Title
Re: Jail Transfer of Persons Deprived of Liberty Sentenced to Three Years and Below Sentenced Without the Necessity of a Court Order or a Mittimus
Case
A.M. No. 25-01-25-SC
Decision Date
Nov 11, 2025
Administrative transfer of PDLs (≤3 yrs) to decongest jails requires court approval & respects due process.
jail transfer
persons deprived of liberty
mittimus order

Case Summary (A.M. No. 25-01-25-SC)

Factual Background

BJMP’s proposal was anchored on a BJMP Memorandum dated August 2, 2024, issued by Jail Chief Superintendent Felixberto S. Jagorin, Jr., Director for Welfare and Development. The scheme aimed at jail decongestion and the promotion of PDL welfare by allowing transfers initiated by the BJMP for PDLs sentenced to three years and below, while maintaining court oversight for cases still under litigation.

The proposed guidelines limited the scope of the administrative transfer to specific categories. Transfers were to cover only PDLs sentenced to three years and below, while insular prisoners or those sentenced to more than three years were to be transferred to national penitentiaries under the Bureau of Corrections pursuant to OCA Circular No. 266-2023. For PDLs who were undergoing trial, the transfer was to be subject to the approval of the courts.

Under the BJMP blueprint, the jail wardens of the original jail units were to notify the concerned courts in writing after the transfer, and the scheme expressly stated that there was no need to request issuance of a new mittimus order. Jail wardens of receiving units were also to inform the courts when the transferred PDL was released upon completion of sentence, in accordance with OCA Circular No. 201-2022. The transfer was to be implemented to nearby municipalities within the same region or another region to allow continued family visitation, and the families were to be informed by the original jail wardens. In addition, the Summary of Credited Preventive Imprisonment and Granted Time Allowances, together with other required commitment documents, was to be furnished to the receiving jail unit to facilitate accurate computation and avoid overstaying.

Finally, the proposal assigned to BJMP regional directors, through regional paralegal officers, the monthly determination of which sentenced PDLs could be transferred under the guidelines and the identification of less congested or uncongested jail units where they could be relocated, followed by the issuance of directives to implement the transfers and submit notices to the courts.

OCA’s Evaluation and Recommendations

The OCA found several grounds to recommend the BJMP proposal favorably. First, it was noted that the administrative transfer framework would not disturb prior OCA issuances regarding the transfer of PDLS (including that the affected PDLs were not considered national prisoners; that pending litigation cases would remain subject to court approval; that the courts would still issue the corresponding mittimus or commitment order upon execution of judgment, with what was being altered being only the transfer after such event; that courts would still be informed after transfer; and that transfers were to be made within the same city or municipality and the same region while maintaining the transfer of required documents for monitoring of release dates).

Second, the OCA viewed the proposal as efficient because the BJMP was in a better position to evaluate the best interests of PDLs, and court issuance of a new mittimus order could delay transfers. It also considered the post-transfer notice to the courts as a safeguard against abuse.

Third, the OCA regarded the administrative transfer approach as directly responsive to jail congestion.

Nonetheless, the OCA made supplemental recommendations to strengthen safeguards and operational safeguards for PDL welfare. The OCA advised that notice to the courts should be made immediately after transfer or no later than three days. It also proposed that the transfer venue should be the nearest possible location where the PDL was originally jailed, taking into consideration privileges affected by distance, such as the privilege to view the remains of a deceased relative within a 30-kilometer radius by road, or the limited extension mechanism recognized in the governing Corrections Operating Manual. The OCA further recommended that transfers should consider the consequences to the PDL and their families, and that consultation with the PDL and the family should occur on the proposed transfer.

The Broader Crisis of Jail Congestion

In supporting the need for a structured decongestion mechanism, the Court took judicial cognizance of overcrowding and relied on reported prison population data. The Court cited statistics indicating that the Philippines had one of the highest numbers of prisoners globally and that the corrections system saw a substantial increase in persons deprived of liberty from 2015 to 2021. The Court also referenced UNODC reporting on jail and prison overcrowding and the congestion rate for 2023, as well as the distribution of PDLs across the criminal process, highlighting that the vast majority were awaiting investigation, trial, or final judgment, while only a smaller fraction had been sentenced.

