate that changes in crime rates
depend on many factors, apart from the existence of use of the death
penalty. In fact, this brings out the conditions in society which, very often,
lead to the commission of the crime and, therefore, enables a more modern
approach towards penology which realizes that one has to look into
conditions which breed the crime and, at the same time, look into the fact
that a man who has committed a crime has to be reformed through a more
humane penal system. And I think, therefore, the stress and the view that
both the person in jail and those in society take about crime is, in a sense,
changed. The approach toward this problem becomes more humane.”109
In the same breath, and in a much clearer fashion, the exchange of words
between Fr. Bernas and Mr. Maambong on the use of the phrase “cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment” brings into focus the need for the 1987 Constitution to
respond actively and positively to international development, especially in the field
of human rights. Fr. Bernas explained the change from “unusual” to “inhuman,”
saying: “The reason for the change, Mr. Presiding Officer is this: We avoided the
109
FR. JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S. J., THE INTENT OF THE 1986 CONSTITUTION WRITERS 221 (Rex
Book Store 1995).
use of the word ‘unusual’ because it tended to lead to the interpretation that
one cannot innovate as far as penology is concerned – that, if a penalty is
something that was never used before, then it would be invalid. So, in order to
allow for the development of penology we decided that we should not prohibit
unusual punishments in the sense that they are new or novel.”110
Together with the other prohibitions in the same provision, one can
immediately perceive a new direction being formed in the minds of the framers of
the 1987 Constitution – the reformative or rehabilitative aspect of penology. In fact,
the prohibition against the imposition of the death penalty, except for heinous
crimes and for compelling reasons, the prohibition against the employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment, and the prohibition against the
use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions are
relevant to ensure the right of the convicts to a rehabilitative penalty. The absence
of this in the penal statutes is a failure to heed the direction of these constitutional
instructions.
In the United States jurisprudence, a plaintiff claimed that the failure of the
State government to provide “facilities, programs, and personnel for the treatment
and rehabilitation of persons confined in the state’s correctional institutions
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight and Fourteenth
Amendments.”111 However, the United States Supreme Court rejected the claim.
The United States Supreme Court held that “persons convicted of felonies do not
110
Id. at 229-230.
111
James v. Wallace 382 F.Supp. 1177 (M.D.Ala.1974).
acquire by virtue of their conviction a constitutional right to services and benefits
unavailable as of right to persons never convicted of criminal offenses.” 112 The
main thrust of the ruling is that for so long as free citizens cannot demand from the
state treatment, rehabilitation, and reformation services and facilities as of right, it
is not ready to yield as well the same right to convicts. This, however, did not
preclude the court from saying that “the absence of an affirmative program of
training and rehabilitation may have constitutional significance where in the
absence of such program conditions and practices exist which actually militate
against reform and rehabilitation.”113
International Declarations
As the 1987 Constitution is imbued with provisions pointing to respect for
the human person and the rehabilitation of the convicted person, the same can be
said of international declarations of the community of nations. The Philippines is a
State-party to various international human rights instruments related to the rights of
the convicted person, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
112
KRANTZ, supra note 105, at 426.
113
The overarching provision in so far as to rights of the human person is
Article 1 and Article 2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), to
wit:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
another in a spirit of brotherhood.114
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this
Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the
political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to
which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-
governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.115
These two provisions have laid down the groundwork for all other human
rights. They affirm the equality of all human beings in rights and dignity,
notwithstanding the differences in social origin, property, birth and other status. For
the proponent, the last qualification (other status) includes the status of the convict
as a prisoner. In other words, a person’s conviction is never a valid reason to
deprive him of his other rights if these rights are not curtailed by a validly passed
and constitutionally sound law. As also provided in the UDHR, “All are equal
before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the
law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of
the Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.” 116 Thus, within
114
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS art. 1.
115
116
the realm of the United Nations, there exists a recognition of the convict’s right to
be treated equally before the law.
While the preceding discussion focuses on the general protection of the
rights of the convicted person, Article 5 of the UDHR recognizes in a concrete
manner the rights that States should yield to prisoners:
No one should be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment.117
Furthermore, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) also provides:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected
without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.118
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with

humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
2. (a) Accused person shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be
segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate
treatment appropriate to their status as unconvicted persons.
(b) Accused juvenile persons shall be separated from adults and
brought as speedily as possible for adjudication.119
Meanwhile, to establish a regime of absolute prohibition on torture, the
United Nations adopted on December 9, 1975 The Declaration on Protection of All
Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.120 Later, on December 10, 1984, the United Nations
117
118
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS art. 7.
119
120
THE DECLARATION ON PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM BEING SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND
OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT was adopted by the General
Assembly in its Resolution 3452 (XXX) of December 9, 1975.
adopted The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment,121 and the Basic Principles for the Treatment of
Prisoners.122
The United Nations in 1955 also adopted Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners.123 Through the First United Nations Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, The United Nations, “on the
basis of the general consensus of contemporary thought and the essential elements
of the most adequate systems of today, sets out what is generally accepted as being
good principle and practice in the treatment of prisoners and the management of
institutions.”124 The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners
provides the following:
58. The purpose and justification of a sentence of imprisonment or a

similar measure deprivative of liberty is ultimately to protect society
against crime. This end can only be achieved if the period of imprisonment
is used to ensure, so far as possible, that upon his return to society the
offender is not only willing but able to lead a law-abiding and self-
supporting life.
59. To this end, the institution should utilize all the remedial,
educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance
which are appropriate and available, and should seek to apply them
according to the individual treatment needs of the prisoners.
xxx xxx xxx
121
THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT
OR PUNISHMENT, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1984, Thirty-
ninth session, Supplement No. 51 (A/3915), pp. 197-201.
122
BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS, G.A. res. 45/111, annex, 45 U.N. GAOR
Supp. (No. 49A) at 200, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).
123
This is adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders, 30 August 1955; approved by the United Nations Economic and Social
Council resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957; and amended – new rule 95 added – by
Economic and Social Council resolution 2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.
124
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, Human Rights Fact Sheets series 5 (United Nations Office at
Geneva, 1989).
60. (2) Before the completion of the sentence, it is desirable that the
necessary steps be taken to ensure for the prisoner a gradual return to life
in society
xxx xxx xxx
61. The treatment of prisoners should emphasize not their exclusion
from the community, but their continuing part in it. Community agencies
should therefore, be enlisted wherever possible to assist the staff of the
institution in the task of social rehabilitation of prisoners.
xxx xxx xxx
63. (1) The fulfillment of these principles requires individualization
of treatment and for this purpose a flexible system of classifying prisoners
in groups.
xxx xxx xxx
65. The treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment or a similar
measure shall have as its purpose, so far as the length of the sentence
permits, to establish in them the will to lead law-abiding and self-
supporting lives after their release and to fit them to do so. The treatment
shall be such as will encourage their self-respect and develop their sense of
responsibility.
66. (1) To these ends, all appropriate means shall be used, including
religious care in the countries where this is possible, education, vocational
guidance and training, social casework, employment counseling, physical
development and strengthening of moral character, in accordance with the
individual needs of each prisoner, taking account of his social and criminal
history, his physical and mental capacities and aptitudes, his personal
temperament, the length of his sentence and his prospect after release.125
What is more telling, however, in so far as the rehabilitation aspect of the
punishment of the convicted person s concerned, is paragraph 3 of Article 10 of the
ICCPR. For the first time, this provision recognizes the right of the convict to
rehabilitation. It provides: “The penitentiary system shall comprise treatment of
prisoners the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social
rehabilitation. Juvenile offenders shall be segregated from adults and be accorded
treatment appropriate to their age and legal status.”126

125
STANDARD MINIMUM RULES FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS paragraphs 58-61, 63, 65, and
66.
126
Thus, on the basis of the general principles of law recognized by or
common to the major legal systems of the world, and on the basis of the adoption
of the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
Philippines, the above-mentioned Declaration and Conventions should also be
reflected in Philippine laws and should actually be enforced. The reality, however,
seems to show failure in this respect.
Rehabilitation in the Philippines
At least two laws have been passed to address the issue of Philippine
penitentiary system – Republic Act No. 6975 or An Act Establishing the Philippine
National Police Under a Reorganized Department of the Interior and Local
Government, and for Other Purposes127 and Republic Act No. 9263 or An Act
Providing for the Professionalization of the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) and
the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Amending Certain
Provisions of Republic Act No. 6975, Providing Funds thereof and for Other
Purposes.128
127
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6975 OR AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE UNDER A
REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES (approved December 13, 1990), 87 O. G. 414-449.
128
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9263 OR AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE
BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION (BFP) AND THE BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY
(BJMP), AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6975, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREOF
AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (approved March 10, 2004).
On the one hand, Chapter V or Republic Act 6975 establishes the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), which exercises supervision and control
over all city and municipal jails. The BJMP is tasked to improve the living
conditions of inmates based on United Nations’ standard, to assist in the immediate
rehabilitation of individuals or detention of prisoners.129
On the other hand, Republic Act No. 9263 was enacted to professionalize
the Bureau of Fire Protection (BFP) and the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology (BJMP). It simply provides for the organization and qualifications for key
positions in the BFP and the BJMP. “It recognizes the responsibility of the State to
strengthen government capability aimed towards the strengthening of the delivery
of basic services to the citizenry through institutionalization of highly efficient and
competent fire and jail services.”130
The BJMP Manual listed the rehabilitation services it offers, namely: to
respond to the basic needs of the inmates; provide for the medical and dental
services of inmates; establish education and skills training; facilitate religious,
guidance, and counseling services; provide recreation, sports, and entertainment
venue and events; launch and sustain work programs; provide for visitation and
mail services.131
However, Narag in his study and in his experience regards the BJMP
Manual as “nothing more than a set of pro-forma policies that is followed in paper
129
R. A. No. 6975 sec. 60, sec. 61, sec. 63.
130
R. A. No. 9263 sec. 2.
131
NARAG, supra note 83, at 7.
but is not implemented in practice.”132 As it is, while the penitentiary system may
have provided for some semblance of rehabilitation of prisoners, the present
initiatives are, at best, dependent on the creativity and discretion of jail officers and
inmate-leaders. Narag writes, “Cognizant of the non-applicability of the Manual,
the management gives jail officers wide latitude in performing their tasks. Jail
officers decide how to implement certain policies based on their evaluation of the
situation.”133
132
133
CHAPTER FOUR:
THE PRESENT SITUATION AND THE PENALTY SYSTEM:
A STATE FAILURE TO EXERCISE ITS DUTY
State Obligation and Responsibility
The fundamental question is: “Does the State have the obligation to
rehabilitate convicted persons?”
A discussion on the rights of the convicted person in so far as the right to
rehabilitation is concerned necessitates a discussion on the obligation of the State to
rehabilitate a convicted person. To say that the State has an obligation to
rehabilitate a convict is to propose that the State has:
1) An obligation to the convict himself or herself, and
2) An obligation to the community as a whole.
The first has been discussed in detail above, because a discussion of rights
necessarily requires a discussion of the obligation itself. Thus, the first element has
been taken care of in Chapter Three of this thesis, except on the issue of parens
patriae. What remains to be discussed in this Chapter is the doctrine of parens
patriae and the obligation of the State to the community.

The Doctrine of Parens Patriae –
The doctrine of parens patriae literally signifies parent or guardian of the
country. It is the “inherent power and authority of the State, whether through the
legislature or a royal person, to provide protection to the persons and property of
those persons who are non sui juris such as minors, insane, and incompetent
persons.”134 Protection of the State under this doctrine is usually provided to
persons under disability. The State may sue in behalf of these persons, not only as a
sovereign but as protector of helpless individuals.135
Shades of the doctrine of parens patriae can be found in different parts of
the Constitution. In the Declaration of Principles and State Policies, the State is
under obligation, as parens patriae, to adopt policies that will help alleviate people
from poverty,136 to advance social justice, 137 to strengthen and protect the family, 138
to safeguard the life of the mother and the unborn, to assist the parents in bringing
up the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character, to
promote the well-being of the youth,139 to insure the fundamental equality of
women with men,140 to protect and promote the health of the people, 141 to protect
134
LEON, supra note 90, at 80.
DE
135
Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728 (1961).
136
PHIL. CONST., art II, sec 9.
137
138
139
140
141
and advance the rights of the workers and their welfare, 142 and to recognize the
rights of indigenous cultural communities.143
The question now is whether or not the State, as parens patriae, has the
obligation to rehabilitate a prisoner.
In the 1987 Constitution, no direct declaration affirms the parens patriae
role of the State as regards prisoners. However, the absence of such provision does
not negate the authority of the State to apply the doctrine of parens patriae as to
prisoners because it is inherent in the supreme power of the State. 144 In the light of
the limitations of the rights of the prisoners, the doctrine of parens patriae may be
invoked to protect the rights of the convicts. In fact, in American academic
discussion, the doctrine of parens patriae has been a bone of contention. It says:
Under the parens patriae formula, the concept of personal guilt is

bypassed, if not totally discarded, and much more weight is given the
offender’s shortcomings and needs. Society accordingly cannot shrug off its
responsibility for treatment, since it is inherent in the very exercise of this
social sanction. The growing legal recognition of this premise is evident in
the fact that throughout the entire history of criminal sanctions, that system
has never been subjected to the same searching scrutiny of its social
justification and effectiveness as therapeutic sanctions are currently
undergoing.145
Indeed, the doctrine of parens patriae obligates the State to attend and
facilitate the rehabilitation of a convict in response to his inherent right and dignity
as a human being, precisely because prisoners cannot protect themselves.146
142
143
144
DE LEON, supra note 90, at 80.
145
146
Mormon vs. U.S., 136 U.S. 1 (1890).
Furthermore, in the case of Bactoso vs. Governor of Cebu, the Supreme Court held
that that “the State, in its capacity as parens patriae, can properly enact such law, as
a necessary measure for the better care of juvenile offenders, providing that they be
considered not as common criminals, but as children lacking help, encouragement,
and guidance in their normal development.” 147 In like manner, the State by virtue of
its being parens patriae may enact laws that will facilitate rehabilitation of the
convicted person in so far as it will be beneficial to the convict himself or herself.
The Constitution and Police Power –
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, protection of the people is the
prime duty of the government. 148 The Organic Law affirms that enjoyment by all
the people of the blessings of democracy requires that peace and order is
maintained, life, liberty, and property are protected, and general welfare
promoted.149 Thus, to do all these, the State through the legislative body is vested
with police power.
Police power is defined as “the power vested in the legislature by the
Constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and
reasonable laws, statutes and ordinances, either with penalties or without, not
147
Bactoso vs. Governor of Cebu, 48 Phil. 25 (1925).
148
149
repugnant to the constitution as they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of
the state and the subjects of the same.”150 In United States vs. Pompeya, the
Supreme Court held that police power of the state embraces the whole system of
internal regulations to preserve public order and to prevent offenses against the
State and to establish rules by which people may interact so as to avoid conflicts of
rights and to uphold the common welfare.151
Two Latin maxims are the basis of police power: “salus populi suprema est
lex” (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and “sec utere two ut alienum
non laedas (so use your own as not to injure another’s property). With police
power, individuals limit some of their rights and privileges for the common good.
The State inherently possesses police power, because it is “founded on the
obligation of the state to provide protection for its citizens and the safety and good
order of society. On it depends the security of the social order, the life and health of
the citizens, their comfort and existence in a thickly populated community, the
enjoyment of social life, and the beneficial use of property.” 152 Police power has
been used to justify public health, public safety, public morals, and general
welfare.153
150
RUPERTO G. MARTIN, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 193 (Premium Book Store 1988) (1977).
151
U.S. vs. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245 (1915). Cited by AMBROSIO PADILLA, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES WITH COMMENTS AND CASES VOLUME 1 48 (Philippine
Graphic Arts, Inc. 1988).
152
MARTIN, supra note 150, at 193.
153
FR. BERNAS, supra note 95, at 103-104.
It is within the context of police power that the State is obliged to enact
laws for the rehabilitation of convicted persons. Ideally, confinement in prisons
results in the punishment and rehabilitation of criminals. As it is, however, when a
convicted person serves his or her sentence, he/she enters too a “no man’s land and
emerge worse than before.”154 A petty criminal convicted of a crime punishable of
six months imprisonment may learn new tricks and meet new networks in his/her
criminal activity.
Because convicts have not undergone rehabilitation, because rehabilitation
was not made available to them, or because rehabilitation is implemented half-
heartedly, they simply return to their former lives and victimize anew members of
the free society. The failure of the State to maintain peace and order and to protect
society as a whole from unreformed convicted persons could indeed mean a
dereliction of duty on its part. Individuals give up some of their rights precisely to
promote the common good. However, if the State fails to perform its duty of
protecting the lives, liberty and properties of people and in safeguarding the
common good because of the lack of a rehabilitative aspect in the penalty system,
would it not force individuals to defend themselves?
In view of this, there is a need to codify the rehabilitative aspect of the
Philippine penalty system.
154
NUGUID, supra note 59, at 14.
CHAPTER FIVE:
UNDERSTANDING THE HUMAN BEING
Philosophical Reflection on Being Human
Indeed, there is a need to enact and implement laws relative to the
rehabilitation of the convicted person. However, to do this the development of
humanity’s understanding about itself must first be understood.
Whenever a certain law or policy is approved in the halls of any legislative
body, world views and concepts related to the passage of the laws guide legislators.
Laws are not passed in a vacuum. Laws go through the process of legislation within
the context of the perspective of lawmakers as to what things are. Consequently, a
proposal to review the basic framework of a penalty system requires an
understanding of what a human being is vis-à-vis his/her responsiveness to the
penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code. This is important in view of the
proposal of the proponent to integrate within the Philippine criminal penalty system
the rehabilitative aspect.

The Different Concepts of Being Human –
Through the years, different philosophers and thinkers have regarded human
beings in different ways.155 Philosophical discussions centered on what makes a
human being truly human and what a human being is capable of.
Among the Orientals, principally, Buddha, Lao-Tzu and Confucius, a
human being was originally one with the Universal Reality (for Hindus the
Brahman, for Confucians the human society, and for Taoist the Tao). For them,
human existence is a life lived as part of something greater. However, when a
person is born, he/she becomes an individual who seeks, asserts and serves only his
or her interest. A human being becomes miserable because of selfishness and
his/her alienation to the Greater. Thus, he/she can find happiness if he/she frees
himself/herself from selfishness and inordinate sensual desires. 156 Within the
context of the Oriental world view of Hinduism, Confucianism and Taoism, a
human being must seek to integrate himself/herself to that something Greater. “A
human being is truly human when he loses himself in that greater reality. To ignore
that greater reality is to go astray and to live a life which is foolish.”157
155
FELIX M. MONTEMAYOR, INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY THROUGH THE PHILOSOPHY OF MAN 1
(National Book Store, Inc. 1995).
156
Id. at 3.
157
MICHAEL D. MOGA, WHAT MAKES MAN TRULY HUMAN? A PHILOSOPHY OF MAN AND SOCIETY
26 (St Pauls 1995).
The Greek philosophers are represented by Socrates, 158 Plato159 and
Aristotle.160 Consistent in the philosophies of these three great Greek thinkers is the
belief that a person becomes fully human when he lives a life completely
developed. What does this mean? Michael D. Moga, a priest who teaches
philosophy, explains this in the following manner:
First of all, human beings have physical potentialities and it is

