DOJ Opinion No. 039, s. 1999

DOJ OPINION NO. 039 , s. 1999 May 21, 1999 Supt. Arturo W. Alit, CESO (E) Officer in Charge Bureau of Jail Management and Penology 103 Kalayaan Ave.,Diliman Quezon City Sir : Subject herein is a request for opinion on whether or not the Chief/Director, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) and the provincial governors have the authority to grant "Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA)" pursuant to Article 99, Revised Penal Code by way of implementing Article 97 of the said Code. The provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) adverted to pertinently provide: "ARTICLE 97. Allowance for Good Conduct . The good conduct of any prisoner in any penal institution shall entitle him to the following deduction from the period of his sentence: 1. During the first two years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of five days for each month of good behavior; 2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of eight days for each month of good behavior; 3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of ten days for each month of good behavior; and 4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of fifteen days for each month of good behavior. xxx xxx xxx ARTICLE 99. Who grants time allowances Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of Prisons shall grant allowances for good conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked." (RPC) (emphasis ours) From the aforequoted provisions of the RPC, it could be gleaned that only the Director of Prisons (now the Director of Bureau of Corrections) can grant GCTA. However, you believe that the Chief/Director, BJMP, in the case of prisoners in district, city and municipal jails, and the provincial governors, for those in provincial and sub-provincial jails, are also vested with the same authority. To support your view, the following reasons were advanced: "1. There should be no discrimination in the grant of GCTA because prisoners whether confined in national prisons or local jails are still prisoners and should equally enjoy the privilege of allowances for good conduct. 2. Only the Director of Prisons was mentioned in Article 99, RPC because at the time of the enactment of the Revised Penal Code, only the Director of Prisons had administrative supervision and control over all jails whether national prisons or local jails. The transfer of administrative supervision and control of provincial and sub-provincial jails by the provincial governors and of the district, city, and municipal jails to the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology were so provided by laws which were enacted much later after the promulgation of the Revised Penal Code. 3. To interpret the authority to grant GCTA as bestowed only on the Director, Bureau of Corrections will result to an ineffectivity of paragraph 1, Article 97, RPC and partial ineffectivity of paragraph 2 of the same Article for prisoners incarcerated in local jails ( sic )." We believe otherwise. It is a basic principle in administrative law that an administrative officer has only such powers as are expressly granted to him and those necessarily implied in the exercise thereof. That, these powers should not be extended by implication beyond what may be necessary for their just and reasonable execution ( Kilusang Bayan sa Paglilingkod ng mga Magtitinda ng Bagong Pamilihang Bayan ng Muntinlupa, Inc. vs. Dominguez, 205 SCRA 92, 111-112, citing cases). Moreover, among cardinal rules in statutory construction is that where the terms of the statute are clear and unambiguous, no interpretation is called for, and the law is applied as written, for application is the first duty of the court, and interpretation, only where literal application is impossible or inadequate ( Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs . Lim-pan Investment Corporation and the Court of Tax Appeals ,34 SCRA 148, 151). The Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990 (R.A. No. 6975), otherwise known as "An Act Establishing the Philippine National Police Under a Reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes", insofar as material, is specific, to wit: "SECTION 60. Composition . The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, hereinafter referred to as the Jail Bureau, is hereby created initially consisting of officers and uniformed members of the Jail Management and Penology Service as constituted under Presidential Decree No. 765. SECTION 61. Powers and Functions . The Jail Bureau shall exercise supervision and control over all city and municipal jails. The provincial jails shall be supervised and controlled by the provincial government within its jurisdiction, whose expenses shall be subsidized by the National Government for not more than three (3) years after the effectivity of this Act. SECTION 62. Organization . The Jail Bureau shall be headed by a Chief who shall be assisted by a deputy chief. The Jail Bureau shall be composed of city and municipal jails, each headed by a city or municipal jail warden: Provided ,That, in the case of large cities and municipalities, a district jail with subordinate jails headed by a district jail warden may be established as necessary. xxx xxx xxx" (R.A. No. 6975) While under the above-quoted provisions of R.A. No. 6975, the BJMP and the provincial governments are bestowed with the power of supervision and control over jails within their respective jurisdiction, nowhere in said law are the Chief/Director of BJMP and the provincial governor conferred with the authority to grant GCTA. Hence, unlike the Director of Prisons who, by express provision of Article 99 of RPC, may credit GCTA to any prisoner, the Chief of BJMP and provincial governors cannot claim to also have such power. prcd Needless to say, Article 99 of RPC being clear and unambiguous in its express terms, the power to grant GCTA cannot be interpreted to have been also vested in other public officers aside from the Director of Prisons. No less than the Supreme Court supports this view. In the case of People vs. Tan, 19 SCRA 433, the Court held that the crediting of good conduct time allowance is exclusively vested in the Director of Prisons and no one else, viz: "...It needs no stressing that to allow provincial wardens to retain insular prisoners without proper authorization would open the way to all sorts of discrimination in the treatment of prisoners and constitute a standing invitation for the commission of abuses and anomalies for personal or political motives. Nor do we find in the record any justification for the warden's usurping the authority of the Director of Prisons in crediting the prisoner with good conduct time allowance . Article 99 of the Revised Penal Code vests such authority exclusively in the Director and no one else (People vs. Tan, 19 SCRA 433, 436-437)." The foregoing premises considered, the instant query is, thus, answered in the negative. Very truly yours, (SGD.) JUSTICE SERAFIN R. CUEVAS Secretary