The Court further noted that among jail facilities nationwide, a majority were congested, with the most congested areas reported in the National Capital Region, CALABARZON, and Region VII. The Court acknowledged that the issue had long persisted, recalling that as early as 1981 it had taken notice of cramped detention conditions in jails, as reflected in jurisprudence such as People v. Melendres and later decisions including In re Alejano v. Cabuay. The Court also referenced how, during the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns about proximity within facilities affected litigation for provisional release, as shown in Almonte v. People, including separate opinions that discussed detention conditions and humanitarian considerations.

To address jail congestion, the Court cited various Supreme Court and OCA issuances, including A.M. No. 12-11-2-SC on guidelines for decongesting holding jails by enforcing the rights of accused persons to bail and speedy trial. It also referenced OCA Circular No. 270-2016 requiring inquiry into jail conditions and possible temporary suspension of transfers to overcrowded facilities, and OCA Circular No. 91-2020 which reiterated during the pandemic the directives for judges to adhere to decongestion guidelines. The Court also mentioned OCA Circular No. 201-2022, which declared that trial courts no longer need to issue release orders for PDLs who have completed service of sentence and when no other lawful reason exists for continued incarceration, coupled with directives for reporting qualified PDLs.

The Court also referenced developments in international corrections reform following the Philippines’ commitment to adopting changes to improve detention conditions and to uphold human rights and dignity in detention, consistent with the Nelson Mandela Rules.

Jurisprudential and Administrative Background on Transfers

The Court recognized that it had previously issued resolutions on transferring national prisoners, or those sentenced to imprisonment exceeding three years, to other national penal institutions. Those resolutions required the issuance of a mittimus order by courts, but the shared objective was the relief of jail congestion.

The Court emphasized that expanding the ability to transfer sentenced PDLs serving sentences of three years and below to other jail units with less congested cells could provide a more immediate solution. It supported this by noting that a substantial majority of convicted PDLs fell within the three years and below sentencing category, with a smaller portion serving more than three years.

The Parties’ Proposed Scheme and the Court’s Modifications

The Court approved with modifications the BJMP proposal dated August 2, 2024 and the OCA recommendations contained in its Memorandum dated January 20, 2025. The Court accepted the proposition that the transfer proposal and OCA recommendations did not require a court order in the BJMP design. Nevertheless, the Court deemed it proper that a mittimus order be issued. The Court also determined that, instead of a mere notice of transfer after movement, there should be a pre-transfer judicial request.

Accordingly, the Court adopted a requirement that the request for transfers be filed before the relevant courts at least ten days prior to the intended transfer, with copies furnished to the families of the concerned PDLs. The Court further required that the request include, among others, the purpose for the transfer, the intended receiving jail unit and its congestion capacity, and relevant details about the PDL, including at least the duration of the sentence and the remaining period to be served. The Court directed that once a court request is received, the courts must act within five days, either approving or denying the transfer and stating the reasons.

If the transfer was approved, the Court required the issuance of a mittimus order. It also required that courts be continually updated on whereabouts through monthly monitoring reports submitted by regional directors of the Jail Bureau.

The Court framed this administrative-jurisdictional structure as necessary to address the prison congestion crisis while ensuring protections for PDL rights. It described prison overcrowding as complex and as demanding a balance between administrative efficiency and protection of fundamental rights and dignity. It invoked leadership statements emphasizing humane jail management and responsive justice, particularly for persons whose lives and liberty depend upon it.

Issued Guidelines and Implementation Directives

The Court’s approved and adopted guidelines governed transfers to other jail units of PDLs sentenced to three years and below. The first guideline required that BJMP, through jail wardens of the original jail unit, file a request for transfer before the concerned court at least ten days before the intended transfer, with copies furnished to the families. The request had to include the purpose for transfer, the intended receiving jail unit and its occupation capacity and/or c

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms