Page 1 of 24

THE UNIVERSITY OF MANILA

College of Criminology
SUBJECT- SOCIOLOGY OF CRIMES & ETHICS
The Concept of the Philippine Criminal Justice System.
The prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency are not the sole task of the
government, much less the agency of the criminal justice system alone. Questions of major policy
for achieving the objectives and ideals of major policy for achieving the objectives and ideals of the
prevention and control of crime and delinquency, undoubtedly, require the coordination of effort
and teamwork not only among the police, prosecution, courts and correctional agencies but the
active participation of the community as well, thus, the birth of the so called Criminal Justice
System of the Philippines. An idea of systematic criminal justice planning could serve as an avenue
for the development of inter-agency coordination in the area of prevention and control of crime and
delinquency. The Philippine Criminal Justice System is the sum total of instrumentation which a
society uses in the prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency. Its operation includes
but is not limited to.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Prevention the commission of crimes;

Enforcing the law;
Protecting life, individual rights and property;
Removing dangerous persons from the community
Deterring people from indulging in criminal activities.
Investigating, apprehending, prosecuting and imposing penalty upon those who cannot be deterred
from violating the rules of society; and
7. Rehabilitating offenders and returning them to the community as law-abiding and useful citizens of
the society.
In its inception, the system has four separate, formally organized components, namely: the
police, prosecutions, courts and corrections. However, in view of the important role of society in
achieving the systems ideals and objectives, the community has been included and considered as the
fifth component of the entire criminal justice system, it being the basic element and pivoting factor in
the existence of any form of government. For without the support of the community through the active
participation of its individual members therein, the system itself will not succeed. According to Ulrich,
In any organization, it is not the organizational chart, but men who do the work. Thus, individuals,
private groups and public entities, when performing related criminal justice activities, become part of
the system. In other words, from the sovereign Filipino people who are the sources of the fundamental
laws and statutes of the land to the legislative branch, including to other agencies of the government,
all become parts of the system while engaged in activities directly or indirectly related to the
prevention and control of crime and juvenile delinquency.

Katarungang Pambarangay
(Village Justice)
The existence of the Katarungang Pambarangay (Vilage Justice) plays a vital role in the
effective and efficient administration and operation of the Criminal Justice System. Its legislative
existence under Republic Act No. 7160, particularly from Sections 399 to 422, also answers the
famous saying, The Authority of the Government Emanates from the People. Giving importance of
authority, the appropriate Barangay (Village) Chairman and or Barangay Lupon Officials to amicably
settle cases within their respective jurisdiction, would somehow help out party litigants the trouble
in going to the court of justice, in terms of cost in litigation and labor hour in going to and from the
procedural processes before the court of law, and at the same time easing out the delicate task of
the regular court of justice in attending to minor offenses punishable by imprisonment not
exceeding one (1) year, or a fine not exceeding Five thousand Pesos(5,000).
It is certainly wise and proper that minor offenses punishable by not exceeding one (1) year
imprisonment, or a fine not exceeding 5,000 should fall within the authority of the appropriate
Barangay Chairman, or Barangay Lupon to settle amicably without the necessity of elevating it to
the regular court of justice, or to the local police station. Hence katarungan Pambarangay is a
breakthrough in the administration of the Philippine Criminal Justice System.
Other wise stated, the creation of Katarungang Pambarangay is the positive decentralization
of the governments program for the administration and operation of the criminal justice system. Its
logical implication is that minor offenses must be resolved by the community through its Barangay
Chairman or Lupon with adequate guidance from the proper authorities, not strictly adhering to the
technical procedural processes, but without sacrificing the wheel of justice.

Page 2 of 24

Procedures for Amicable Settlement in Barangay Courts

A Cause of Action is an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal rights of the other for
which the latter suffers damage or prejudice and the existence of which affords a party to a right to judicial
interference or intervention in his behalf. Section 410 provides the Rules on Procedure foe Amicable
Settlement in Barangay Court or the Lupon in the following manner:
a. Who may institute Proceedings?- Upon payment of the appropriate filing fee, any individual who has
a cause of action against another individual involving any matter within the authority of the Lupon
may complain, orally or in writing to the Lupon Chairman of the Barangay.
b. Mediation by the Lupon Chairman.- Upon receipt of the compliant, the Lupon Chairman, shall within
the next working day summon the respondent(s), with notice of the complainant(s) for them and
their witnesses to appear personally before him for mediation of their conflicting interest. If he fails
in his mediation effort within 15 days from the first meeting or confrontation of the parties before
him, he shall forthwith set a date for the Constitution of the Conciliation Panel or Pangkat in
accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.
c. Suspension of Prescriptive Period of Offenses. While the dispute is under mediation, conciliation,
or arbitration, the prescriptive period for offenses and cause of action under existing laws shall be
inter-period for offenses and cause of actions under existing laws shall be interrupted, or
temporarily suspended, so to speak, upon filing of the compliant with the barangay Chairman. This
prescriptive period shall resume upon receipt by the complainant of the certificate of Repudiation,
or of the Certification to File Action issued by the Lupon or Pangkat Secretary: Provided, however,
that such interruption shall not exceed 60 days from the filing of the Complaint with the Barangay
Chairman.
d. Issuance of Summons: Hearing by the Pangkat and Grounds for Disqualifications of any Lupon or
Pangkat Member.- The Pangkat shall convent not later than 3 days from its constitution, on the day
and hour set by the Lupon Chairman, to hear both parties and their witnesses, simplify issues, and
explore all possibilities for amicable settlement. For this purpose, the Pangkat may issue summons
for the personal appearance of parties and witnesses before it. In the event that a party moves to
disqualify any member of the Pangkat by reason of relationship, bias, interest, or any other similar
grounds discovered after the constitution of the Pangkat, the matter shall be resolved by the
affirmative vote of the majority of the majority of the Pangkat whose decision shall be final. Should
disqualification be decided upon, the resulting vacancy shall be filled as herein provided.
e. Period to Arrive at a Settlement.- The pangkat shall arrive at a settlement or resolution of the
dispute within 15 days from the day it convenes in accordance with this Section. This period shall,
at the discretion of the Pangkat, be extendible for another period which shall not exceed 15 days,
except in clearly meritorious cases.
All amicable settlement shall be in writing, in language or dialect in known to the parties,
signed by them and attested by the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat Chairman, as the case may be.
When the parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the settlement shall be
written in the language or dialect known to them.
Arbitration by the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat.
Arbitration means the settlement of a dispute by a person or persons chosen to hear both sides and
to come to a decision. Section 413 provides the Rules and Arbitration of disputes, including the arbitration
award of the Lupon Chairman or Pangkat in the following manner.

a. The parties may, at any stage of the proceedings, agree in writing that they shall abide by the
Arbitration Award of the Lupon Chairman or the Pangkat. Such agreement to arbitrate may be
repudiated with five days from the date thereof for the same grounds and in accordance with the
procedure hereinafter prescribed. The Arbitration Award shall be made after the lapse of periods for
repudiation and within 10 days thereafter.
b. The Arbitration Award shall be in writing in a language or dialect known to the parties. When the
parties to the dispute do not use the same language or dialect, the Award shall be written in the
language or dialect known to them.
Execution of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award.
Section 417 provides, The Lupon, within 6 months from the date of Settlement, may enforce the
Amicable Settlement or Arbitration Award by execution. However, if after the lapse of such time the Lupon,
in some way or the other fails to enforce the Settlement or Arbitration Award by execution, the same may
be enforced by action in the appropriate city or municipal court.

Page 3 of 24

Effects of Amicable Settlement and Arbitration Award.

The Amicable Settlement and the arbitration Award shall have the force and effect of the final
judgment of a court upon the expiration of 10 days from the date thereof, unless repudiation of the
Settlement has been made, or a petition to nullify the Award has been filed before the proper city or
municipal court.
Transmittal of Settlement and Arbitration to the Court.
The Secretary of the Lupon shall transmit the settlement or the Arbitration Award to the appropriate
city or municipal court within 5 days from the date of the award or from the lapse of the 10 day period
repudiating the settlement and shall furnish copies thereof to each of the parties to the settlement and the
Lupon Chairman.
Law Enforcement
Like all other nations of the world, the Philippines has various law enforcement agencies to
police the offices of the government. There are as many law enforcement agencies as there are offices of
the government. One of these example, is the Department of Finance. It has the National Customs Police
which is responsible for the enforcement and implementation of the customs and tariff laws of the land.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has also its law enforcement agency to regulate, control and enforce its
laws related to its office functions and responsibilities. The individual law enforcement agencies and many
others are one way or the other involved in the criminal justice system. They enforce the laws, and rules
and regulations of the government in accordance with their defined functions, duties and responsibilities
within their respective jurisdictions. Other law enforcement agencies like the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), and the Philippine National Police (PNP) have
direct participation in the Criminal Justice System in the exercise of the statutory power of the people of
the police to maintain peace and order, protecting lives and properties of the people and the rights of
every one to have tranquility among the members of society.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) had its origin in the Division of Investigation (DI) of the
Department of Justice. Its formation was included in the provisions of Commonwealth Act No. 181, dated
November 1938. Responsible for the conceptualization and creation of the division were the late President
Luis Quezon, the late Chief Justice Jose Abad Santos and the late Secretary of Justice Jose Yulo. It was
patterned after the FBI, its organization, functions, and objectives. In addition to its normal investigation
function, it was oriented towards providing needed assistance to other law enforcement agencies, On June
19, 1947, republic Act No. 157 created the National Bureau of Investigation.
The American Occupation
The American Occupation of the Philippines which came after the Filipino-American War from 1898
to 1901, was fol1owed by a period of political ferment and social equilibrium.
On November 30, 1900, the Commission recommended to the Secretary of War the organization of
an Insular Police Force. The recommendation having been approved, the Philippine Commission passed Act
No. 175 on July 18,1901, entitled
An Act Providing For the Organization and Government of an Insular Constabulary, better known as the
Philippine Constabulary by Section 1, Act No. 255, dated October 3 1901. Under the technicalities of the
law, the Constabulary is a National Police Institution for preserving the peace, keeping order and enforcing
the law. In fact its police nature was expressly and clearly stated in Section 1, Act No. 175, the organic Act
creating the Constabulary The same provision was retained in Section 825 of the Revised Administrative
Code of 1917.
The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM).
Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966, dated September 8, 1966,
created the Office of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM), originally Police Commission (POLCOM),
under the Office of the President at its inception. Originally the NAPOLCOM was created as the supervisory
agency to oversee the training and professionalization of the local police forces.
Executive Order No. 1040.
Executive Order 1040, dated July 10, 1985,: transferred the administrative control and supervision
of the Integrated National Police (INP) from the Ministry of National Defense (MND) to the Office of the
National Police Commission. The order which also transferred the National Police commission from the
Ministry of National Defense to the Office of the President, superseded Executive Order no. 1012 which
transferred to the city and municipal governments, the operational supervision and direction over all INP
units.

Page 4 of 24
As per Executive Order No. 1040, the National Police Commission serves as the Presidential arm in
all matters affecting the Integrated National Police. All appropriations for the INP for fiscal year 1985 were
also transferred to the NAPOLCOM. Although the operational control and supervision of all the INP units
had been transferred to the city and municipal mayors, the INP would remain subject to the command,
control and general supervision of the NAPOLCOM which functioned directly under the Office of the
President in the maintenance of peace and order and public safety. In effect, the restoration of police
power to the Mayors Office as embodied in the executive order was deemed proper as it was coterminous
with his political power and responsibility to the people who elected him, making it necessary for any local
executive to actively supervise and direct their police forces to ensure that they are efficiently, effectively,
economically and harmoniously organized.
Executive Order No. 1040, however, did not in any way affect the Director General of the INP, who
continued as such, and the 13 INP Regional Training Centers and the Philippine National Police Academy
which continued with their training programs.
In view of Executive Order No. 1040, the training and communication branches which were taken
and transferred to the PC/INP from the NAPOLCOM by virtue of Presidential Decree no. 765, then be
restored to the latter office.
The Birth of Republic Act No. 4864, dated September 8, 1966.
Reformation and professionalization of the police service, so to speak, gained official recognition
when Republic Act No. 4864, otherwise known as the Police Act of 1966 was enacted. This Act has served
as the legal cornerstone in initiating and undertaking, at national level, the much needed reforms that
resulted in a considerable improvement in police performance and efficiency. But this Act, for all its merits,
did not eliminate the various negative factors that had plagued the local police forces, to name a few:
1.
the insidious role played by partisan politics in almost all aspects of personnel
management such as, appointment, assignment, promotion and separation;
2.
Tayo-tayo system or double standard of justice;
3.
intrigues, jealousies and rivalries existing among police forces; and
4.
the jurisdiction restriction that limits police forces to operate within their respective municipal/city
political boundaries.
Under this Act, the city/municipal police forces and personnel were under the administrative and
operational control and supervision of the Office of the President through the office of the National Police
Commission (NAPOLCOM). Their individual salaries and other monetary consideration was partly subsidized
by the National Government through the NAPOLCOM, while the first half was paid for by the respective
local government units. Years later, all of the members of the local police forces were considered as
employees of the National Government, such that their salaries and monetary benefits were taken from
the National Treasury through the NAPOLCOM.
Martial Law Regime and the Birth of
Presidential Decree No. 765.
As a backgrounder Presidential decree no.765, dated August 8, 1975, stipulated that the office of
the National Police Commission was under the Office of the Ministry of National Defense. Two of its
original branches, that is, the training and communication were transferred to the PC/JNP, together
wit its personnel and staff, records, equipment, other resources and powers and functions
appertaining thereto. The NAPOLCOM however, retained its powers and functions in relation to the
following: 1) attestation of appointments; 2) conducting police qualifying examinations; 3)
investigation;
4) adjudication and review of police administrative disciplinary cases; 5) adjudication
and grant of compensation for permanent disability and death benefits; and 6) staff
inspection and audit of police forces which were extended to include the fire and jail
components of the INP.
Presidential Decree No. 765 also provided the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officers
of the NAPOLCOM to investigate administrative complaints against members of the police forces and their
claims for permanent disability and death benefits the jurisdiction of the adjudication Board to decide such
cases and that of the Special Appellate Committee of the Commission to review decisions of dismissals
rendered by the Board. This was also made to embrace the fire and jail components of the INP.
Presidential Decree No. 765 also provided the jurisdiction of the Hearing Officers of the NAPOLCOM
to investigate administrative complaints against members of the police forces and their claims for
permanent disability and death benefits; the jurisdiction of the adjudication Board to decide such cases
and that of the Special Appellate Committee of the Commission to review decisions of dismissals rendered
by the Board. This was also made to embrace the fire and jail components of the INP.
The following are some of the salient features of Presidential Decree No. 765:

Page 5 of 24
1.

The INP was established and constituted, composed of the Philippine Constabulary (PC) as the
nucleus, and the integrated Police Forces as components, under the Department of National
Defense;

2.

The Head of the INP known as the Director General was the Chief of the Philippine Constabulary;

3.

The PC remained and constituted as a major service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP);

4.

The powers and functions of the NAPOLCOM in the training of policemen, the establishment of the
Police Integrated Communications System, the grant of police subsidy and the adjudication and
grant of compensation for temporary disability benefits were transferred to the INP, including
personnel, equipment, appropriations and other resources appertaining thereto;

5.

The NAPOLCOM was transferred to the Department of National Defense from the Office of the
President, and

6.

The remaining powers and functions exercised by the NAPOLCOM over local police agencies
extended to the police, fire and jail components of the INP.
The Defunct Philippine Constabulary (PC).

On November 30, 1900, the Philippine Commission recommended to the Secretary of War the
organization of an Insular Police Force. The recommendation having been approved, the Philippine
Commission passed Act No. 175 on July 18, 1901, entitled An Act Providing for the Organization and
Government of an Insular Constabulary. It then later became the Philippine Constabulary by Section 1, Act
No. 255 on October 3, 1901. Under the technicalities of the law, the Constabulary is a National Police
Institution for preserving the peace and for keeping and enforcing the law. In fact, its police nature was
expressly and clearly stated in Section 1 of Act No. 175, which was the organic Act creating the
Constabulary. The same provision was retained in Section 825 of the Administrative Code. Pursuant to
Commonwealth Act No. 343 dated June 23, 1938 and Executive Order No. 389 dated December 23, 1950,
the Philippine Constabulary was the existing and organized National Police Force of the Country.1
The PC also became one of the four services of the Armed Forces of the Philippines pursuant to
Executive Order No. 389 dated December 23, 1940.
Integrated National Police (INP).
As has been discussed earlier, all INP units have been transferred to the administrative control and
supervision of the National Police Commission, who functioned directly under the Office of the President in
the maintenance of peace and order, and public safety. The Operational control and supervision of the
entire INP units have also been transferred to the city and municipal mayors. The new changes have been
brought about in view of the 1973 Constitutional provision which states that The State shall establish and
maintain integrated national police whose organization, administration and operation shall be provided by
law. The concept of the Integrated National Police being purely civilian in nature, it is but proper and
adequate that it be under the office of a civilian administrator, not under the control and supervision of the
military organization of any branch of service of the Armed Forces. Had the INP remained under the
Philippine Constabulary, the Constitutional provision that civilian authority is always supreme, would have
been meaningless. History in law enforcement tell us that Police Forces are always civilian in nature, even
though they have a para-military operation. It is therefore all right that the INP units are under the Office of
the President through the Office of the National Police Commission.
The Integrated National Police being civilian in nature should always bear in mind that a democratic
government is one that operates at the will of the people through free elections of the law-making body of
the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, laws that are passed by the parliamentary or law-making body are a
reflection of the needs and will of the people.
Republic Act No. 6975, An Act Establishing the PNP under a Reorganized Department of
the Interior and Local Government, and for Other Purposes, December 13, 1990.
The following are some of the salient features of Republic Act No. 6975, commonly termed as the
PNP Law, to wit:
1. Organization:
a.
The Department of the Interior and Local Government shall consist of the Department
proper, the existing Bureau and Offices of the defunct Department of Local Government
(DLG);
b.
The National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM);
c.
The Philippine Public Safety College and the following Bureaus:
1. The Philippine National Police (PNP),

Page 6 of 24
2. The Bureau of Fire Protection, and
3. The Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
2. Nature of Police Organization:
Its paramount importance is that it is national in scope and civilian in character. And no element of
the police force shall be military nor shall any position thereof be occupied by any active members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.
3. Nature of Office of the National Police Commission:
The NAPOLCOM is a collegial body within the DILG. It is composed of a Chairman and four regular
Commissioners, one of whom is designated as Vice-Chairman by the President. The Secretary of the
Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) is the Ex Officio Chairman of the NAPOLCOM,
while the Vice Chairman
acts as the Executive Officer of the Commission.
4. Bureau of Fire Protection:
This Bureau has now the power to investigate all causes of fires and, if necessary, file the proper
complaints with the city or provincial prosecutor who has jurisdiction over the case.
5. Bureau of Jail Management and Penology.
Has now the, power to exercise supervision control over all city and municipal jails.
6.Public Safety College
The Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC)will be the premier educational institution for training,
human resources development and continuing education of all personnel of the Philippine National Police,
Fire and Jail Bureaus.
Additional Important Provisions of Republic At No. 6975.
1.

Section 27. Powers and Functions of the PNP.

This section refers to what is known as the Statutory Power of the Police and functions of the
PNP. Specifically they are:

Statutory Power of the Police:

a. Enforce all laws and ordinances relative to the protection of lives and properties;
b. Maintain peace and order and take all necessary steps to ensure public safety;
c. Exercise the general powers to make arrest, search and seizures in accordance with the
Constitution and pertinent laws;
d. Investigate and prevent crimes, effect the arrest of criminals, bring offenders to justice
and assist in their prosecution;
e. To assist other national government agencies, instrumentalities, and subsidiaries in the
enforcement of laws pertinent thereto, upon proper request and or deputization; and
f. Detain an arrested person for a period not beyond what is prescribed by law, informing
the person so detained of all his rights under the Constitution and pertinent laws.
From among the various Philippine laws governing police service, it can be gleaned that Republic
Act No. 6975 dated January 1990 improvises Republic Act No. 4864 - the Police Act of 1966 after
Presidential Decree No. 765 had served the vested interest of some irresponsible officers of the defunct
Philippine Constabulary at the pretext of integrating the police force with the whims and caprices of a
cohesive, uniform and standardized police organization and administration. Making the PC as the nucleus
of the INP and at the same time status quo a major service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
Statistics indicate that graft and corruptions were committed by some irresponsible officers of the defunct
PC, such that some logistics, financial appropriations, office supplies and many things, legally intended for
the local police forces, were technically misappropriated and/or personally appropriated by some defunct
PC personnel. One good apparent example was when one patrol jeep with its accessories intended for the
city police was issued and used by one PC Colonel, thereby depriving said city police of its uses.
Public Understanding of the Police Service.
The Philippines being a democratic and a republican State, it is necessary that the people who are the
sovereign authority should also be able to understand the responsibilities of their local police forces, know
their functions, understand their problems and difficulties. On the other hand, the local police should earn
the publics trust and confidence through effective and efficient service. For news about satisfactory police
service would spread from one person to another and soon the people in a particular area would believe
that the police force is doing a good job and will assist them in every way possible. This is the type of
publicity that every police force wants and which gives the public confidence in their local police force.
When a police organization is poorly manned, inadequately managed, and inefficient, the superior officer
does not want publicity. The Chief of Police does not want the people to know how poorly he manages his
police force nor that he has not been interested in the welfare of his command. A good police administrator
does his best to improve his police organization as well as the welfare of his office personnel. When this is

Page 7 of 24
done, he does his utmost to get the public to understand the job of the policemen and thereby gain public
support of the peace and order campaign of the local police force. Under this condition he also uses every
opportunity to point out to the public the excellent job the police officers of his command are doing for the
citizenry.
Police Operations.
Police operations shall be under the supervision and direction of the Chief of Police. These police
operations include but are not limited to the following:
1. Prevention of crime. This activity or mission which seeks to minimize the causes of crime requires the
police to mingle with the community where criminal activities originate and breed and where the
criminalistic tendencies of individuals motivate them to indulge in anti-social behavior. This would enable
the individual peace officer to understand people and the environment in which they live. Crime prevention
in essence means the eradication of the desire on the part of the potential criminal to commit a crime.
2. Repression of Criminal Activities. This emph4- sizes the presence of an adequate patrol system
including the continuous effort toward eliminating or reducing hazards as the principal means of reducing
the opportunities for criminal action.
The saying The mouse will play while the cat is away, is doubly true in law enforcement, where
the presence of a policeman in uniform, would deter and discourage the would be criminal offender from
committing a crime or violating
local ordinance. Crime prevention means the elimination of the opportunity that exists on the part of the
would be criminal to commit an act punishable under the law.
3. Preservation of Peace and Order. This requires a peace officer to gain the sympathy of the community
so that they may close ranks in combating crimes and any other anti-social behavior. The community
should be informed through proper
education of their share and involvement in the maintenance of peace and order in their locality.
4. Protection of Lives and Property. This operation of providing for the safety and convenience of the
public is analogous with that of practicing physicians. The doctor protects life by combating disease and
promoting public health through preventive measures. The policeman insures public safety by eliminating
the hazard of accidents and
by guarding the citizens against the attack of the bad elements of society. The police has the grave
obligation to preserve the citizens constitutional guarantees of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
5. Enforcement of Laws and Ordinances and Regulation of Non-Criminal Conduct.
This requires a policeman to constructively integrate or enforce and implement the laws of the land as well
as local ordinances without regard to the personal circumstances of the individual citizens and any other
persons sojourning in the Philippines, in order to provide tranquility among the members of society. This
also includes the regulation of non- criminal conduct in order to obtain the compliance of the public
through education on the dangers inherent to the disobedience of regulations. This may be made through
the use of a warning device which would inform the citizens without necessity of imposing penalty or
sanction.
6. Apprehension of Criminals. This operation defines the statutory power of every policeman as a means
of discouraging the would-be criminal offender. The consequence of arrest and prosecution has a deterrent
effect intended to discourage crime or any unlawful act. It also lessens repetition by causing suspects to be
incarcerated, and it provides an opportunity for the reformation of those convicted. This activity likewise
includes the recovery of stolen property in order to restrain those who are accessories to the crime and or
those benefiting from the gains of crime.
7. Prompt Execution of the Criminal Processes of the Courts. The prompt execution of criminal processes
or writs of the courts is not so much to procure the conviction of one whom they suspect of criminal
offenses, whether they are in favor of or against the suspected person, but to present the facts fairly and
impartially to the proper court in order that justice may be served. Thus, in the investigation of offenders,
investigating officers are in some respect officers of the court, and though they exercise no judicial
functions, they must never forget that the whole scheme of justice is founded upon the principle of
fairness, reason, and impartiality in its administration. No peace officer shall compromise for crime nor
relentlessly prosecute criminals.
8. Coordination and Cooperation with Other Law
Enforcement Agencies. This activity underscores the duty of the superior officer of any unit of the
Integrated National Police and its subordinates to establish rapport or good relationship with other law
enforcement agencies of the government. Through rapport, a superior officer and his subordinates may be
able to maintain a harmonious working relationship with other law enforcement agencies of the
government whereby coordination and cooperation among them may be established. It may be worthwhile
for any police organization to remember to adopt the view that coordination is an essential conduct of
command.
9. Safeguarding Public Health and Morals. This involves many activities or missions peripheral to basic
law enforcement and public safety, such as sanitation, search and rescue operations, licensing, the
inspection of buildings in order to determine whether or not the Presidential Decree on Fire Prevention is

Page 8 of 24
strictly obeyed. Likewise it also includes escort duties, civic actions, and many other activities related
thereto.
The Police Tasks: Its Challenge and Diversity.
It is generally assumed by the public that the police enforces criminal laws and preserves peace
mechanically by simply arresting anyone who has deviated from legislative norms of acceptable behavior.
This concept of the mechanical enforcement of all criminal laws dramatically underplays the
difficulties of the police role. First, some local police stations do not have the resources to enforce all
criminal laws equally. Second, the other components of the Criminal Justice System simply cannot cope
with all law violations. Furthermore, the police are faced with enforcing numerous laws regulating social
conduct prostitution and gambling to name a few.
Since the police are always in the front line to prevent crime, they must be constantly alert to
potential violators and must attempt to reduce the opportunity for criminal behavior. This requires
vigilance on the part of the members of the PNP, an intuitive sense for suspicious conduct, and an
understanding of human behavior.
The complexity of the police task, therefore, is perhaps greater than that of any other profession.
The people expect the members of the PNP to possess the nurturing, caretaking, sympathetic, empathizing
and gentle characteristics of a human being and at the same time command respect, demonstrate
courage, control hostile impulses, and meet great physical hazards. We can think of no other profession in
this world which constantly demands such seemingly bionic characteristics.
A police agency that vigorously and efficiently enforces the law operates as a definite deterrent to
the commission of crime and delinquency and, therefore, contributes in a significant way to the prevention
and control of crimes.
The Philippine National Police in general and the local police stations in particular are in a better
position to draw up special programs for the prevention and control of crimes for the following reasons:
1. They have the best national statistics on the extent, scope, fluctuation and trend of crime and
delinquency;
2. Although perhaps undermanned, the police nevertheless, have more manpower than any other
component of the criminal justice system;
3. The police are the best informed regarding the methods of criminals and delinquents;
4. The police are regularly on duty twenty-four hours everyday;
5. Often the police are the first to learn about crime and delinquency;
6. The police usually have the first contact with the juvenile delinquents and often with the predelinquent juveniles;
7. The police usually have the most clearly defined legal power and authority to take action;
8. Usually the police are the ones who have the authority to apprehend adults engaged in the
exploitation of the youth;
9. The police have access to records which are not open to representatives of private and
unauthorized agencies;
10. In order to carry out their functions other agencies often require the assistance of the police;
and
11. Police stations are the best equipped to detect and identify individuals and most of the
conditions contributing to juvenile delinquency.
Community Relations.
The basic police purpose of preserving peace and protecting life and property is accomplished by
controlling the behavior of people. A persons conduct is determined either by what he wants to do, or by
what he is afraid of. Compliance with law and regulation is obtained either by developing a public
willingness to conform to the desired pattern of behavior or by compelling people to conform by threat of
punishment. Hence, the two processes enforcement and the development of attitudes favorable to law
observance cannot be completely separated, with the police free to choose one and reject the other. Their
use is a matter of judgment varying in degree or emphasis. The police because of its jurisdiction may
attempt to accomplish its purpose by enforcement with no attention to positively- motivated compliance
which uses a minimum enforcement on individuals when other methods fail.
The active interest and participation of the citizens is a source so vital to an effective, efficient,
economic and harmonious law enforcement and public safety that deliberate efforts should be made to
arouse, promote and maintain public concern over the objectives and affairs of the Philippine National
Police.
The police should not resent such attention nor should they regard as happy a situation in which the
public takes no interest in their work and evinces no desire to participate in the solution of their problems.
Indifference should not be construed as an indication that the public is satisfied with the work of the police
station, but rather as a warning that the public may, under slight provocation, violently object to police
procedures merely because they are not familiar with them.
The Meaning of Police Community Relations.
The Police Community Relations is the sum total of dealings of the police with the people it serves
and whose goodwill and cooperation it craves for to insure the greatest possible efficiency in public

Page 9 of 24
service. It spans: (a) the entire field of public information designed to bridge any communication gap
between the police and the public; (b) public relations intended to maintain harmony and mutual support
between the police and community development; and (c) mass communications for the purpose of
conditioning both the friendly and the hostile public, thereby insuring and facilitating the attainment of
police objectives.
Related Definition of Terms.
Public Relations The act of bringing about better understanding, confidence and acceptance of
an individual or an organization.
Police Public Relations The continuing process by which endeavors are made to obtain the
goodwill and cooperation of the public for the effective enforcement of the law and the accomplishment of
police purpose.
Human Relations Consists of those fundamental precepts, both moral and legal, which govern
the relationships of men in all aspects of life.
Need for Public Support.
The ultimate objectives of police community relations is to influence the
opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of the public so that they will behave in a manner beneficial to
the unit, in particular, and the PNP in general, either directly or indirectly, and to solicit public support in
order to make it easier for the police to accomplish their task successfully.
The execution of the plans of police activity requires the active support and
participation of the public. The integrated police, under a government for and by the people, are public
servants appointed to protect life and property in a manner approved by the people. If the police are out of
step with the people and attempt to impose on them unpopular programs of control, their efforts are
doomed to failure; and the administrator who continues to go against the will of the majority in his efforts
to regulate the conduct of the people will usually be putting himself in an untenable situation.
Foundation of Good Community Relations.
Efficient service as the basic foundation of good community relations is true in any
organization, most particularly in the police service whose clientele is the general public.
Since action is determined by frames of mind, the police should scrutinize their own
point of view to assure that it is a proper one. Their attitude will be determined by their concept of police
function as well as their stand on their duty toward the public. They should be able to distinguish between
the police functions. They should realize that the essence of a proper police attitude is the willingness to
serve. They should distinguish between service and servility, courtesy and softness. They must be firm, but
at the same time courteous; they must avoid an appearance of rudeness. They should develop a friendly,
impersonal, and unbiased manner, pleasant and personal in all-restrictive situations but firm and
impersonal on occasions calling for regulation and control. They should understand that they are
policemen and that the primary police purpose is to prevent violations and to arrest offenders.
Foundation of Public Relations.
Public relations is basically founded on the Golden Rule: Do not do unto others what you do not
want others do unto you.
The police is a social institution concerned with social problems. They are the
agency around which the community often rallies in times of tension and emergency. They cannot respond
by force alone. They must have other means of developing and sustaining civic peace. Greater emphasis
should be placed upon preventive policing, that is, programs aimed at the anticipation and hearing of
social conflict, the cause of which are so intimately related to the causes of crime and delinquency. Crime
prevention is generally recognized as an important police function. But the police can do little without
community cooperation and assistance. The police must take the initiative and show the way, in effect, to
assist the community to meet its responsibility, and at the same time, hopefully, to improve police
community relations. If the police fail in providing such leadership, the community tends to blame the
police for all manifestations of social bankruptcy. The police cry out against such scapegoating, but they
have only themselves to blame for the situation.
Thus, each and every member of the Philippine National Police should adhere
to the principles of police community relations in the interest of peace and order in the community, which
would then result in tranquility among the members of that society.
Republic Act No. 7438 An Act Defining Certain Rights of a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation, as well as the duties of the arresting, detaining, and
investigating officers, and providing penalties for violation thereof
Prosecution

Page 10 of 24

Nature and Office of a Prosecutor.

Prosecution is the process or method whereby accusations are brought before a court of justice to
determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. The prosecutor is not just an ordinary official of the
government; he is, as well an officer of the court whose criminal responsibility under the law is to carry out
the administration of the criminal justice system through an adequate examination of the offense charged
and to decide whether or not to prosecute the individual offender, without sacrificing fairness and justice.
He serves as a direct contact between the government, through the police agency and the court of justice,
and the criminals and the attorneys representing them. His series of contact is made from the moment he
receives the case to the criminal proceedings and even until up to the final disposition of that case in thetrial court. He deals with the court and the defendant for and in behalf of the government he represents.
In the criminal proceedings, the prosecutor has the basic responsibility of representing the
government in the courts of justice. This responsibility is based on the principle that acts and omissions
punishable by law when committed are always against the public interest and not only against the
offended individual. It is for this reason that in criminal proceedings the caption of the case is in the name
of the People of the Philippines vs. a particular individual(s). If the elements of the crime alleged to have
been committed are present, it is the prosecutors task of bringing the offender to the court through
criminal proceedings. He must see to it that an innocent party is not unfairly and unjustly prosecuted. He
must ensure that sufficient, strong and convincing evidence exists in order to prove the guilt of the
accused through the due process of law. The defendant through his lawyer then protects his interest and
sees to it that the prosecutor does not unjustly and unfairly prosecute the case. In effect, the trial of the
case is some sort of a battle of forensic of law. The prosecutor is the champion of the state he represents,
the lawyer is the clients champion.
Procedure in Preliminary Investigation Under the Present Rule of Law.
Long before the Judiciary Reorganization, the most common criticism of the criminal procedure
system of the country was the lack of uniformity in the procedure of conducting preliminary investigation.
Now under Republic Act No. 5180, dated September 8, 1968, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 911,
and lately by the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure, dated January 1, 1985, the procedure was made
uniform for preliminary investigation conducted by fiscals and other such officers authorized by law to
conduct preliminary investigation. The most salient feature of the changes concerned the authority of the
affidavit method of preliminary investigation in order to avoid the delays that usually happen during the
process.
Duty of the Investigating Fiscal.
If the investigating fiscal finds cause to hold the respondent for trial, he shall
prepare the corresponding information to be filed with the court. He shall certify under oath that he has
examined the complainant and his witnesses, that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty thereof, that the accused was informed of the
complaint and of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given an opportunity to submit
controverting evidence. Otherwise, he shall dismiss the complaint, stating the reasons therefor.
In either case, he shall forward the records of the case including the resolution to
the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor from receipt thereof, immediately informing the parties
of said action.
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed
by an investigating fiscal without prior written authority or approval of the provincial or
city fiscal or chief state prosecutor.
Where the investigating assistant fiscal recommends the dismissal of the case but
his findings are reversed by the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor on the ground that a
probable cause exists, the latter may, by himself, file the corresponding information against the
respondent or direct any other assistant fiscal or state prosecutor to do so, investigation.
If upon petition by a proper party, the Department of Justice reverses the resolution of the
provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, he shall direct the fiscal concerned to file the
corresponding information without conducting another preliminary investigation or to dismiss or move for
dismissal f the complaint or information.
Duty of the Investigating Judge.
Within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge
shall transmit to the provincial or city fiscal, for appropriate action, the resolution of tike case, stating
briefly the findings of facts and the law supporting his action, together with the entire records of the case,
which shall include: a) the warrant, if the arrest is by virtue of a warrant; b) the affidavits and other
supporting evidence of the parties; c) the undertaking or bail of the accused; d) the order of release of the
accused and cancellation of his bail bond if the resolution is for the dismissal of the complaint.

Page 11 of 24
Should the provincial or city fiscal disagree with the findings of the investigating judge, the fiscal
must explain his action in writing furnishing the parties with copies of his resolution, not later than thirty
(30) days from receipt of the records from the judge.
With the foregoing provisions, the first and foremost task of the prosecutor is to get the facts of the
case before doing anything. The reason for this is that the facts of the case determine what law or laws are
applicable to a case at bar. The ultimate task of the prosecutor is not to win, but to bring the case to
justice, in accordance with the rule of the in order to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. After
evaluating all the evidences, the prosecutor decides whether to file the necessary information or not. This
is the process where the prosecutor performs the screening function of the case by reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence before its prosecution.
Screening Functions of the Prosecutor.
The screening functions of the prosecutor are over upon the cessation of the filing of corresponding
information whereby the accused is either not held criminally liable for the offense he is alleged to have
committed or he settles the case amicably with the complainant.
The first method of screening is resorted to when there is doubt that a conviction can be obtained
either because the evidence is insufficient due to a lack or absence of credible witnesses, or nonprosecution or lack of interest on the part of the complainant or the act charged does not constitute the
crime alleged to have been committed. The second method is adopted when the accused will do
something to right the wrong in accordance with the rule of law. This usually happens when the accused is
willing to settle the case amicably with the complainant.
The two methods may be able to eliminate from the administration of criminal justice many cases
that do not need further prosecution. They are not tantamount to delaying tactics in the processing of
cases by the prosecutor or the court which undermine the publics respect and support of the judicial
machinery. These methods would rather lessen the backlog of cases that hamper judicial agencies.
In both methods, a competent prosecutor should task himself the following questions before filing
the corresponding information:
1.
Is there sufficient probable cause of a prima fade case of the guilt to warrant the
prosecution of the suspect and spend the money of the government for the trial of the
case?
2. If there is probable cause or prima facie, is there any reason that the filing of the corresponding
information should not be made? and
3. Will the filing of the information or non-filing of the same be in the best interest of the administration of
justice?
If the filing of information is warranted, the prosecutor should research further on the facts of the
case. The prosecutor makes the initial determination based on the facts known to the police officers who
conducted the investigation of the crime or who made the arrest.

Court
Judicial Procedure in Pre-Spanish Philippines.
All trials of criminal and civil cases in pre-Spanish Philippines were in public. The litigants in the
case pleaded their own case. There were no lawyers, court clerks or stenographers. The litigants presented
their witnesses. Before testifying, these witnesses took an oath to tell the truth. The oath was in various
forms, such as May the crocodile eat me! May I die if I tell a lie! May no woman love me! or May
the moon frown upon me! To our forefathers, their oath was sacred. Perjury was rare in the early trials.
The barangay court decided the case in favor of the litigant who presented more proofs than the other.
Trial by Ordeal.
In criminal cases, when there was doubt as to who of the accused persons was really guilty of the
crime, trial by ordeal was resorted to. It was believed that the gods protected the innocent and punished
the guilty. Through the ordeal the gods revealed divine truth to the people. Thus, an accused person who
was innocent was believed to be always successful in the ordeal because the gods would make him win.

Meaning of Court.
A court is a body to which the public administration of justice is delegated, being a tribunal officially
assembled under authority of law at the appropriate time and place for the administration of justice
through which the State enforces its sovereign rights and powers. It is an entity or body in which a portion
of judicial power is vested.
Meaning of Judge.

Page 12 of 24

A judge is a public officer so named in his commission (written evidence of appointment) and
appointed to preside over and to administer the law in a court of justice.
Court and Judge distinguished.
The two terms are frequently used as synonymous with each other. However, distinctions are
present. That a court is an incorporeal entity composed of one or more judges. It has a personality
separate and distinct from the men who compose it. A judge alone does not necessarily constitute a court,
for while he is an indispensable part he is not only a part of the court. It is elementary, however, that a
court cannot exist without a judge.
Judicial Power.
According to Article VIII Section 1 of the Constitution, Judicial power shall be vested in the Supreme
Court and in such inferior courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the
courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. In a
democratic form of government like the Philippines, the two branches, namely the legislative and the
executive carry the task or the role of administration and management1 respectively. The legislative
branch formulates the laws of the land and the latter implements said laws or policies. The legislation
enacted has to be interpreted and enforced in accordance with the rule of law by the judiciary branch of
the government.
Judicial power is the power to apply the laws to contests or disputes concerning legally recognized
rights or duties between the State and private persons, or between individual litigants in cases properly
brought before the judicial tribunal. In effect, judicial power, as defined by Chief Justice Concepcion, is the
authority to settle justifiable controversies or disputes involving rights that are enforceable and
demandable before the courts of justice, or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights.
Scope of Judicial Power.
The judicial power which is vested in the Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as may be
established by law includes the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.

To pass upon the validity or constitutionality of the laws of the State and the acts of the
other departments of the government;
To interpret and construe them;
To render authoritative judgments; and
It also includes the incidental powers necessary to the effective discharge of the judicial
functions such as the power to punish persons adjudged in contempt.

In line with their power to adjudicate, the following provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines are
applicable to it:
Article 8 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of
the legal systems of the Philippines;
Article 9 No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws;
Article 11Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be
countenanced;
Article 12 A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.
The aforementioned provisions show that the task of applying the law enables the judiciary to
partake in a limited way in the law-making function, given the lack of precision in language in laws and the
need to make legal norms adaptable to novel, yet delicate situations. According to Justice Holmes, the
essence of judicial functions, is to investigate, declare and enforce liability as they stand on present or past
facts and-under laws supposed already in existence. In order to do this, the judge appraises the evidence
submitted by both parties, whether oral, documentary or real.
Power to Punish Persons in Contempt.
The power of the court to punish persons adjudged in contempt is co-terminous with its judicial
power. In proceeding against the late Senator Sotto, for irresponsible and defamatory remarks against the
Supreme court, it was alleged that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take any action against him for
contempt, was not embraced in the grant of judicial power under the 1935 Constitution. The Supreme
court speaking through Justice Feria, rejected such contempt to the effect that the power to punish persons
adjudged in contempt is inherent in all courts of superior jurisdiction independent of any special expression
of statute. This is a doctrine or principle uniformly accepted and applied by the Court as a last resort in the
United States of America, and this is applicable in the Philippine setting since our Constitution and courts
of justice are patterned after those in the USA. However, in the People of the Philippines vs. Marcos, Justice
Laurel, as ponente, stated that inherent power to punish for contempt should be exercised on the

Page 13 of 24
preservative and not on the vindictive principle; and in the corrective and not on the retaliatory idea of
punishment. In the Villavicencio vs. Lukban case, when one is commanded to produce a certain evidence
but fails to do so, the court to vindicate its authority may adjudge the respondent guilty of contempt, and
order him either imprisoned or fined. An officers failure to produce the body of a person in compliance
with the writ of habeas corpus when he has the power to do so, is a contempt committed in the face of the
court.
Significance of the Court in the Administration of Criminal Justice.
The courts under the Constitution are entrusted with the function of deciding actual cases and
controversies. They do not participate actively in the process of administration, but are rather tasked with
adjudication by applying the law to the facts as established. It is precisely the duty of the Supreme Court
and inferior courts to apply the Constitution as the Supreme Law. Thus, in some instances, they may annul
executive or legislative action. Hence, the court has an influential role in the affairs of the government,
much more in the administration of the Criminal Justice.
Judicial independence.
Having been vested by the Constitution the judicial power to settle justice controversies, the judicial
independence of the courts is vital and indispensable in the exercise of their judicial functions. No judge
worthy of the name can dispose or mete out justice with an impartial eye and an even hand useless he can
decide the case or controversy before him on its merits alone. Men of courage, of character, and of
conviction, without whom the judiciary of any country is not likely to inspire public confidence, could be
available except on the guarantee that in their actuation they bow to no master unless it be the law, as
interpreted according to the learning and their conscience. Without such confidence, party litigants would
not bring their case to the courts of law, but rather take the law into their hands and redress their own
grievances. The judicial independence is not only applicable between private persons but between
government agencies, as well. This is so under the principle of a built-in system of checks and balances of
the three branches of the government. The courts, in the administration of criminal justice, is free to
perform their functions without interferences from the executive or legislative branch of the government.
For a government of law, and not of men can be assured only by a judiciary that is independent and free,
passionately devoted to the impartial administration of justice.
The Constitutional policy for an independent judiciary is further strengthened by the provisions
transferring from the Department of Justice to the Supreme Court the administrative supervision over all
courts and the personnel thereof the authority to assign temporarily judges of inferior courts to other
stations as the public interest may require, and the provisions giving specific authorization to the Supreme
Court to order a change of venue or place of trial to avoid a miscarriage of justice.
Organization of Courts.
1. Regular Courts.
The Philippine Judicial System consists of a hierarchy of courts resembling a pyramid with the
Supreme Court at the apex. Under the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980, otherwise known as the Batas
Pambansa Big. 129 (Rep. Act No. 129) the other regular courts are
1.
Intermediate Appellate Court. This operates in ten (10) divisions, each comprising five
(5) members. The court sits en banc only to exercise administrative, ceremonial, or other
non-adjudicatory functions;
2.
Regional Trial Courts. One which is presided by 720 Regional Trial Judges in each of the
thirteen (13) regions of the country;
3.
Metropolitan Trial Courts. In each metropolitan area, established by law are a Municipal
Trial Court in every city not forming a part of the Metropolitan area and each of the
municipalities not comprised within a metropolitan area; as well as a Municipal Circuit
Trial Court in each area defined as a municipal circuit comprising of one or more cities
and/or one or more municipalities grouped together
according to law.
2. Special Courts.
Aside from the above-mentioned courts, there are also under present laws some
special courts. These are the following:
1. Court of Tax Appeals. Created under Rep. Act No. 1125, as amended, this special court has
exclusive appellate jurisdiction to review on appeal the decisions of the Commission of Internal
Revenue involving internal revenue taxes and decisions of the Commissioner of Customs
involving customs duties.
2. Sandiganbayan. The Constitution provides that the National Assembly shall create a
specialized court, popularly known as Sandiganbayan. The creation was made possible by
Presidential Decree No. 1606.
3. Quasi-Judicial Agencies.
There are administrative bodies under the executive branch performing quasi
judicial functions, like the National Labor Relations Commission, Employees Compensation Commission,
Board of Transportation, etc., and the Independent Constitutional Commissions which do not form a part of

Page 14 of 24
the integrated judicial system. The same is true of the Court Martial. The authority for the ordering of Court
Martial pertains to the President as Commander-in-Chief, independently of legislation to aid him properly in
commanding the Armed Forces and enforcing the required discipline.
Jurisdiction of Courts.
In the case of Herrera vs. Barretto, jurisdiction is the power and authority of
a court to hear, try and decide a case.
It may be:
1. General When it is empowered to decide all disputes which may come before it, except those
assigned to other courts. (Example: jurisdiction of Regional Courts);
2. Limited When it has authority to hear and determine only a few specified cases. (Example:
jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Appeals);
3. Original When it can try and decide a case presented for the first time;
4. Appellate When it can take a case already heard and decided by a lower court removed from it
by appeal;
5. Exclusive When it can try and decide a case which cannot be presented before any court;
6. Concurrent When any one of two or more courts may take cognizance of a case;
7. Criminal That which exists for the punishment of crime; and
8. Civil That which exists when the subject matter is not of a criminal offense.
Composition of the Supreme Court and Its Sitting Procedure.
The 1973 Constitution expanded the membership of the Supreme Court from
ten (10) members under the 1935 Constitution to fifteen (15) including the Chief Justice, to cope with the
increase in the number of cases brought about by the increase in Filipino population.
The Supreme Court may sit en banc (as one body) or in three divisions. It is now the Supreme Court
that decides whether or not it will sit in three, five or seven divisions. On the basis of fifteen members, the
logical number in one division is seven (7) including the Chief Justice and five (5) in the other. Sitting in
three divisions, the Supreme Court doubles its capacity to dispose of cases pending before it.
Cases to be Heard or Decided En Banc and the Number of Votes Required.
The Supreme Court hears and decides cases en banc with the corresponding number of votes
required, to wit:
1. All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall always be
healed and decided by the Supreme Court en banc. To declare a treaty, executive agreement, or launconstitutional, it shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the members who actually
took part in the deliberation on the issues and voted thereon.
2. All other cases which under the rules of tile Supreme Court are required to be heard en banc shall
be decided en banc. The concurrence of at least eight (8) members is required.
3. Cases heard by division, if the concurrence of t least five (5) members is not obtained, shall be
decided en banc.
4. Cases modifying or reversing a doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in divisions shall be decided by the court sitting en banc, and;
5. In administrative cases where the decision is for the dismissal of a judge of an inferior court, the
vote of at least eight (8) members is necessary to order such dismissal.
Power of Judicial Review.
The power of judicial review is the power of the courts, ultimately of the Supreme Court, to interpret
the Constitution and to declare any legislative or executive act invalid because it is in conflict with the
fundamental law. This authority is derived by clear implication from the provision of Sections 4(2) and 5(2)
Article VIII of the Constitution. Through such power, the Supreme Court particularly, enforces and upholds
the supremacy of the Constitution. This is so because the courts are the appropriate official interpreters of
the constitution. Thus, a study of the constitution is in a large measure a study of judicial decisions and
opinions.
Courts Limitation on the Exercise of Power of Judicial Review.
The Supreme Court, though considered the highest tribunal of the land, has its own limitations on
the exercise of power of judicial review. These are the following:
1. There must be a concurrence of at least a majority of the members of the Supreme Court; who
actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in case and voted thereon.
2. A statute must be sustained unless clearly repugnant to the Constitution in view of the presumption
of validity. Otherwise stated, when there are two possible interpretations in which one statute would
be unconstitutional and the other would be valid, the court should adopt the latter;

Page 15 of 24
3. The question of wisdom, propriety, or necessity of law is not open to determination by the court;
and
4. Political questions which are decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of the
government, cannot be the subject of judicial review.
Along this line, however, the Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court the power to
declare a treaty unconstitutional despite the emminently political character of treaty-making.
Procedure in Rendering Decisions.
The Philippine Constitution, particularly Section 13, Article VIII, provides that, The conclusion of the
Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in
consultation before the case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion of the court. A
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the
record of the case and served upon the parties. Any member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained
from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by
all lower collegiate courts.
The apparent purpose of the law is to avoid the practice of assigning a case to one justice for study
and decision by him alone, with the other justices affixing their signatures to the decision merely as formal
routine. It is thus proper and incumbent on the justices to take a direct part in the consideration and
decision of every case. Decisions arrived at either en banc or in divisions, are assigned for the writing of
the opinion of the court.
Maximum Period of the Rendition of Decision.
As per Article VIII Section 15 of the Constitution, the court must decide or resolve a case or matter
submitted thereto within the following period from the date of submission, to wit:
1. Supreme Court within twenty-four (24) months;
2. Court of Appeals and other Collegiate Appellate Courts within twelve (12)
months unless reduced by the Supreme Court and
3. Inferior Courts within three (3) months unless reduced by the Supreme Court.
With regard to Sandiganbayan, Presidential Decree No. 1606 gives it three (3)
months to decide a case, after it has been submitted for decision.
BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 129
(Republic Act No. 129)
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE JUDICIARY
REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980
This law primarily deals with the creation of new courts, replaces those
which are declared abolished and allocates to each of the Inferior Courts their respective defined
jurisdiction. The subject therefore of jurisdiction of courts being substantive, it cannot be avoided that the
question of jurisdiction of various courts taking cognizance of a particular case will be involved in judicial
processes. Under the rule of law, lack of jurisdiction of the court over the person of the defendant or of the
case, would be a ground for dismissal of the same. It is here in the law where great changes in Remedial
Law have been brought about.
Jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction may be defined as the power possessed by a person or a body of men to dispose of a
cause or question judicially. A jurisdiction is exclusive when the court is the only entity in which the matter
in question can be disposed, to the exclusion of the other courts. A court has a concurrent jurisdiction
when it is one of several courts, any of which indifferently may entertain the cause. Original jurisdiction is
obtained when a court is authorized to entertain cause of action in the first instance. Appellate jurisdiction
obtains when the court receives and entertains a cause or case on appeal from another court. For purposes
of the Batas Pambansa 131g. 129 (Rep. Act No. 129) we should therefore discuss the jurisdiction of the
courts.
Trial Judge: A Sort of Chief Administrative Officer of the Criminal Justice System.
A trial judge is a sort of chief administrative officer of the criminal justice system, using his power to
dismiss cases as a method of controlling the use of criminal process. Some judges at times, when asked if
they would explain their decision to the police indicate that the responsibility for explaining decisions to
the police is not theirs, any more than it is with regard to private litigants. When asked whether they would

Page 16 of 24
suggest to the police proper ways of acquiring evidence in the future, some judges assert that it would be
unethical for them to do so unless they also coached the defense.
Occasionally a judge will grant a motion to suppress evidence in order to dismiss a case he feels
should not be prosecuted because the violation is too minor or for some other reason, The use of the
motion to suppress evidence in this manner serves to negate the standards that are supposed to guide the
police and this has a demoralizing effect upon police morale.
Most often the process of judicial review is seen. as a decision about the propriety of the actions of
the individual officer rather than a review of departmental administrative policy. Some judges seldom ask
for and, as a consequence, are not informed as to whether there is a current administrative policy. And if
there is one, they seldom ask whether the officers conduct in the particular case conforms to or deviates
from the policy. The decision of the trial judge is not even communicated to the police station and the
prevailing police practice often continues unaffected by the decision of the trial judge.
IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES
Penalty Defined.
In its general sense, penalty signifies pain; in its juridical sphere, penalty means the suffering
undergone, because of the action of society, by one who commits a crime. Hence, penalty is imposed only
after conviction in a criminal action.
Why is the Death Penalty Justified?
Since the offender who commits a crime punishable by death has proven himself
a dangerous enemy to society, it may be pointed out that the death penalty is some sort of self-defense
mechanism intended to dissuade criminal elements from committing capital crimes. The imposition of the
death penalty is held valid in the Philippines because we do not consider the nature of the substance of the
penalty but the form or mode of the punishment.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution, however, has abolished the imposition of the death penalty. To my
mind, this would be detrimental to the peace and order campaign. Criminologists and penologists should
have been consulted about the consequential damages, of the propose abolition.
Constitutional Limitations on Penalties.
Article III Sec 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that excessive penalties shall not be imposed
nor cruel or unusual punishment inflicted.
When is Penalty Considered Cruel or Unusual?
Punishment is cruel and unusual if the form or character of the punishment rather than its severity
in respect to duration or amount has been regarded as cruel and unusual by public sentiments such as
those inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning at stake, breaking on the wheel, etc.... Fine
and imprisonment are not within the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
Preventive and Corrective Measures Distinguished from Penalty.
Preventive measures take place before conviction measures are imposed except for criminal cases.
Penalty on the other hand, is always imposed upon conviction in a criminal case only. So, a fine imposed by
a superior officer upon a subordinate in the exercise of an administrative power is a corrective measure,
whereas if the fine is imposed upon an offender upon conviction in a criminal action, such will constitute
penalty.
What is a Capital Offense?
It is an offense which under the law existing at the time of commission and at the time of the
application for bail may be punished by death although a lower penalty than death may be imposed after
conviction.
Correctional Institutions
BASIC APPROACH INSTITUTIONS
The primary concern of penology is what to do with the prisoner. An old approach to this
fundamental calls for his elimination, or at least his banishment and isolation from society. But the era of
purely vindictive societal reaction has given way to the humane treatment of criminal offenders resulting in
the present-day policy or rehabilitation and reformation.
In this connection, there are three main schools of thought or approaches with regard to the
treatment of criminals. These schools are better known as the 1) classical, 2) neo-classical, and 3) positive
or Italian.
Classical School.

Page 17 of 24

This school lays stress on the crime and not on the person or criminal offender. In this approach,
punishment which is retributive and punitive, is standardized and proportioned to the gravity and nature of
the offense. It assumes that every individual has free will and knows the penal law. Moreover, it postulates
that man is a rational and calculating being who acts with reference to feelings of pleasure and pain; thus
he will refrain from criminal acts if the punishment imposed is sufficient to cancel hope of possible gain or
advantage.
hedonism wherein an individual calculates pleasure and pain in advance of action and regulates his
conduct by the results of his calculation. The general proposition therefore of this school is: It is necessary
to make undesirable acts painful by attaching punishment to them and to make the amount of pain thus
entirely different so that a prospective criminal could make his calculation on it and make it just sufficient
so that the pain would exceed the pleasure. Hence, imposition of punishment must be the same for all
individuals, regardless of age, mentality, social status and other personal conditions of criminal offenders.
Neo-Classical School
This approach to penology arose at the time of the French Revolution and the period immediately
thereafter. It maintains that while the classical school doctrine in general is correct it should be modified in
certain details. It argues that since children and lunatic persons cannot calculate pleasure and pain, they
should not be regarded as criminals and as such they should not be punished. The reaction to crime,
therefore under this school is no longer punitive; punishment is imposed on some lawbreakers but not on
others. By implication, individual responsibility was taken into account. Subsequently, it would be
necessary for the administrators of justice to consider the psychology and sociology of crime.
Positive School.
This school views crime as a social phenomenon and attaches importance to the criminal offenders.
To this effect, a criminal is like a sick man who needs not to be punished but treated in a hospital so that
his illness which has something to do with the commission of crime may be cured. The concept of guilt
must be substituted with that of Social Behavior, the incurable criminal is to be treated and the
correctional institution is to constitute a criminology hospital.
Hence, criminal offender should be considered as part of and not apart from society. It is through
the prisoners themselves as individuals and through their own efforts with the humanistic understanding of
society that the ultimate objective of the correctional institution to rehabilitate them will be achieved.
What are Jails?
Jails are primarily adult penal institutions used for the detention of law violators. Its original function
was to house pre-trial detainees or to serve as a place for the detention of accused persons charged with
having committed crimes. The detention was either for the accused persons safety and security, or to
secure him for expeditious legal proceedings by the court. Later it came into use for the service of shortterm sentences. Today it continues its dual role as a place of detention for those awaiting final disposition
of criminal action and for the service of short sentences of not more than six months, for those categorized
as city or municipal prisoners, and not more than three years or with a fine of not more than one thousand
pesos, for those categorized as provincial prisoners.13
Jails differ from prisons. Provincial and city or municipal jails are administered by the provincial and
city or municipal government, respectively, while prisons are administered by the state or national
government. Provincial jails are under the administrative control and supervision of the Bureau of Prisons.
On the other hand, the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) exercises administrative control and
supervision over city or municipal jails although these are under the operational control and supervision of
their respective mayors. This new set-up is one of the changes brought about by Executive Order No. 1040
dated July 10, 1985. Furthermore prisons, such as the National Bilibid
Prisons, house prisoners who by reason of their sentence may deprived of liberty for more than
three years, that is, not categorized as provincial jail inmates.
Importance of Jails
No one layman would or may be able to appreciate the importance of jails, unless and until he has
once stayed there for violation of any law or local ordinance. Jails are intended not for the purpose of
letting one pay for the crime he committed, or to serve as form of punishment of sorts, but to enable a
wrongdoer to be reformed and rehabilitated so that after his release he will become a law-abiding and
useful citizen of the community. Jails will serve as a deterrent as well to a would-be non-conformist to the
rules of society The first experience of an offender is impressive and lasting. The treatment that he
receives from the jail guards or maybe from his co-inmates may spell his early rehabilitation or may make
him a hardened criminal.
Categories of Prisoners under Presidential Decree _ No. 29

Page 18 of 24

Presidential Decree No. 29 categorized prisoners into the following:

a. City or municipal prisoners Persons who by reason of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not
more than six months. The imposition of not be taken into consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner
hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.
b. Provincial prisoners Persons who by reason of their sentence may be deprived of liberty for not more
than three years or are subjected to a fine of not more than one thousand and pesos, or both. But if a
prisoner receives two or more sentences in the aggregate exceeding the period of three years, he shall not
be considered a provincial prisoner. The imposition of subsidiary imprisonment shall not be taken into
consideration in fixing the status of a prisoner hereunder except when the sentence imposes a fine only.
c) All other prisoners are considered national prisoners.
The Three Aims of Correctional Reforms.
For the first time in the concept of Philippine Criminal Justice System, the following are the three
aims of correctional reforms, to wit:
1.

To provide judges with more options to deal with offenders through the use of probation, day fines,
commitment to community treatment centers, pre-trial release, and other measures short of
imprisonment.

2.

Improving condition in prisons and jails, including decongestion, improved housing, more effective
medical, educational, vocational training, and rehabilitation program services.

3.

Establishing an integrated correctional system that will insure the development of a unified
philosophy of treatment, implementation of uniform standards and policies, effective programs
planning and development, and efficient delivery of services to offenders while at the same time
protecting the interest and welfare of society.

Philippine Prisons System.

Of the components of the Criminal Justice System, correction is considered the weakest, mainly
because of its failure to reform offenders and prevent them from returning to a criminal life.
In the Philippines, correctional institutions are generally thought of as limited to jails and prisons.
This is so because in our system of criminal justice, imprisonment is the most commonly-used method of
dealing with criminals. In fact, it is oftentimes the only option given the judges in meting out penalties to
convicted offenders, except in certain minor cases where a fine may be imposed.
Correctional services in the Philippines are primarily the responsibility of the Bureau of Prisons
under the Department of Justice. In the strategy of social defense in the Philippines, the Bureau of Prisons
is entrusted with two broad goals:
1. To segregate from society persons who by their acts have proven
themselves dangerous to society; and
3. To strive at the correction of these prisoners with the hope that when they
return to society, they shall be able to lead normal, well-adjusted, self-supporting and useful
lives as useful and law-abiding citizens.
In line with this, there are more than 1,500 correctional institutions in the Philippines. Of this
number, eight are national prisons under the supervision and control of the Director of Prisons; 72 are
provincial jails, administered by the provincial governors and assisted by jail wardens; and 61 are city and
1,445 municipal jails which are administered by the local police agencies under the Philippine National
Police.
HISTORY OF EARLY PHILIPPINE PRISONS
The Organizational Set-Up of the National Bureau of Prisons.
The basic law on the Philippine Prison System is found in the Revised Administrative Code,
otherwise known as the Prison Law. The law specifically referred to is in Sections 1705 to 1751 of the said
Code.
The Prison Law states that the head of the Bureau of Prisons is the Director of Prisons who is
appointed by the President of the Philippines with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments.
The Bureau of Prisons has general supervision and control of national and provincial prisons and all penal
settlements and is charged with the safekeeping of all prisons confined therein or committed to the
custody of the said Bureau.
Bilibid Prison.

Page 19 of 24
It was in the year 1847 that the first Bilibid Prison was constructed and became the central place of
confinement for Filipino prisoners, by virtue of the Royal Decree of the Spanish Crown.
The plan of the old Bilibid Prison was such that the brigades were constructed in a radical spokes-ofa-wheel form. For easy command and control, a central tower was placed at the center of the spokes. This
was made of strong adobe stones so sturdy that even to this day after its transfer to the City Government
of Manila, it still stands and has been used by the City of Manila as the City Jail. The place is still famous for
its name as the May Haligue Estate, at the nearby Central Market of Manila.
In 1936, the City of Manila exchanged its Muntinlupa property of 552 hectares with that of the
Bureau of Prisons lot in Manila. This Muntinlupa State was originally intended as a site for the Boys Training
School. Because it is too far from Manila, the City of Manila preferred the site of the old Bilibid Prison.
Today, the New Bilibid Prison operates two satellite units, namely, Bukang Liwayway Camp and
Sampaguita Camp. These two camps are located a few hundred meters back of the New Bilibid Prison
Compound. Bukang Liwayway houses minimum security prisoners who work in the various projects of the
institution. In the Sampaguita Camp are located the Reception and Diagnostic Center, the Medium Security
Unit and the Youth Rehabilitation Center.
The New Bilibid Prison specializes in the industrial type of vocational training. It operates a furniture
shop, shoe repairing shop, blacksmith and tinsmith shop, auto-mechanics and automobile body building
shop, tailoring, electronics, watch repairing, carpentry and rattan furniture shop. It is also engaged in truck
gardening, poultry, piggery and animal husbandry.
The New Bilibid Prison offers a high school course which was established in 1956 for prisoners who
desire to complete their high school education
The San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm.
The Spanish authorities in 1869 saw the need of establishing one prison separate from Bilibid for
those who fought the established government. In effect, San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in Zamboanga
was established for the confinement of political offenders. Filipino fighters who advocated for reforms
against the Spanish Government and who were not executed or put to death were sent either to Guam or
the Marianas Island or to Zamboanga. The prison was named after its founder Capt. Ramon Blanco of the
Spanish Royal Army. One of the Filipino prisoners there during those days was Dr. Jose Rizal who fought for
reforms and was considered an enemy of the Spanish government.
The San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm has an area of 1,546 hectares. Its provincial product is copraone of the biggest sources of income of the Bureau of Prisons. It also raises rice, corn, coffee, cattle and
livestock.
The Iwahig Penal Colony.
The establishment of the Iwahig Penal Colony to serve as an institution for incorrigibles was
envisioned by Governor Forbes, who was then the Secretary of Commerce and Police. The first contingent
of prisoners from the Bilibid Prison to be confined in the Iwahig Penal Colony, however, revolted against the
authorities. In Nov. 1, 1905, the Philippine Commission under the authority of Reorganization Act 1407,
changed the policy by converting the Penal Colony from an institution for incorrigibles to a colony for wellbehaved and declared tractable prisoners. There being no walls, only mutual trust and confidence between
the wards and prison authorities keep them together. Today, the Iwahig Penal Colony enjoys the reputation
of being one of the best open institutions the world over.
With a land area of 36,000 hectares the colony is divided into four sub-colonies, name1y, Sta. Lucia
sub-colony, Inagawan sub-colony, Montible sub-co1ony Central sub-. Colony. Each operates as a small
institution under the charge of the Penal Supervisor.
The Iwahig Penal Colony administers the Tagumpay Settlement. The Settlement is 1,000 hectares, a
portion of which was divided into 6-hectare homestead lots, which were distributed to released inmates
who desired to live in the settlement.
One important feature of the Iwahig Penal Colony is the privilege granted to colonists to have their
families transported to the colony at government expense and to live with them in the village. The
institution maintains various community resources such as schools, churches, recreation centers, post
exchange centers, hospitals and clinics for the colonists and their families. The colonists who have their
families with them are assigned a piece of land to cultivate and are encouraged to raise poultry and
livestock for their personal use. Their products are sold by the Colony Post Exchange. The principal
products of the Iwahig Penal Colony are rice, corn, copra, logs, minor forest products and cattle.
The Davao Penal Colony.
This was established on Jan. 21,1932 in accordance with Act 3732 and Proclamation No. 414 series
of 1931. The first contingent of prisoners that opened the colony was led by General Paulino Santos, its
founder the Director of Prisons. The area consists of 18,000 hectares mostly devoted to abaca.
In 1942, this colony was used as a concentration camp for American prisoners of war. During the
war, the Japanese soldiers devastated the colony, destroying its buildings, machinery bind industries. In

Page 20 of 24
August 1946, the colony was reestablished and restored to its former productive activity by slow
reconstruction. This institution is now the main source of income of the Bureau Prisons from its vast abaca,
rice and other agricultural products. The colony has been engaged in a joint venture with Tagum
Development Company in a 3,000-hectare banana plantation.
The Correctional Institution for Women.
In 1931, the Correctional Institution for Women was established on an 18-hectare piece of land
Mandaluyong by authority of Act 357 which was passed on Nov.27,1929. Prior to the establishment of this
institution, female prisoners were confined in one of the wings of Bilibid Prison. Later, the need for a
female superintendent was felt, so a position for a female superintendent was created in 1934. Today, the
Correctional Institution for Women is an institution under the Bureau of Prisons with a separate budgetary
outlay for the needs of female prisoners. This is only penal institution for women in the Philippines. This
institution conducts vocational courses in dressmaking, beauty culture, handicraft, cloth weaving and
slipper making.
The Sablayan Penal Colony and Farm.
In 1954, there was a tremendous increase in the prison population in the New Bilibid Prison and so
the President issued Proclamation No. 72, dated September 7, 1954, setting asidf00 hectares f the virgin
land in Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, for the establishment of the Sablayan Penal Colony and Farm. At the
time, the New Bilibid prison which can hold only 3,000 had a population of 6,000 prisoners. Rice is the
principal products of the colony. It is self-sufficient in rice and also raises vegetables not only for the use of
the colony but also for the inmates of the New Bilibid Prison.
Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs
Rehabilitation programs of prisoners can be carried out through the process of classification and
custody and control of prisoners. Classification is more than placing prisoners into types or categories,
while custody and control of prisoners are important phases of prison management. Treatment services, on
the other hand, are geared toward improving an offenders attitudes and his philosophy of life.
In the modern concept of penology, a correctional institution in order to be an effective machinery
in the prevention and control of crime should see to it that its program is geared to protect society and at
the same time to rehabilitate the offender. Although this may entail a long range program of rehabilitation,
it is important nonetheless because its success will mean sending the offender back to the community as a
useful and law-abiding citizen for the rest of his life.

Process of Classification.
Classification is a method by which diagnosis, treatment, planning and execution of treatment
programs are coordinated in the individual cases. Its objectives are the development of an integrated and
realistic program for the prisoner, arrived at through the coordination of the diagnosis, planning and
treatment activities; and an informed continuity of these activities from the time of the arrival to the
release of the prisoner.
For this purpose, the following are the three phases of the classification process, namely:
1. Diagnosis
2. Treatment planning
3. Execution of treatment program
The first two take place at the reception center, which is a special unit separate from the prison, or
in the classification clinic of the prison. The third takes place at the operating institution or prison.
It is necessary that prisoners should undergo a diagnostic examination, study and observation for
the purpose of determining the program of treatment and training best suited to their needs and the
institution to which they should be transferred. These processes take place in the Reception and Diagnostic
Center.
The Reception and Diagnostic Center makes possible the careful study of offenders by a
professional staff, the segregation of prisoners based on scientific methods, the treatment of inmates
based upon a careful study of the individual inmate at the time of commitment, the improvement of
institutional programs or a close study of the inmates characteristics and needs made at the center, and
the development of research concerning the causes and treatment of delinquency or crime.
Custody and Control of Prisoners.
One of the important phases of prison management is the custody and control of prisoners. The
rehabilitation program in prison cannot be carried out if prisoners are not effectively controlled.

