Case Digest (G.R. No. 212719)
Facts:
Inmates of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, et al. v. Secretary Leila M. De Lima, et al., G.R. Nos. 212719 and 214637, June 25, 2019, the Supreme Court En Banc, Peralta, J., writing for the Court. Petitioners are groups of inmates at the New Bilibid Prison and intervening counsel (including Atty. Rene A.V. Saguisag, Sr., and the Free Legal Assistance Group representing William M. Montinola and others); respondents are Secretary Leila M. De Lima (DOJ), Secretary Manuel A. Roxas II (DILG), with BUCOR and BJMP officials impleaded in G.R. No. 214637.In 2013 Congress enacted R.A. No. 10592, amending several Articles of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to increase GCTA and related credits; the law took effect June 6, 2013. Respondents jointly promulgated Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) on March 26, 2014 (effective April 18, 2014). Petitioners challenged Section 4, Rule I of the IRR, which directed that the grant of good conduct time allowance (GCTA), time allowance for study, teaching and mentoring (TASTM), and special time allowance for loyalty (STAL) be applied prospectively.
In G.R. No. 212719 Roxas et al. filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (June 18, 2014) arguing the IRR contradicted Article 22 RPC and unlawfully denied retroactive application; leave to intervene was granted to Atty. Saguisag (July 11, 2014) and FLAG (Oct. 21, 2014). In G.R. No. 214637 Edago et al. filed a certiorari and prohibition petition (Oct. 24, 2014) raising grave abuse, Article 22 violation, and constitutional claims (equal protection and substantive due process). The Office of the Solicitor General and prison agencies filed comments. The two cases were consolidated by the Court (Resolution dated June 16, 2015). The petiti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is the controversy justiciable — specifically, do petitioners present an actual case or controversy and satisfy ripeness to challenge Section 4, Rule I of the IRR?
- Do petitioners have legal standing to challenge the IRR?
- Were certiorari and prohibition (and the Court’s direct adjudication) a proper remedy despite the hierarchy of courts and RTC’s jurisdiction over declaratory relief?
- Is Section 4, Rule I of the IRR — directing prospective application of GCTA, TASTM, and STAL under R.A. No. 10592 — valid under Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code and related law?
- Did respondents exceed their rule-making authority in issuing Section 4, Rule I of the IRR (and, relatedly, does the prospective rule v...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)