possible for them to develop their bodies and their bodily skills…
Secondly, human beings have many mental abilities that can be
developed. They can expand their capacities to imagine and to dream of
new possibilities…
Thirdly, human beings can develop communication skills, learning
how to read and to write and to talk…
Fourthly, human beings can develop their social skills in many
different ways.161
158
MONTEMAYOR, supra note 155, at 19–20. Socrates, who was born in Athens in the year 469 BC,
believed that every human being is a receptacle of virtue. Virtue is inborn and cannot be acquired
through education. For a human being to reach his/her perfect self, the virtue in him/her must be
awakened. Failure to do so would mean the triumph of evil. Montemayor writes, “A man does evil
because he does not know any better, or that his knowledge is imperfect or inadequate.”
159
MONTEMAYOR, supra note 155, at 20-22. Plato viewed a human person in the context of his
theory of Idealism. He saw a human being in his present earthly existence as an imperfect copy of
his/her real original self. In the realm of ideas, a human being is a perfect human being. For a human
being to be perfect, he/she must constantly recollect and imitate his/her former self. Montemayor
writes, “By constant remembering, and doing good, he can regain his former perfections.” Like
Socrates, Plato gave premium to knowledge. When one knows, one has virtue. Thus, “a man must
know what is good so that he may do good,” writes Corazon L. Cruz in PHILOSOPHY OF MAN, 51
(National Book Store, Inc. 3rd ed. 1995) (1987).
160
MONTEMAYOR, supra note 155, at 26-29. The idealism of Plato was now tempered by the realism
of Aristotle. Aristotle disagreed with Plato when the latter taught that a human being is pure mind or
spirit. Aristotle, according to Montemayor, explained that a human being is a “composite nature of
body and soul, mind and matter, sense and intellect, passion and reason.” What distinguishes a
human being, moreover, is his/her reason. This is the theory of rationalism. For Aristotle, the
development of a human being requires the development of the whole person – in all his/her powers
and potentialities, which include his/her rational prerogatives, emotional, social, political, esthetic,
and economic aspects. In other words, reason should govern all the activities of life. “Aristotle…
even while stressing the hegemony of reason in man, does not ignore or neglect the development of
man’s subordinate powers – such as man’s physical, economic, artistic, social capacities. To him,
human happiness rather comes from the harmonious exercise and development of the whole man,”
writes Montemayor.
161
MOGA, supra note 157, at 4–5.
In other words, human fulfillment for the Greeks meant development of all
human potentialities to the level of excellence. What makes a human being truly
human is his/her total human development.
Among the classical Catholic philosophers, St. Augustine of Hippo162 and
St. Thomas Aquinas163 are two of those who contemplated on the condition of the
human person. For both Augustine and Aquinas, a human being reaches the apex of
what makes him/her truly human in God. His/her total human development
depends on how much he/she resembles that God.
While early philosophers spoke of the human being in relation to a Greater
Being, later thinkers started reflecting on the intrinsic dignity of the human person.
Immanuel Kant, who lived in the years 1724 to 1804, is one of those who
extensively discussed the dignity of the human person. He explained that because a
human being is imbued with reason and free will, he/she “is the master of his (her)
actions, and the architect of his (her) own life and destiny.”164
162
MONTEMAYOR, supra note 155, at 49. For Augustine, the human person is a great mystery.
However, he strove to reconcile Greek philosophy and the divine truths in the Scriptures. He
explained that what Aristotle referred to as the “summum bonum” is actually God – the creator of all
creation and the supreme ruler of the universe.
163
MONTEMAYOR, supra note 155, at 57-62. St. Thomas Aquinas followed the rationalism of
Aristotle. He believed that a human being can ascertain truth by the use of his/her reason. However,
according to Montemayor, Aquinas emphasized that “there are some truths which cannot be known
by human reason alone and which can be perceived only with the aid of the light of divine
revelation.” Like Aristotle, Aquinas believed that what makes a human being truly and fully human
is the development of the human person as a whole human being or what Aristotle calls the
Universal Man. However, Aquinas added that despite total human development, a human being will
not perfectly find bliss until after he/she attains his/ her supreme purpose and union with God. A
human being can do this because, as Aquinas explained, he/she has the unique power to change
him/herself and the things around him/her for the better. However, a human being cannot attain
his/her supernatural destiny without being empowered by supernatural grace.
164
MONTEMAYOR, supra note 155, at 64–65. Among all creatures, only a human being governs and
directs himself/herself and his/her actions. Because of this, every human person is an end and must
not be treated merely as a means.
Later, more and more modern philosophers reflected on the phenomenon
that is man/woman. For instance, Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit, described the
human person as a phenomenon. For de Chardin, “Man is a very special
phenomenon. He is a being who knows, he is also a being who knows that he
knows.”165 Thus, a human being contains the possibilities of earth’s immense future
and these possibilities may only be realized when a human being increases his/her
knowledge and love.166
The Industrial Revolution ushered the advent of depersonalization and
dehumanization of the human being. This event spurred the emergence of
existentialism and philosophers espousing such way of philosophizing, such as
Jean-Paul Sartre167 and Soren Kierkegaard. Existentialism emerged as a reaction to
how the Industrial Revolution turned a human being into simply another
identification card. Through the existentialist viewpoint, a human being ceased to
be another drop of water in the vast humanity but has become a unique individual.
“Thus, the first effect of existentialism is that it puts every man in possession of
himself as he is, and places the entire responsibility for his existence squarely upon
his own shoulders.”168
165
MORRIS L. WEST, THE SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN 193 (The Toby Press 1963).
166
PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, THE PHENOMENON OF MAN 30 (Perennial 2002) (1955).
167
ROBERT C. SOLOMON, INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHY 379 (Harcourt Brace College Pub. 6th ed 1997)
(1977). Sartre argues in his well-known essay “Existentialism As a Humanism” (written in the late
1940’s) that there is no such thing as “human nature.” What a human being is and what it means to
be a human being are results of decisions made by a human being. “Man is nothing else but that
which he makes himself.” Thus, this line of thinking brings to fore the stand of Sartre that a human
person is answerable for what he/she is.
168
Id. at 379.
Although existentialism was not in the horizon when the Spanish Penal
Code was approved in 1870, the proponent of this thesis hazards to venture that
existentialism may already be manifesting its presence in the punitive nature of the
penalty system of the Philippines and of all other States. Every human being should
be responsible for what he/she does. One is punished according to what one has
done. However, it must be noted that existentialism also speaks about “bad faith.”
Sartre refers to bad faith as refusing to accept one’s self. 169 While self-acceptance
may result in stagnation, Sartre argues that it may actually mean development or
change. In his commentary on Sartre, Robert C. Solomon wrote,
It would, then, also be bad faith were he to totally accept his self-
identity as a homosexual, denying that he could be anything else. As long as
a person is alive, he or she is identified by intentions, plans, dreams and
hopes as much as by what already is true by virtue of the facts.170
This may imply that a human being within the context of existentialism is not only
responsible for his/her actions but also capable of rehabilitation.
Being Human in a Community –
One of the most recent developments in philosophy is the advent of
phenomenology. This philosophical discipline discusses themes such as a human
being as embodied subjectivity, a human being as being-in-the-world, a human
169
Id. at 380.
170
Id. at 381.
being as being-with, and the human being as a person and love, which presupposes
justice, as his crowning activity.171 In other words, a human being does not live all
by him/herself but is related to the person next to him/her and to the society where
he/she lives.
Aristotle himself emphasized that a human person is a social being.
“Aristotle characterized man as by nature, ‘a political animal.’” 172 However, Dy
noted that during the time of Aristotle, slaves were not allowed to participate in the
“polis.” Rights were limited to free human beings. In the phenomenological
viewpoint, a human being, as social by nature, is not limited to only one class of
human beings but extends to all, no matter what or who they are. 173 Therefore,
every human being, whether he/she is a free person or one convicted for a crime,
lives in a society to whom such person is answerable and to whom society is
answerable too.174
171
For a thorough discussion of these philosophical themes, please see MANUEL B. DY, JR.,
PHILOSOPHY OF MAN: SELECTED READINGS (Office of Research and Publications, Ateneo de
Manila University 1986). In his book “Philosophy of Man,” Manuel B. Dy, Jr., discussed
extensively the human being within the context of his/her relationships. He wrote, “The world of
man, of course, is not just the world of things but also the world of fellowman. Here, the
phenomenologist speaks of two dimensions, the interpersonal and the social, the neighbor and the
socius.”
172
Id. at viii.
173
Id. at viii.
174
Id. at 233. Robert O. Johann, a noted author in philosophy, discussed the dynamics involved
between a human being and his/her community. He wrote: “To be a man, therefore is to be a
person. But to be a person is to exist only as appeal and a response to other persons. Without the
other, an other who takes account of me and for whom my free response means something, I do not
exist. I can be myself only in your presence. But if I need you in order to be myself, you likewise
need me. Each of us holds his ‘personhood’ as a gift from the other, so that to betray the other is
always to betray oneself. As persons, we are each of us responsible to and for the other, and only in
the mutual fulfillment of this responsibility do we secure for ourselves a place in the real.”
Being a social animal, each individual human being relates to other
individuals and to aggregates of individuals. The relationship is mutual. Since it is a
mutual relationship, there exists among the individuals rights, duties, and
privileges.175 “Part of this experience of being ‘within’ society is the experience of
certain expected patterns of behavior. Individuals experience that in certain
situations they are expected by society to act in a set way.”176 These set ways are
laws, rules and regulations that individuals must follow for them to be able to enjoy
the privilege of living in a community and enjoying its gifts.
As noted above, the dynamics of the relationship between an individual and
the community is not a one-way traffic. While a human being has rights, duties and
privileges, the community, in general, and the State, in particular, have also rights,
duties and privileges. On the one hand, individuals are expected to live and do their
part to maintain peace and order in the community and to enjoy rights and
privileges. On the other hand, the State and the community as a whole must also do
their part to maintain peace and order in the community and in the country and to
command respect from individual members of the community.
175
SOLOMON, supra note 167, at 601.
176
MOGA, supra note 157, at 92.
Part of the obligation of the State is to embody, promulgate, and execute
and to become agent of the ideals and aspirations of the community. This paradigm
is best reflected in the governed theory, specifically within the context of Jean-
Jacques Rousseau’s “social contract.”177 An individual consents to be governed
because the State seeks the individual’s good. “For Rousseau, the social contract is
not an instrument of mutual protection but a means of improving people and
bringing out what is best in them.”178
Indeed, for the ideals and aspirations of the community to take root in
society at large and in its laws, the State must play an active part. Poland Pennock
in his article “The Obligation to Obey the Law and the Ends of the State” reflected
on the responsibility of the State when he wrote, “What are the ends of the state?
Traditionally they are held to be security, liberty, justice, and welfare. Security
includes the protection of life, limbs, and property against disorderly elements
within or enemy attack from without it.”179 He added that the State is uniquely
essential for the realization of these ends. He says these ends “cannot be secured in
tolerable measure let alone maximized – without the inclusive and finally
compelling authority of the state.”180 The individual and the State must come hand
in hand to realize what they value.
177
178
179
POLAND PENNOCK, THE OBLIGATION TO OBEY THE LAW AND THE ENDS OF THE STATE, LAW AND
PHILOSOPHY 79 (Sidney Hook ed., New York University Press 1964).
180
Id. at 80.
The Concept of Being Human in Law
After having laid down the philosophical bases of what a human being is,
what makes a human being truly human, and how one should see the dynamics
between individual and community operates, the proponent will investigate the
concept of being human in law. The proponent will look at the human being from
different viewing points, namely the 1987 Constitution, the Civil Code of
Philippines, the Family Code, and the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
The 1987 Constitution –
Under the 1987 Constitution, a human being is not directly defined.
However, two provisions address how the 1987 Constitution views the human
being, namely in Sections 11 and 12 of Article II. Although both are found in the
Article on State Policies, the provisions demonstrate how the present Constitution
regards a human being.
Section 11, Article II of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines provides,
“The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for
human rights.” This provision highlights the bias of the Constitution and its framers
for the inherent dignity of the human person. It emphasizes that –
the individual enjoys certain rights which cannot be modified or

taken away by the lawmaking body. These rights are recognized, promoted
and protected because of the belief in the equal worth of every human
person, without distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, religion,
property, or other status.181
Section 11, however, must not be divorced from Section 12, Article II of the
Constitution. It provides “It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life
of the unborn from conception.” Noted scholar on the Constitution Fr. Joaquin G.
Bernas of the Society of Jesus explains that “the unborn’s entitlement to protection
begins ‘from conception,’ that is, from the moment of conception.” 182 He wrote that
the intention of the framers is to emphasize protection of human life from the very
beginning. In the light of the two provisions (Sections 11 and 12, Article II) and the
provisions in the Bill of Rights,183 the Constitution logically gives premium to the
life of an individual because such person is imbued with human dignity from the
moment of conception to death.
The Civil Code Definition of the Human Being –
Like the 1987 Constitution, the Civil Code of the Philippines, which was
promulgated on June 18, 1949 and was subsequently amended, does not define a
human being. However, Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of the Civil Code (Articles 37-43)
provides for the term person and the determination of when the his/her personality
begins and is extinguished.
While no definition can be found in the Civil Code as to what a human
being is and what a person is, the provisions give hints on how the person is treated
181
DE LEON, supra note 90, at 161.
182
FR. BERNAS, supra note 95, at 85.
183
PHIL. CONST. Art. III.
in the Civil Code. Article 37 stresses that juridical capacity or the fitness to be the
subject of legal relations “is inherent in every natural person and is lost only
through death.”184 This brings out the concept that persons have inherent rights and
that these rights are extinguished only upon death.
On the first point (the inherent rights of persons), the Civil Code provides
that these “rights inhere in or flow from personality (referred to as Rights of
Personality) enjoyed by natural persons to maintain the integrity of his physical,
intellectual and moral attributes.”185 Thus, every person possesses such rights that
no State can in fact denigrate or negate. The same provision also stresses that under
the Civil Code a human being does not need to be declared a natural person by law
before he/she can acquire such character.186
On the second point (end of juridical capacity) in relation to Article 37, the
Civil Code provides in Article 42: “Civil personality is extinguished by death.” 187
Death here refers to natural death and not to “civil death,” which past legislatures
recognized. Under the concept of “civil death,” a living person is considered dead
for all purposes because of a conviction for a crime or of the taking of a religious
profession.188 However, at present, the death of a person happens simply upon
184
NEW CIVIL CODE art. 37.
185
JOSE C. VITUG, COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE 34 (National Book Store 2nd
ed., 1993) (1986).
186
ERNESTO L. PINEDA, PERSONS 121 (Central Professional Books 2000).
187
188
ARTURO M. TOLENTIONO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL CODE OF THE
PHILIPPINES VOLUME 1 173-174, (Central Lawbook Publ. 7th ed., 1990) (1960).
his/her biological death. Death extinguishes or transmits some of the his/her rights
and obligations to his/her next of kin.189
The inherent juridical capacity and its loss upon death enshrined in the Civil
Code bolster further the primacy of respect for individual’s human rights no matter
his/her status before the law and society. One is a human being and a person before
Philippine laws by virtue of such inherent rights, and he/she remains a person in the
legal sense up to the moment of death and not by virtue of any operation of the law.
More in point is Article 26 in which the Civil Code expressly provides that
“every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of
his neighbors and other persons.” In fact, although acts done to degrade the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of one’s neighbors may not constitute
criminal offense, the same provision adds that those shall produce a cause of action
for damages, prevention and other relief.190
The International Law Definition of Human Being –
When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) came into
existence on December 10, 1948, a new understanding of the human being came to
fore. Admittedly, this so-called new understanding was not really new because
189
Id.
190
philosophers, legal scholars and theologians have constantly spoken for years about
the universal nature of the human being. However, with the Declaration, what has
been mutely understood found a voice in the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
The Declaration’s Preamble is key to understanding the human being within
the context of a new world order. The Preamble provides, “Whereas recognition of
the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the
human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” 191 The
accent is in the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable
rights of all members of the human family. With the UDHR, the human being is
recognized as “all” and without exception; and all human beings have inherent
dignity and equal and inalienable rights.
Because all men and women are vested with these rights, all deserve to
enjoy at least a minimum standard of rights. Professor A. J. M. Milne in his book 192
wrote that Immanuel Kant’s humanity principle may be the basis for a universal
minimum moral standard. “According to Kant, it requires that a human being must
always be respected as an autonomous agent: that is, as a person capable of
formulating and pursuing purposes of his own.” 193 Consequently, the Universal
191
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
192
A. J. M. MILNE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN DIVERSITY: AN ESSAY IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF
HUMAN RIGHTS 82-86 (State University of New York 1986).
193
Id. at 82.
Declaration of Human Rights as seen in the light of the ideas of Kant proposes a
view of the human person as worthy of respect despite and in spite of his actions.194
New Understanding of Being Human
vis-à-vis the Universal Concept of Human Rights
The intrinsic value inherent in every person is the fundamental reason why
each and every person deserves respect for his/her human rights. The concept of
human rights is widely regarded as something all have by virtue of their being
persons or human beings, notwithstanding the “vagaries of fortune, circumstances,
accomplishment, or personality.”195
Although there are different strains as to how human rights are defined, the
proponent subscribes to two definitions of human rights. First, “human rights are a
cluster of basic principles concerning what is universally binding on the conscience
of all human beings.”196 Second, they are the ultimate legitimate bases for a
universal human community.197 In the introduction in the book “The Philosophy of
Human Rights: International Perspectives,” editor Alan S. Rosenbaum referred to
194
Id. at 83. Milne further explained Kant – “To respect a human being as an autonomous agent is
to treat him as having intrinsic value for himself. He need not have intrinsic value for other people.
They can be indifferent to him or actively dislike him. For the humanity principle, their personal
feelings about him are irrelevant. Its requirement is that he always be treated as having intrinsic
value for himself.”
195
ALAN S. ROSENBAUM, THE PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 25
(Alan S. Rosenbaum ed., Greenwood Press 1980).
196
DOUGLAS J. ELWOOD, HUMAN RIGHTS: A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE 2 (New Day Pub. 1990).
197
ROSENBAUM, supra note 195, at 4.
this human community as “an ideal association of human persons that is conceived
for the individual and collective benefit of its members.”198
With these two definitions of human rights, the proponent emphasizes the
interaction between the rights of a human being and State responsibility to
individuals and the State’s authority over the individual and the latter’s
responsibility to the State. Thus, for a community and the State to operate in
relative peace and order, there is an imperative to give each member of society
what is due him/her. While the proponent stresses the universally binding basic
principles due to all human beings, he also emphasizes that respect due to
individuals will redound to the benefit of the community as a whole.
The Human Person: From Medical, Psychological and Sociological Viewpoints
Understanding the human person will not be complete without the
psychological viewpoint. While the proponent does not go into a full-length
discussion of the dynamics of psychology, he will attempt to present in a nutshell
recent developments in the understanding of human behavior vis-à-vis criminal
acts.
At this point, the question is: What motivates one to commit a crime?
198
Id.
Sociologists, psychologists and criminologists have developed, at least, four
theories to explain criminal behavior, namely, biological, sociological,
psychological, and socio-psychological theories.199
Theories of Criminal Behavior –
The first theory is the biological theory. According to this theory, some are
predisposed to commit crimes because of some innate or biological condition. 200 It
must be noted, however, that some psychologists attribute human behavior not
simply to genes but also to complex environment. “Genes exist within the context
of a complex environment and are necessary for an organism to exist. Biologists
who study even the simplest animals agree it is virtually impossible to separate the
effects of an animal’s genes from the environment (Mader, 1996).”201 The
environment consists in everything that surrounds a person – the conditions and
influences, which affect the development of the person. These include the food one
eats, the air one breathes, the cities or towns where one grows up and lives, the
parents that have raised the person, the friends that one makes, the teachers that one
199
LINDA ANDERSON FOLEY, A PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM 72 (Brown and
Benchmark 1993).
200
Id. at 72-80. Lambroso’s criminal type, for instance, proposes that people are born criminals
because there are anomalies in their constitution. Based on Sheldon’s Somatypes, there are body
types associated with psychological characteristics that move a person to commit crimes. The study
on XYY Chromosome posits that some people possess the XYY chromosome associated with
violent and antisocial behavior. Finally, the most recent study applies evolution to behavior.
201
JOHN W. SANTROCK, PSYCHOLOGY 55 (Brown and Benchmark 1997).
learns from, and others. All of these influence the way one thinks, relates, reacts
and lives.
Furthermore, those who believe in the genetic reason, explain that human
beings are biosocial animals influenced by genetic and environmental factors. 202
Psychologists who give so much weight to genetics are not quick, though, to
condemn some people as destined to commit crimes.203
The second theory is the sociological theory. This theory postulates that one
should see criminal behavior within the social and cultural context. There are three
major classifications within this theory, namely, strain or structural theories, 204 sub-
cultural theories,205 and control theories.206
The third theory is the social-psychological theory. This theory gives
premium to the interaction between the individual and society. This theory
postulates that criminal behavior is developed through reinforcement (social
learning); illegal behavior is learned through interactions with associates
202
HANS J. EYSENCK AND GISLI H. GUDJONSSON, THE CAUSES AND CURES OF CRIMINALITY 108
(Plenum Press 1989).
203
Id. at 247. Eysenck and Gudjonsson wrote that “Criminal behavior as such is not innate. What is
inherited are certain peculiarities of the brain and nervous system that interact with certain
environmental factors and thereby increase the likelihood that a given person will act in a particular
antisocial manner in a given situation.”
204
Id. at 80. On the first classification, Eysenck and Gudjonsson wrote that criminal behavior finds
its genesis in the “assumption that people within a society value the same rewards and benefits, such
as material possessions, but that these rewards and benefits are not equally distributed among the
members of society.” Because of this, people seek alternative methods to obtain the rewards.
205
Id. at 83. On the second classification, Eysenck and Gudjonsson wrote that criminal behavior
emanates from the fact that some subgroups have values, standards and norms that are in conflict or
opposite to those of the majority. Thus, it encourages criminal behavior.
206
Id. at 83-84. The last classification is the control theory, which “postulates that delinquency and
criminal behavior are a result of a weakening of the individual’s bond to conventional society.”
(differential association); and biological factors cause some people to be less
conditionable (differential conditionability).207
The last theory is the psychological theory. Here, the psychologist focuses
upon the individual and the factors influencing his or her behavior. Under this
theory, three major strands may be seen: the psychoanalytic, Kohlberg’s moral
development, and criminal personality. The first postulates that moral conduct is
developed through relations with one’s parents. The second postulates that people
mature in moral judgment in sequential developmental stages. Consequently, moral
judgment varies as people go through different developmental stages. The last
postulates that criminals have unique thinking patterns and that they have
developed these cognitive patterns while very young. It must be noted, however,
that under this classification, the criminal consciously chooses his criminal
behavior.208
Implications –
After exhausting all the issues that need to be discussed, three principles
prompt us to consider instituting the rehabilitative ideal into the Philippine penalty
system:
First, a human being possesses inherent dignity and human rights enshrined
in the Bill of Rights and international declarations. As such, a human being
deserves to have at his or her disposal a rehabilitative phase of his or her penalty.
207
Id. at 84-88.
208
Id. at 92.
Second, the State has the duty to rehabilitate the convicted person by virtue
of the doctrine of parens patriae and has the duty to protect the community from
antisocial and criminal acts of the convicted person by virtue of its police power.
Finally, the recent development in the field of psychology, sociology and
other related fields call for a re-evaluation of the classical school of treating the
convicted person.
CHAPTER SIX:
FOCUS ON THE REHABILITATION
I could not see in institutional life itself the basis of that