Page 21 of 24
The authorities of a correctional institution should consider the rehabilitation of prisoners as its
ultimate goal, though the primary objectives of the prison program is security. Thus, the rehabilitation of
prisoners cannot be attended to if the necessary structure, personnel and methods which provide for
security are not present. Security aims at the prevention of escapes, the control of contraband and the
maintenance of good order. So in order to meet the primary objectives of security, custodial facilities,
personnel and methods relating to escapes, contraband and good order should be given adequate
attention.
PARDON
Pardon is a form of executive clemency which is exercised by the Chief Executive. It is an act of
grace and the recipient of pardon is not entitled to it as a matter of right. The exercise of pardon is vested
in the Chief Executive, and as such is discretionary and is not subject to review by the courts. Neither does
the Legislative Branch of the Government have the right to establish conditions nor provide procedures for
the exercise of clemency.
History of Pardon.
The exercise of pardoning power has always been vested in the hands of the executive branch of
the government, whether King, Queen, President or Governor. Pardon dates back to the pre-Christian era.
In fact the Bible contains an allusion where a criminal was released and pardoned by the King at the time
Christ was crucified.
In England, pardon developed out of the conflict between the King and the Nobles who threatened
his powers. Pardon was applied to members of the Royal family who committed crimes, and occasionally to
those convicted of offenses against the royal power. It was the general view that the pardoning power was
the exclusive prerogative of the King. In England today the power to extend pardon is vested in the Queen
upon advise of the Minister of the Interior.
In the United States, pardon among the early American colonies was a carry-over of the England
practice. The pardoning power was exercised by the Royal governor through the power delegated by the
King. After the declaration of independence, the federal and state constitutions vested the pardoning
power on the President of the United States and the Governors in federal and state cases, respectively.
In the Philippines, the pardoning power is vested in the President by Article VII, Sec. 10, Par. (b) of
the Philippine Constitution which states:
The President shall have the power to grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and remit
forfeitures, after conviction for all offenses, except in cases of impeachment, upon such conditions and
with such restrictions and limitations as he may deem proper to impose. He shall have the power to grant
amnesty with the concurrence of the National Assembly.
Kinds of Pardon.
As practiced in the Philippines, there are two kinds of pardons, namely the absolute and conditional
pardon.
Absolute Pardon
Absolute pardon is one which is given without any condition attached to it. The purpose of this kind
of pardon are:
a.
b.
c.

To do away with the miscarriage of justice

To keep abreast with the current philosophy, concept or practice of criminal justice administration.
To restore full political and civil rights of persons who have already served their sentence and have
waited the prescribed period.

Differences Between Amnesty and Pardon.

Pardon includes any crime and is exercised individually by the Chief Executive, while amnesty is a
blanket pardon granted to a group of prisoners, generally political prisoners.
Pardon is exercised when the person is already convicted while amnesty may be given before trial
or investigation is held.
In Barrio Quinto, et al. vs. Fernandez, O.G. 303, the Supreme Court distinguished pardon from
amnesty in that pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is private which must be pleaded
and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty is by
proclamation with concurrence of Congress, and it is a public act which the courts should take judicial
notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction, while amnesty is granted to classes of persons who may
be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of criminal prosecution and
sometimes after conviction.

Page 22 of 24

Limitations of the Pardoning Power.

The power of the Chief Executive to grant pardon is limited to the following:
a.
Pardon cannot be extended in case of impeachment. (Art. VII, Sec. 10, Par. 2, Constitution of the
Philippines)
b.

No pardon, parole or suspension of sentence for the violation of any election law, may be granted
without favorable recommendation of the Commission on Elections. (Art. X, Sec. 2, Par. 2,
Constitution of the Philippines).

c.

Pardon is exercised only after conviction.

It is an elementary principle in political law that pardon can only be given after final conviction.
Cases pending trial or on appeal are still within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts, hence,
pursuant to the theory of separation of powers, the Chief Executive has no jurisdiction over the
accused.

Conditional Pardon.
Conditional pardon serves the purpose of releasing, through executive clemency, a prisoner who is
already reformed or rehabilitated but who cannot be paroled because the parole law does not apply to him.
Thus, a prisoner serving a determinate sentence or life imprisonment is excluded from the benefits of the
parole law. However, when this prisoner has already been reformed, he may be released on conditional
pardon.
Conditional Pardon Distinguished from Parole.
The purpose of conditional pardon and parole is the same the release of a prisoner who is already
reformed in order that he can continue to serve his sentence outside of the institution, thus giving him the
opportunity to gradually assume the responsibilities of a free man. Both releases are subject to the same
set of conditions, a violation of any of such conditions will subject the parolee or pardonee to be
recommitted to prison. The only difference between the two is the granting authority. In parole, the
granting authority is the Board of Pardons and Parole, while in conditional pardon, the granting authority is
the President.
Is Pardon Necessary in Our Penal System?
Judges are human and are therefore apt to commit errors. It is possible for an innocent
person to get convicted as it is possible for a criminal to escape the hands of justice to prove his
innocence, or he may not have the money to hire a good counsel. Many of our penal laws are outmoded
and have not kept abreast with the current trends of criminal justice administration. Judges are limited by
laws as to the use of discretion they may exercise in any given case. Under any of the above
circumstances, an injustice may result, which can only be remedied by the exercise of pardon.
Ideally, all releases should be by parole. Society can only be sufficiently protected against the ex-prisoner
if the latter is released through parole or conditional pardon. Unfortunately, not all sentences are
indeterminate so that some prisoners are deprived of the privilege of parole. Therefore, pardon is
necessary for the prisoners who do not fall under the parole law.
Other forms of Executive Clemency: Amnesty.
Amnesty is a general pardon extended to groups of persons and is generally exercised by executive
clemency with the concurrence of Congress. Usually the recipients of amnesty are the political offenders,
although there are some exceptions. For example, President Truman issued two proclamations granting
amnesty to unnamed persons, one at the end of World War II in 1945 and another at the end of the Korean
conflict in 1952. In these cases, the persons have been convicted of crimes against the United States but
were pardoned by the terms of a proclamation for having served in the armed forces for at least a year
during the conflict. Those who did so received pardons without having to apply for them.
Amnesty is extended to the convicted as well as to persons who have not yet been tried by the
court.
Commutation.
Commutation is an act of clemency by which an executive act changes a heavier sentence
to a less serious one or a longer term to a shorter term. It may alter death or life sentence to a term
of years. Commutation does not forgive the offender but merely reduces the penalty pronounced by
the court. In almost all instances commutation has been used to substitute a death penalty or life
sentence for a term of years.
Reprieve.

Page 23 of 24
Reprieve is a temporary stay of the execution of sentence. As in pardon, reprieve can only be
exercised by the President when the sentence has become final. Generally, reprieve is extended to death
penalty prisoners. The date of the execution of sentence is set back several days to enable the Chief
Executive to study the petition of the condemned man for the commutation of sentence or pardon.
Good-Conduct-Time Allowance.
Conditional release is the statutory shortening of the maximum sentence the prisoner serves
because of good behavior while in prison. This called good-conduct-time and is given by law as
motivation for good behavior while serving sentence in prison.
Good-conduct-time allowance is automatically applied to reduce the sentence but may be taken
away from the prisoner if he fails to obey the rules and regulations of the prison. However, good-conducttime allowance may be remitted as a reward for exceptional services the prisoner may render to the prison
administration, or after the lapse of some time when the prisoner has sufficiently demonstrated that he
has reformed.
If the prisoner does not forfeit his statutory good-conduct-time allowance through misbehavior, he
is released at the expiration of his sentence less the period of good-conduct-time earned. He is released
under supervision as if on parole and subjected to all parole conditions which, if violated, will result in the
issuance of a warrant, revocation of his release, and the requirement that he return to prison to serve the
maximum term.
In the Philippines, the prisoner who is released from prison after serving his sentence less the goodconduct-time allowance, is released without any condition and is considered to have served his sentence in
full.
Act No. 2489, otherwise known as the Industrial Good Time Law, pries that when a prisoner has
classified as trusty or penal colonist, he is given an additional 5 days time allowance for every month of
service. A prisoner serving lifetime sentence as his sentence automatically reduced to 30 years of
imprisonment upon attaining the classification of trusty or penal colonist.
Rule of Probation in the Correctional System
Probation is a part of the correctional system. It cannot be properly considered as an independent
subject. It is only a phase of penology, and therefore, it must be viewed in its relation to other aspects of
the enforcement of the criminal laws and its proper perspective. It is only a part of an entire structure and
only a single feature of a well-grounded system.
Probation is a form of treatment of the convicted offenders. It is not clemency, pity, or leniency to
the offender, but rather a substitute for imprisonment. There are some offenders who must go to prison for
their own good and for the good of society because their presence in the community constitutes a threat to
law and order. Others less inured to crime can remain in the community after conviction where they are
given a chance to conform with the demands of society Probation is compared to an out-patient. The outpatient does not need to be hospitalized because his sickness is not serious. However, the patient must
remain under the care and supervision of his family physician in order that his sickness will not become
more serious. Similarly, the probationer does not need to go to prison, but he should remain under the
supervision and guidance of his probation officer in order that he will not become a more serious offender.
Probation is given in cases in which the ends of justice do not require that the offender go to prison.
This is so when all the following circumstances exist: that there is a strong likelihood that the defendant
will reform; that there is little danger of his seriously injuring or harming members of society by further
crimes, as for instance, his case is not a violent crime and that he has no previous record of conviction;
and that the deterrent effect of imprisonment on other criminals is not required.
Community
The prevention and control of crime is not only the sole duty and responsibility of the government,
particularly the first four components of the criminal justice system. It is as well the duty and responsibility
of the society band every member of the community The old saying that An ounce of prevention is worth
a pound of cure is true medicine as well as in the realm of crime. It is far easier and much cheaper to
prevent crime, than to investigate and solve crime. Much of the anguish, loss and damage caused by crime
can be simply avoided by preventing it at its cause.
The community as the fifth component of criminal justice includes but is not limited to individuals,
private groups and public entities who when performing or are involved in related criminal justice activities
became a part of the system. Thus, prisoners helping to rehabilitate themselves are involved in the
criminal justice system. In the same manner, a law-making body becomes part of the system at the time
it is engaged in the process of enacting a proposed law intended to improve law enforcenient or
correctional methods. In the same token, any executive agency of the government such as the

Page 24 of 24
educational, e1fre, labor, health, community development, or any pLblic office becomes a part of the
system while engaged in aciies directly or indirectly contributing to the prevention or control of crime.
Private associations or unions, neighb,rlwod action groups and individual citizens may also beccme
important functionaries of the system if involved in uclh types of