The intent of the law is clear. If convicted criminals behave themselves and show real remorse and rehabilitation during their time in jail, their sentences could be re-computed to factor in their good behavior, and they could hope to be set free sooner than their original release date.
These lofty notions, however, could be twisted and manipulated by how the law is actually written. Such is the power of words.
In extreme cases, the result can actually achieve the complete opposite of the law's intent. It could lead to greater problems and leave issues unresolved and conflicted.
This is what we are seeing with Republic Act 10592, a 2013 law passed during the previous administration.
While the law has been effect for several years now, it is only upon the furor caused by the near-release of rapist and murderer Antonio Sanchez that it came to our attention. And now we find out that since 2014, the government, under the law, has been releasing convicts—62 in 2014, 105 in 2015, 212 in 2016, 335 in 2017, 384 in 2018 and 816 this year so far—some of them for heinous crimes.
But should not those convicted of heinous crimes be excluded, in the first place, from being beneficiaries of the law owing to the nature of their offense?
It should have been clear at the outset, and we are aghast to discover that it is not—not in the law, not in the Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The vagueness, even silence, on the exclusions thus lends the system vulnerable to all sorts of interpretation. Indeed while the spirit of the law appears obvious to many, there is nothing to stop those who may wish to stretch its interpretation.
We have the Sanchez case to thank for bringing to fore the flaws of the law that has set free hundreds of convicts, regardless of whether their crime was heinous or not. These would have continued, unfettered, had there been no public outrage against Sanchez's impending release.
In the meantime, those tasked to implement laws should at least exercise their good judgment—though “good” is questionable—and ask whether what they are implementing, even if it complies with the letter, does not make a mockery of the spirit of the law.