reconstruction that was supposed to lead a good and useful life. There was
provided a form of conversation therapy. At one level this was practical,
useful and problem-solving, addressing the mess that many of the prisoners
had made of their lives and that went well beyond their brush with justice –
marital discord, divorce, child access and custody, disputes, alcoholism
(these were the blessed pre-drugs days), poor work skills, illiteracy,
unemployment, homelessness, mental and physical health problems and so
on. A truly impressive amount of good was done in tackling those obstacles
to a good and useful life. But was thus ‘treatment and training’; did it
address the mental and emotional problems that perhaps had generated
many of the more practical difficulties?209
Indeed, convicted persons have a right to a rehabilitative aspect of penalties
in view of the constitutional provisions, international declarations, the demands of
public safety, common good, and peace and order. Recent developments in
psychiatry contribute as well to the need to review the current accepted penalties,
especially in the context of the revolution of public conceptions of the nature of
crime and the criminal and in public attitudes towards the proper treatment of the
convicted offender. According to studies, if one of the basic goals of corrections is
to inhibit unlawful and antisocial behavior, simply keeping the convicted person
confined in jails without more promotes “more unlawful behavior because prison
confinement per se reinforces learned deviant responses.”210
209
SEAN MCCONVILLE, THE USE OF PUNISHMENT 4, (Willan Publishing 2003).
210
CURT R. BARTOL, CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH 397, (Prentice-Hall, Inc.
1995). (1980)
International legal developments and necessity are reasons to implement
clear-cut reformation and rehabilitation programs within the penalty system to
ensure implementation and to prepare inmates for their eventual reintegration into
society.
However, when we speak of rehabilitation, do we refer to the concept of
rehabilitative ideal? What precisely is the concept of rehabilitative ideal?
Concept of Rehabilitative Ideal
The notion of rehabilitation is not new, and has been emphasized during the
medieval period.211 The concept of rehabilitative ideal, as it is understood now, calls
for a renewal in understanding the aspect of rehabilitation. Very few understand the
concept of the rehabilitative ideal because of its complexities. In fact, it even
escapes definition. However, the following points are the essentials of the
rehabilitative ideal:
1. Rehabilitative ideal presumes that human behavior is the product of
antecedent causes. These causes, being part of the tangible world, are identifiable.
The scientist is obliged to discover these causes and identify them exactly as they
are.
211
Medieval churchmen like Sir Francis Palgrave once explained that punishment was not to be
“thundered in vengeance for the satisfaction of the state, but imposed for the good of the offender: in
order to afford the means of amendment and to lead the transgressor to repentance, and to mercy”
[quoted in DALZELL, BENEFIT OF CLERGY AND RELATED MATTERS 13 (1955).
2. Because antecedents of human behavior can be known, identification of
scientific control of the human behavior is possible.
3. However, the control or measures to be utilized should treat the convicted
offender and should serve a therapeutic function. The measures used must effect
changes in the behavior of the convict to serve the purposes of the convict’s own
happiness, health, and satisfactions and to serve the interest of social defense.212
In other words, the concept of the rehabilitative ideal gives premium to
diagnosis, treatment, and prediction because of its stress on the development of
scientific disciplines concerned with human behavior. It emphasizes the needs of
the offender and shifts towards the positivist concept of criminal behavior being
influenced by forces beyond the control of the individual. 213 Its concept of
punishment is not punitive or retributive but rehabilitative, and its fundamental goal
is to develop lawful alternative behavior that will remain beyond the confines of
prisons.214
Debate on Rehabilitative Ideal
While the aims and basis of the rehabilitative ideal may have contributed in
the changes in the penitentiary and penal systems, it is not without detractors. There
212
FRANCIS A. ALLEN, THE BORDERLAND OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE: ESSAY IN LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY
26 (University of Chicago Press 1974).
213
ALEXANDER B. SMITH AND LOUIS BERLIN, TREATING THE CRIMINAL OFFENDER 28 (Plenum
Press 1988).
214
BARTOL, supra note 210, at 397.
are at least a number of issues confronting the concept of rehabilitative
ideal.
First, the rise of the rehabilitative ideal narrows the scientific interests to be
investigated. Many matters of equal or greater importance are relegated in view of
rehabilitation. An example is that under the rehabilitative ideal, the nature and
needs of the criminal resulted in the relegation of the nature of crime. This has
raised the question as to which sort of behavior should be declared criminal.
Another example is the lack of concern with the idea of penalties as deterrence.215
Second, with the popularity of the rehabilitative ideal comes its debasement
in practice. For example, the rehabilitative ideal gives birth to the frequent use of
the language of therapy that covers the true state of affairs in custodial institutions
and other matters in correctional; process. Another example is the increase in the
severity of penal measures. Confinement in prisons may lengthen because of the
purposes of rehabilitation and the stress given to reforming the criminal or
convict.216
Third, the rehabilitative ideal conflicts with individual liberty and volition.
Some raised the question of justification or circumstance that would allow the force
of the State on individual human being. Worse, according to them, under the
rehabilitative ideal regime, judgment of guilt or acquittal may depend so much on
the psychiatric reports, which ordinarily should be irrelevant to the issue of guilt of
215
ALLEN, supra note 212, at 28-32.
216
the particular offense charged.217 Furthermore, the rehabilitative ideal also raises the
issue of the right of the convicted person to refuse rehabilitation.218
Fourth, there is difficulty in achieving rehabilitation if it is regarded in
terms of training. Many factors should be considered to achieve this, such as, how
such training will bring significant social, psychological, and material rewards to
individuals, what approaches should be used for different types of offenders, and
how the public, legislators and other stakeholders should be educated.219
Finally, the development of alternative behavioral patterns to address the
purposes of rehabilitative ideal will require financial investments, human resources
development in the prison system, and long-term research. Worst of all, according
to those against the rehabilitative ideal, some research has shown that nothing much
has been accomplished in terms of rehabilitation of convicts.
Modified Rehabilitative Ideal
Despite the many issues confronting the rehabilitative ideal, it cannot be
dismissed because it has many positive aspects. The issues on narrowing the
scientific interests, the debasement of the rehabilitative ideal in practice, the
conflicts with individual liberty and volition, the complex training program for
217
218
219
BARTOL, supra note 210, at 397-398.
different offenders involved, and the financial and human resources
investment should not deter us to look at its positive effect in society.
As to the issue of its effectiveness (that nothing in the rehabilitative ideal
really works) based on the studies of sociologists like Robert Martinson, the
proponent would like to adapt the reasoning of some authors involved in
penitentiary systems. According to these authors, we should not look at the
rehabilitative ideal or the concept of rehabilitation itself as an “across-the-board or
universal rehabilitation program for all offenders. Rather than ask what works – for
offenders as a whole – we must increasingly ask which method works best for
which types of offenders, and under what conditions or in what types of setting?”220
In view of these, how then can the rehabilitative ideal in particular and
rehabilitation in general be part of the whole criminal penalty system of the
Philippines?
220
SMITH AND BERLIN, supra note 213, at 85.
CHAPTER SEVEN:
PROPOSED APPLICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF REHABILITATION
ON LIMITED LIST OF CRIMES AND OTHER MATTERS
Conclusions
After treading the different roads of the penal and penitentiary systems, we
arrive at the penultimate moment. At this juncture, we respond to the questions
raised earlier:
One: Is there violation of human rights absent a rehabilitative aspect in the
present Philippine criminal penalty system?
Answer: Yes, there is violation of human rights absent a rehabilitative
aspect in the present criminal penalty system.
Implicitly, the 1987 Constitution recognizes the need for a rehabilitative
aspect in the Philippine criminal penalty system. This can be gleaned from the
different provisions on respect for human dignity and human rights of a person,
namely Section 11, Article II in connection to the general provisions, in the 1987
Bill of Rights, Section 1, Article III, and Section 19, Article III. The above
provisions are also read in the light of Sections 9 and 11 of Article II. These
provisions set a new direction towards the reformative or the rehabilitative aspect
of penology.
Explicitly, international declarations provide for the inclusion of a
rehabilitative aspect in the criminal penalty system. The Philippines is a party to
various international human rights instruments related to the rights of the convicted
person, namely the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The overarching provision
in so far as to rights of the human person is Article 1 and Article 2 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These two provisions have laid down the
ground for all other human rights. They affirm the equality of all human beings,
including the prisoners. The United Nations recognizes the rights of the convicts to
be treated equally before the law.
While the preceding discussion focuses on the general protection of the
rights of the convicted person, Article 5 of the UDHR concretely recognizes the
rights that States should yield to prisoners, such as the rights against torture or
cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. This same right is further
strengthened in Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR).221 To establish a regime of absolute prohibition on torture, the
United Nations adopted on December 9, 1975 The Declaration on Protection of All
Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.222 Later, on December 10, 1984, the United Nations
221
222
THE DECLARATION ON PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM BEING SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND
OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT.
adopted The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment.223 The United Nations in 1955 also adopted Standard
Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.224 The rehabilitation aspect of the
punishment of the convicted person is directly mentioned in paragraph 3 of Article
10 of the ICCPR where the United Nations recognized that the essential aim of
treatment shall be the reformation and social rehabilitation of the convicted
person.225
Thus, on the basis of the general principles of law recognized by or
common to the world’s major systems, and on the basis of the adoption of the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the
Philippines, the above mentioned Declaration and Conventions should also be
reflected in Philippine laws and should actually be enforced.
Two: Is there failure to exercise its duty on the part of the State when it
does not enact laws addressing the need for the rehabilitative aspect in the present
Philippine criminal penalty system?
223
THE CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT
OR PUNISHMENT.
224
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 124.
225
Answer: Yes, the government fails to comply to its duty when it does not
enact laws addressing the need for the rehabilitative aspect in the present Philippine
criminal penalty system.
Two principles reinforce this: the doctrine of parens patriae and the police
power of the State. The doctrine of parens patriae shows the “inherent power and
authority of the State, whether thru the legislature or a royal person, to provide
protection to the persons and property of those persons who are non sui juris, to
which the prisoners belong.226 The doctrine of parens patriae is found in the
different parts of the Constitution. Although there is no direct declaration in the
1987 Constitution on the person of the prisoners as one of those to be protected by
the State by virtue of the doctrine of parens patriae, the State can still apply it
because it is inherent in its supreme power. 227 In the light of the limitations of rights
of the prisoners, the doctrine of parens patriae may be invoked, thus the doctrine of
parens patriae obligates the State to attend and facilitate the rehabilitation of a
convict in response to the convict’s inherent right and dignity as a human being.228
As to police power, under the 1987 Constitution, the prime duty of the
government is the protection of the people.229 To enjoy the blessings of democracy,
peace and order must be maintained and life, liberty and property must be protected
and general welfare must be promoted.230 The State does all these through the
226
DE
227
DE
228
Mormon vs. U.S., 136 U.S. 1 (1890).
229
230
legislative body, which is vested with police power. The State inherently possesses
police power to fulfill its obligation to provide protection for its citizens and the
safety and good order of society. “On it depends the security of the social order, the
life and health of the citizens, their comfort and existence in a thickly populated
community, the enjoyment of social life, and the beneficial use of property.” 231 In
other words, police power has been used to justify public health, public safety,
public morals, and general welfare.232 Thus, police power obliges the State to enact
laws for the rehabilitation of convicted persons, because when the convict re-joins
the community, he or she is ready to reintegrate in society.
Recommendations
At the outset, the proponent would like to stress that a chapter alone in the
proposed application of the concept of rehabilitation within the criminal penalty
system of the Philippines will not suffice. Another thesis or a project involving
people from different disciplines will be necessary for the recommendations that
the proponent will dare touch in this final chapter.
231
MARTIN, supra note 150, at 193.
232
FR. BERNAS, supra note 95, at 103-104.
Definition of Rehabilitation –
It is important at this point to define “rehabilitation” as a means of
punishing the convicted person. The rehabilitative aspect of penalty system is the
process by which a convicted person go through programs to seek alternative
behavior through psychological treatment and therapies, to enhance skills through
training and education, to reevaluate values through counseling, religious activities,
and cultural development, and to ensure health through sports and medical check-
ups, in an individualized manner in consideration of the particular needs and
background of the convicted person.
The definition covers all the aspects of the human person – from his or her
intellectual, moral, psychological, social to his or her physical well-being. The
process also involves individualization because the foundation of rehabilitation is
basically addressing the individual.
Concrete Steps (General) –
The suggestions of Raymund Narag in his book “Freedom and Death Inside
the Jail” may be useful for the proponent’s general suggestion. The following is the
summary of that suggestions for a rehabilitation program in Quezon City Jail, 233
which may be useful for all other prisons and jails around the country:
233
NARAG, supra note 83, at 163-178.
1. Provide better facilities for inmates, from the sleeping quarters to
recreation areas to usable comfort rooms. Solve the problem of overcrowding by
also providing dormitory type prisons where a room should at the most house ten
inmates. There should also be open spaces to allow inmates to enjoy the sun and
other outside activities.
2. Provide decent and healthy food and medical assistance to inmates.
3. Employ experts in the science of penology, psychology and education.
There should be more resident psychologists and psychiatrists to facilitate
rehabilitation. Jail guards should be re-trained in view of rehabilitation.
4. Establish a Reception and Diagnostic Center that will evaluate an
inmate’s personal history, medical records, educational attainments and case. These
data together with the court’s determination shall be the basis for the creation of a
reformation program that is attuned to the needs of the individual inmate.
5. Provide Orientation Seminars to newly committed inmates to apprise the
inmates of their rights and privileges, of the rules and regulations, and their roles
and obligations.
6. Provide for programs to help inmates adjust to life inside prison/jail such
as group therapies, facilitated by experts. Specifically, jails/prisons should put up a
Therapeutic Community, where inmates are taught to consider each other as
members of one family.
7. Formulate humane way of punishing erring inmates.

8. Facilitate therapies and education to enhance skills and knowledge. There
should also be livelihood projects.
9. Encourage religious activities.
10. Allow conjugal rooms to facilitate the needs of couples for quality time.
11. Formulate open system of confinement where less dangerous prisoners
may interact with free citizens.
Concrete Steps (Particulars) –
At this point, without going into details, the proponent recommends to
initially apply the rehabilitation aspect on crimes involving human relations. This is
in view of the fact that crimes falling under this usually involve the relationship of
the convicted person to his or her immediate family and community. Thus, there is
a need to find a way of re-integration after serving his or her sentence. These
crimes are the crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs; crimes against
public morals, i.e. gambling and betting, offenses against decency and good
customs; and crimes against persons and against chastity.
Pointedly, the following penalties/rehabilitation programs may be adapted
in the treatment of the following convicts:234
234
Most of the recommendations may be validated in the book of ALEXANDER B. SMITH AND LOUIS
BERLIN, TREATING THE CRIMINAL OFFENDER 197-415 (Plenum Press 1988).
A. Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs –
1. Punitive Approach – Confinement remains to be part and parcel of the
rehabilitation depending on the number of years that they have to be confined. It
must also be determined if they are users or pushers or both. Confinement though
should be with a view also of detoxification and medical assistance.
2. Medical Approach – Confinement to hospitals for detoxification of drug
users must be mandatory.
3. Psycho-social Treatment – The number of years of confinement should
run parallel to the number of sessions and treatment that the convict must fulfill.
Sessions should be strictly observed within the period of confinement and in no
way extend the stay of the inmate in jail.
4. Communal Approach and Family Treatment Approach – This allows the
convict-addict a 24-hour residential experience with rehabilitated convicts-addicts
as role models through encounters, seminars, ventilating sessions, and marathon
encounters. The Family Treatment Approach, on the other hand, involves the family
in the rehabilitation of process.
B. Sexual Offenses –
1. Treatment of sexual offenders must be focused on the offender as a total
person and not just on his deviancy. Treatment must be individualized to fit the
level of the person to be treated. The program should consider not only the
intellectual capacity but also the motivation of the person.

But sessions should be strictly observed within the period of confinement and in no
in the rehabilitation of process. Of course, Family Treatment should be cautiously
used in relation to incestuous rape because the victim has as much right to
protection as the convicted person.
C. Crimes of Violence –
1. Studies pointed out that when violent and assaultive behavior is learned,
the primary treatment technique is that of unlearning the old and relearning new
values of restraint, verbal retaliation, and avoidance of physical combat.
But sessions should be strictly observed within the period of confinement and in no

in the rehabilitation of process.
As stated above, the recommendation will not be all-encompassing since it
will need another study to respond to all the different circumstances for different
crimes. As gleaned above, the rehabilitation or treatment involved should in no way
extend the period already provided for in the penalties under the pertinent
provisions in the Revised Penal Code. Rather, the treatment or rehabilitation must
be supplemental to the penalties already provided.
The supplemental rehabilitative aspect of the penalties may not even be
incorporated in the Revised Penal Code. The legislature may enact a separate law to
address integrally the rehabilitative aspect of the penalties.235
Final Words –
The dream of incorporating in our criminal penalty system its rehabilitative
aspect and enacting laws should not be an impossible dream. Indeed, its
implementation in the here and now will entail great budgetary demands in our
cash-strapped treasury. However, if we are to honor the rule of law, our
international commitments and our moral obligation, there is no other way but
enact such a law. It may be difficult, but this we owe ourselves as a people, and our
235
Please see Annex A for the proposed law on the subject of the thesis.
children and children’s children. The worst thing that can happen is when
we stop dreaming and striving to fulfil such dream because of the lack of money.
The final words of the Supreme Court in the case of People vs. De los
Santos may be the best guide in the struggle to enact a law for the rehabilitative or
the reformative aspect of the penal system:
The government cannot evade responsibility for keeping prisoners

under such subhuman and dantesque conditions. Society must not close its
eyes to the fact that if it has the right to exclude from its midst those who
attack it, it has no right at all to confine them under circumstances that
strangle all sense of decency, reduce convicts to the level of animals, and
convert a prison term into prolonged torture and slow death.236
236
People vs. De los Santos 14 SCRA 712-713 (1965).
ANNEX A:
PROPOSED LAW ON THE REHABILITATIVE ASPECT OF PENALTY237
A Bill To Be Entitled
An Act Establishing a Reformed and Integrated Rehabilitative Penal and
Penalty Systems
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES:
Principles
SECTION 1. The State recognizes and values the dignity of every human
being, no matter his or her status in life, and guarantees full respect for human
rights. Conviction does not forfeit the rights of the prisoners.
SECTION 2. The State ensures that no government agency will employ
physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner. It will
provide for adequate and above-standard penal facilities.
SECTION 3. The State adopts “The Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners” as provided for by the First United Nations Congress on
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and other international
instruments on which the Republic of the Philippines is a signatory.
237
Note that the proponent in writing this proposed law has largely considered the work of Mr.
Raymund Narag.
Facilities
SECTION 4. It shall be the duty of the Department of Justice with the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau Corrections to ensure the
development of an integrated penal and penalty systems.
SECTION 5. The Department of Justice with the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections will oversee the
development of a jail complex conducive to the rehabilitation needs of the
prisoners.
SECTION 6. The rehabilitation needs of the prisoners include all remedial,
educational, moral, spiritual and other forces and forms of assistance which are
appropriate and available. Application of programs should be adjusted to the
individual treatment needs of the prisoners.
SECTION 7. Prison facilities must be based on the ratio and proportion of
jail population and must provide for the following facilities:
a) Adequate and well-ventilated cells that can accommodate a
minimum of ten (10) inmates each cell. Such cell should be a dormitory-
type cells which have bed bunks, a lavatory and a comfort room.
b) A separate infirmary for sick inmates and a separate transit room
for inmates who are diagnosed as mentally ill.
c) An open area where inmates can freely walk or jog around and a
recreation area where inmates may while their time.
d) An activity center for the spiritual and moral needs of the inmates.
e) A learning center where inmates may hone their skills or study a
course.
f) A therapy room for individual and group consultations and
dynamics with psychologists or psychiatrists.
g) A clean and well-ventilated kitchen and dining area.
h) A receiving area for visitors.
i) A conjugal rooms where an inmate and his wife can spend quality
time.
j) A computerized and up-to-date record section where all the data
relating to inmates are properly stored and up-dated.
SECTION 8. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau
of Corrections must ensure adequate and efficient food service; the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections will review monthly the
food budget allotted for the inmates.
Jail Personnel
SECTION 9. The ratio between custodial officers and inmates must be
maintained to the manageable number of one (1) custodial officer to ten (10)
prisoners.
SECTION 10. Custodial officers must have attended seminars or courses in
prison management, counseling and psychology. The head of the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections must, in addition to his
or her security training, be Master’s degree holder in Psychology or Psychiatry.
Warden of jails must also be Master’s degree holder in Psychology or Psychiatry.
SECTION 11. Each jail must have resident psychologists in the ratio of one
(1) resident psychology to ten (10) prisoners. The resident psychologist is tasked to
determine at the point of entry the psychological framework of the individual
inmate, the case history, the rehabilitation program that the inmate will undergo,
and to recommend to the Court whether or not the prisoner should be confined in
the mental institution within one week after the prisoner’s acceptance.
SECTION 12. No member of the police force and the military shall be
assigned within the confines and the direct management of jails. The police force
and the military shall only assist the jail officers in the maintenance of the peace
and order within the jail complex in coordination with the Bureau of Jail
Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections. The jails must be at all
times under the civilian management.
SECTION 13. The Department of Justice in coordination with the Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau of Corrections should formulate a
program where the community may be involved in the rehabilitation aspect of the
management of the jails. Security and peace and order shall remain under the
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau of
Corrections in coordination with the Philippine National Police and the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, as determined by the Secretary of the Department of
Justice.
SECTION 14. Every jail must have a paralegal section headed by a lawyer
with at least two (2) paralegal assistants. The paralegal officers should appraise the
prisoners of their rights and up-date them of the status of their cases. The paralegal
officers should coordinate with the Public Attorney’s Office or the respective
private legal counsel of the inmates for the purposes of securing pardon or
probation.
Entry Point
SECTION 15. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the Bureau of
Corrections should establish a Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) through
which jail management can evaluate an inmate’s personal history, medical records,
educational attainment, and the inmate’s case.
SECTION 16. The RDC is composed of the representative of the jail’s
resident psychologist, security officer, and the paralegal section.
SECTION 17. Through the RDC, newly committed inmates will be given
an orientation on the rules and regulations of the jail; they will also be informed of
their rights and privileges, as well as their roles and obligations. Through the RDC,
jail management will facilitate the inmate’s adjustment in prison life.
The Rehabilitation Proper
SECTION 18. The jail management, through the resident psychologist, will
determine the Individualized Rehabilitation Treatment Program of the Inmate
(IRTPI). No IRTPI would be implemented without Court approval. The resident
psychologist shall submit to the Court the IRTPI within one (1) week but will not
exceed two (2) weeks upon entry of the inmate, subject to administrative penalty of
suspension of one (1) without pay if such prescribed period is not met.
SECTION 19. The assigned Court to review all IRTPI shall approve or
disapprove it within two (2) weeks after its submission, failure to observe the
prescribed period shall subject the judge concerned to administrative penalty of
suspension for one (1) month without pay. Continuous disregard of this obligation
may mean removal from office upon determination of the Supreme Court.
SECTION 20. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and the
Bureau of Corrections in executing the IRTPI must ensure that –
a) It is individualized and responsive to the needs of each inmate.
b) It facilitates individual weekly consultation and therapy with the
resident psychologist in-charge of the inmate. The psychological
consultation should be conducted following the widely accepted principles
in the field of psychology and psychiatry in the Philippines.
c) It provides for an individualized consultation in a well-lit, well-
ventilated and open room and not in any private room not within the public
view. To maintain privacy, the room shall be sound proof.
d) It respects the rights of the inmate. No psychological treatment
would be used without the consent of the inmate and the concurrence of two
of his nearest relative or the representative of the Commission of Human
Rights (CHR) in case no relative is found.

e) In no case shall electric shocks, drugs and the likes be employed
in the rehabilitation of the inmate.
f) It must also provide for group therapy of inmates. The resident
psychology must establish among the inmates a Therapeutic Community
based on the individual needs and capabilities.
e) It must provide for the spiritual, moral, psychological and
physical well-being of the inmate.
f) It must make available educational and skills programs.
Livelihood projects should be developed to sustain some of the inmate’s
needs.
g) It must facilitate interaction with the inmate’s immediate family
and must prepare the inmate for re-integration in free society.
SECTION 21. The IRTPI shall be conducted within the prescribed
incarceration of the inmate based on the Revised Penal Code. In no case shall the
IRTPI go beyond the prescribed period and be determinative of the end of
incarceration of the inmate, except when such determination will be favorable to
the inmate.
SECTION 22. This Act shall not repeal the prescribed penalties as provided
for by the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. This Act shall be applied in
parallel with the penalties provided for by the Revised Penal Code of the
Philippines and shall supplement it and other pertinent laws.
SECTION 23. This Act shall take effect on its passage.

Enacted, November 10, 2005.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS –
 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES, Article II, Sections 4-5, 10-12, 14-15,
18, 22, Article. III, Sections 1-2, Section 12, Section 19, Article XIII, Section 1,
 REVISED PENAL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Articles 3, 25-26.
 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES Articles 26, 37, 42.
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6975 OR AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL
POLICE UNDER A REORGANIZED DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL
GOVERNMENT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (approved December 13, 1990), 87
O. G. 414-449.
 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9263 OR AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE
PROFESSIONALIZATION OF THE BUREAU OF FIRE PROTECTION (BFP) AND THE
BUREAU OF JAIL MANAGEMENT AND PENOLOGY (BJMP), AMENDING CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6975, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREOF AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES, (approved March 10, 2004).
FOREIGN CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS –
 UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 8th Amendment.

 CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
INTERNATIONAL DECLARATIONS AND CONVENTIONS –
 BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS, G.A. res. 45/111,

annex, 45 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 49A) at 200, U.N. Doc. A/45/49 (1990).
 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR
DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, Adopted by the United Nations
General Assembly on December 10, 1984, Thirty-ninth session, Supplement
No. 51 (A/3915), pp. 197-201.
 DECLARATION ON PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM BEING SUBJECTED TO
TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR
PUNISHMENT, Adopted by the General Assembly in its Resolution 3452 (XXX)
of December 9, 1975.
 INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, Adopted by
Resolution 2200 (XXI) of the General Assembly, 16 December 1966, General
Assembly, Official Records, Twenty-First Session, Supp. 16 (A/6316), pp. 52-
58.
 STANDARD MINIMUM RULES FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS, Adopted by

the First United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the
Treatment of Offenders, 30 August 1955; approved by United Nations
Economic and Social Council resolution 663 C (XXIV) of 31 July 1957; and
amended – new rule 95 added – by Economic and Social Council resolution
2076 (LXII) of 13 May 1977.
 UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, Approved by Resolution 217A
(III) of the General Assembly, 10 December 1948. General Assembly, Official
Records, Third Sessioon, Part I, Resolutions (A/810), pp. 71-7.
PHILIPPINE JUDICIAL DECISIONS –
 Bactoso vs. Governor of Cebu, 48 Phil. 25 (1925).

 Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728 (1916).
 People vs. De los Santos, 14 SCRA 703 (1965).
 People vs. Gonzales, 183 SCRA 309 (1990).
 People vs. Mape, 44 O. G. 1140 (1947).
 People vs. Piosca and Peremne, 86 Phil. at 34 (1950).
 U.S. vs. Pompeya, 31 Phil. 245 (1915).
 U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321, 323 (1915).
FOREIGN JUDICIAL DECISIONS –
 Bell vs. Wolfish, 60 L Ed 2d (1979)

 Furman vs. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972).
 Hudson vs. Palmer, 468 US 517 (1984).
 James vs. Wallace, 382 F.Supp. 1177 (M.D.Ala.1974).
 Morales vs. Schmidt, 340 F.Supp. 544 (W.D.Wis.1972).
 Morales vs. Schmidt, 494 F.2d 85 (7th Cir.1974).
 Mormon vs. U.S., 136 U.S. 1 (1890).
 Siegel vs. Ragen, 88 F.Supp. 996 (N.D.Ill.1949).
 Wolff, Jr. vs. McDonnell, 41 L Ed 2d (1974)
BOOKS –
 ABELARDO T. DOMONDON, A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL LAW VOLUME 1 (GIC

Enterprises Co. 2002).
 A. J. M. MILNE, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMAN DIVERSITY: AN ESSAY IN THE
PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS (State University of New York Press 1986).
 ALBERTO T. MUYOT, PHILIPPINE LAW & JURISPRUDENCE ON HUMAN RIGHTS

(Institute of Human Rights, University of the Philippines Law Center 1999).
 ALAN S. ROSENBAUM, THE PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTS: INTERNATIONAL
PERSPECTIVES (Alan S. Rosenbaum ed., Greenwood Press 1980).
 ALEXANDER B. SMITH AND LOUIS BERLIN, TREATING THE CRIMINAL
OFFENDER (Plenum Press 1988).
 AMBROSIO PADILLA, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES WITH COMMENTS AND CASES VOLUME 1 (Philippine Graphic Arts,
Inc., Caloocan City, 1988).
 ANTONIO L. GREGORIO, FUNDAMENTALS OF CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW (Rex
Book Store 1997).
 ARTURO M. TOLENTIONO, COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES VOLUME 1 (Central Lawbook Pub. 7th ed., 1990)
(1960).
 BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (West Publishing Co. 6th ed. 1990).
 CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS FACT SHEETS SERIES (United
Nations Office at Geneva, 1989).
 CORAZON L. CRUZ, PHILOSOPHY OF MAN (National Book Store Inc. 3rd ed.
1995) (1987)
 CPRM CONSULTANTS, INC., UNDER THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
AND THE UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM, NATIONAL SURVEY OF
INMATES & INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT: FINAL REPORT (July 2003). Available
at http://www.apjr-sc-phil.org/filemanager.
 CURT R. BARTOL, CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR: A PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH
(Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1995).
 DOUGLAS J. ELWOOD, HUMAN RIGHTS: A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE (New Day
Pub. 1990).
 ERNESTO L. PINEDA, PERSONS (Central Professional Books 2000).
 FELIX M. MONTEMAYOR, INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY THROUGH THE
PHILOSOPHY OF MAN (National Book Store Inc. 1995).
 FRANCIS A. ALLEN, THE BORDERLAND OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE (ESSAY IN LAW
AND CRIMINOLOGY) (University of Chicago Press 1974).
 HANS J. EYSENCK AND GISLI H. GUDJONSSON, THE CAUSES AND CURES OF
CRIMINALITY 108 (Plenum Press, New York, 1989).
 HECTOR S. DE LEON, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: PRINCIPLES AND
CASES VOLUME 1 (Rex Book Store 1999).
 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S. J., THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY (Rex Book Store 2003).
 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S. J., THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION: A REVIEWER-
PRIMER (Rex Book Store 2002).
 JOAQUIN G. BERNAS, S. J., THE INTENT OF THE 1986 CONSTITUTION WRITERS
(Rex Book Store 1995).
 JOHN W. SANTROCK, PSYCHOLOGY (Brown and Benchmark, 1997).
 JORGE R. COQUIA, HUMAN RIGHTS: AN INTRODUCTORY COURSE (Central

Professional Books 2000).
 JOSE C. VITUG, COMPENDIUM OF CIVIL LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE (National
Book Store, Inc. 2nd ed., 1993).
 LEONOR D. BOADO, NOTES AND CASES ON THE REVISED PENAL CODE (Rex
Book Store 2002).
 LINDA ANDERSON FOLEY, A PSYCHOLOGICAL VIEW OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM
(Brown and Benchmark, 1993).
 LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE: CRIMINAL LAW BOOK ONE
(ARTICLES 1-113) (Rex Book Store 2001).
 MANUEL B. DY, JR., PHILOSOPHY OF MAN: SELECTED READINGS (Goodwill
Trading Co. 1986).
 MARIANO A. ALBERT, THE LAW ON CRIMES (Imprenta del Dr. G. A. Pobre
1925).
 MICHAEL D. MOGA, WHAT MAKES MAN TRULY HUMAN? A PHILOSOPHY OF
MAN AND SOCIETY (St Pauls 1995).
 MORRIS L. WEST, THE SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN (The Toby Press 1963).
 New American Bible (St Pauls 2003).
 PIERRE TEILHARD DE CHARDIN, THE PHENOMENON OF MAN (Perennial 2002)
(1955).
 POLAND PENNOCK, THE OBLIGATION TO OBEY THE LAW AND THE ENDS OF THE
STATE, LAW AND PHILOSOPHY (Sidney Hook ed., New York University Press
1964).
 RAYMUND E. NARAG, FREEDOM AND DEATH INSIDE THE JAIL: A LOOK INTO
THE CONDITION OF THE QUEZON CITY JAIL (Supreme Court of the Philippines
with the United Nations Development Programme 2005).
 ROBERT C. SOLOMON, INTRODUCING PHILOSOPHY (Harcourt Brace College
Pub. 6th ed 1997).
 ROLANDO A. SUAREZ, INTRODUCTION TO LAW (Rex Book Store 2003).
 RUPERTO G. MARTIN, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 14 (Premium Book Store,
Manila, 1988).
 SALVADOR H. LAUREL, LAUREL REPORT ON PENAL REFORMS: THE STATE OF
PHILIPPINE INSTITUTIONS AND PENOLOGY (Committee on Justice, Senate of the
Republic of the Philippines 1969).
 SEAN MCCONVILLE, THE USE OF PUNISHMENT (Willan Publishing, 2003).
 SHELDON KRANTZ, THE LAW OF CORRECTIONS AND PRISONERS’ RIGHTS:
CASES AND MATERIALS (West Publishing 3rd edition 1986/ 1973 and 1981).
 THOMAS W. SIMON, LAW PHILOSOPHY: AN INTRODUCTION WITH READINGS
(McGraw-Hill 2001).
ARTICLES –
 Nati Nuguid, Porous Jails, Crooked System, PHILIPPINE FREE PRESS, February
17, 1996.
 Philippine Corrections Today, PHILIPPINE PANORAMA, October 24, 1999.
INTERNET MATERIALS –
 Editorial, Our Own Ghraib,

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/sept/18/yehey/opinion/2004091opi1.html
(July 6, 2005)
THESES –
 CLARINDA P. HIPOLITO, PRISON CONDITIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES: SETTING-UP

A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE (1996) (unpublished Juris Doctor thesis,
Ateneo de Manila School of Law) (on file with the Ateneo Professional School
Library).
 JACKLYN MARIE SICANGCO ARELLANO, THE NEW RULE ON JUVENILES IN
CONFLICT WITH THE LAW: A FRUSTRATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE
RIGHTS OF THE CHILD AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS ON
CHILDREN’S RIGHTS (2003) (unpublished Juris Doctor, thesis, Ateneo de
Manila School of Law) (on file with the Ateneo Professional School Library).
 VALERIE ANN D. GONZALES, RIGHTS BEHIND BARS: IMPLEMENTING THE
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS IN THE
TREATMENT OF PRISONERS (2001) (unpublished Juris Doctor thesis, Ateneo de
Manila School of Law) (on file with the Ateneo Professional School Library).

Philippine criminal penalty system violates offender rights and fails rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine criminal penalty system violates offender rights and fails rehabilitation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Atty.

Arnold Rimon Martinez -1

THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PENALTY SYSTEM

A State Failure to Exercise its Duty 60

 Crimes of Violence 101

THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PENALTY SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES:

Background of the Thesis

“The Philippine Penal System’s method of retributive justice

- Former President Corazon Conjuangco Aquino

This youngster would be named “Bata.”1 Bata was a seventeen-year-old boy

Unfortunately, as Bata celebrated his eighteenth birthday, the authorities transferred

penology conditions do not assist in an honest-to-goodness rehabilitation or

reformation of Bata. He was detained with hardened criminals, undergoing the

power of criminal lords in jail.

At first glimpse, the plight of Bata served as a microcosm of the present

of the penitentiary system – to punish the crimes of offenders and to rehabilitate

offenders to become productive members of society once again.

of the Bill of Rights stresses the constitutional imperative on human rights:

already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The employment of

physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee

or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions

shall be dealt with by law.”5

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also prescribes

respect for human rights for criminal offenders, namely:

“1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with

adults and be accorded treatment appropriate to their age and legal

In the heart of this International Covenant is the need for a penitentiary

socially rehabilitate prisoners. The Covenant envisions a penitentiary system that

society as law-abiding citizens.7

Constitution mandates Congress to give the highest priority to the enactment of

into criminal justice system.

Statement of the Thesis Problem

Philippines a violation of the human rights of offenders and proof of the

failure of the Government to comply with its duty?”

safekeeping and the rehabilitation of prisoners and detainees.”10 However, while

seem to be wanting in the rehabilitative aspect. Offender-rehabilitation has not been

discretion of persons in authority, depending on their programs. The punitive nature

of punishment is stressed so much so that a convict is reduced to case numbers and

the numbers of years of stay in prison. An offender committed to a jailhouse is left

to himself or to the creativity of the jail management for his reformation.

This situation raises the following questions: In the absence of the

the community is welcoming back a supposedly ‘rehabilitated convict?’

laws embody the ideals of rehabilitative or reformative criminal penalty system.

2) The thesis will provide a benchmark and a reflective analysis of the

changes and development in the international field of human rights.

family, the community, and psychologists in drawing up programs for the

rehabilitation of criminal offenders.

4) The thesis will also consider the disadvantages of institutionalizing the

will confront those who will implement such institutionalized rehabilitative

Scope and Limitations of the Thesis

When the penalty system is tackled, it is tempting to take a look on issues

2) Existing literatures on the current penalty systems in the Philippines and

involved personally in jail management and criminal rehabilitation treatments.

classical school, it is accepted that there are developments in the positivist

offender. The context of the choice is –

that crime is essentially a social and natural phenomenon, and as

Thus, the choice envisions criminal offenses, which may be consequences

of some psychological and psychiatric problems or because of circumstances

priority will be given to the following offenses:

a) Crimes relative to opium and other prohibited drugs.

b) Crimes against public morals, i.e. gambling and betting, offenses

against decency and good customs.