PRELIMS

LESSON 1
Evolution of the correction in the world
13th Century – Securing Sanctuary
In the 13th century, a criminal could avoid punishment by
claiming refuge in a church for a period of 40 days.
16th Century – Transportation of criminals in England was
authorized. At the end of this century, Russia and other
European Countries followed this system. This practice
was abandoned in 1835.
Gaols - (jails) – the description given to pretrial detention
facilities operated by English sheriff in England during the 18th
century.
Galleys – long, low, narrow, single decked ships propelled by sails,usually rowed by criminals. A type of ship used for transportation of
criminals in the 16th century.

Hulks – these are former warships used to house prisoners in the 18th and 19th century.

-These were abandoned warships converted

into prisons as means of relieving
congestion of prisons. They were called as
the floating hells.
Ordeal – is the church’s substitute for a trial until
the 13th century wherein guilt or
innocence was determined by the ability
of the accused of being unscathed
through dangerous and painful test.
Charlemagne (Carolus Magnus)– gave bishops the power to act as real judges which enabled bishop tribunal to rule on secular matters.
- King of Franks and Roman Emperor.
EARLY CODES:
1. Babylonian and Sumerian CodesCode of King Hammurabi
(Hammurabic Code) – Babylon, credited as the oldest code prescribing savage punishment. But in fact, Sumerian codes were nearly 100 years
older.
2. Roman and Greek Codes
a. Justinian Code – 6th century AD, Emperor Justinian of Rome wrote his code of law. An effort to match a desirable amount of
punishment to all possible crimes. However, the law did not survive due to the fall of the Roman Empire but left a foundation of Western Legal
codes.
The Twelve Tables (451-450 BC) –represented the earliest codification of Roman law incorporated into the Justinian code.
b. Greek Code of Draco – Greece, a harsh code that provides the same punishment for both citizens and the slaves as it incorporates primitive
concepts.
- The Greeks were the first to allow any citizen to prosecute the offender in the name of the injured party.

3. The Burgundian Code (500 AD) –it specified punishment according to the social class of
offenders, dividing them into: Nobles, Middle class and Lower class and specifying the value of the life of each person according to social
status.
EARLY PRISONS:
Mamertine Prison – the only early Roman place of monfinement which is built under the main sewer of Rome in 64 B.C.
Bridewell (1557) – the most popular workhouse in London which was built for the employment and housing of English prisoners.
- used for locking up vagrants,beggars, prostitutes and other misfits
Saint Bridget’s Well – England’s first house of correction.
Walnut Street Jail – originally constructed as a detention jail in Philadelphia. It was converted into a state prison and became the first
American Penitentiary.
Hospicio de San Michelle –the first home for delinquent boys ever established. Built by Pope Clement XI in Rome for housing incorrigible
youths under 20 years of age.
The Pioneers
1. William Penn (1614-1716)
He is the first leader to prescribe imprisonment as correctional treatment for major offenders.
He is also responsible for the abolition of death penalty and torture as a form of punishment.He fought for religious freedom and individual
rightscrime.
2. Charles Montesquieu
(Charles Louis Secondat, Baron de la Brede et de Montesiquieu – 1689 –1755)
A French historian and philosopher who analyzed law as an expression of justice. He believed that harsh punishment would undermine
morality and that appealing to moral sentiments as a better means of preventing crime.
.VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet, 1694-1778)
He believes that fear of shame was a
deterrent to crime. He fought the legality-sanctioned practice of torture.
4. Cesare Beccaria (Cesare Bonesa, Marchese de Beccaria, 1738-1794)
- He wrote an essay entitled “ An Essay on Crimes and Punishment”. This book became famous as the theoretical basis for the great reforms in
the field of criminal law. This book also provided a starting point for the classical school of criminal law and criminology.
5. Jeremy Bentham – (1748-1832)
- the greatest leader in the reform of English Criminal Law. He believes that whatever punishment designed to negate whatever pleasure or
gain the criminal derives from crime, the crime rate would go down.He devise the ultimate PANOPTICON
PRISON– a prison that consists of a large circular building containing multi cells around the periphery but it was never built.
6. John Howard (1726-1790) – the “Great Prison Reformer”
- The sheriff of Bedsfordshire in 1773 who devoted his life and fortune to prison reform. After his findings on English Prisons, he recommended
the following:
• single cells for sleeping • segregation of women
• segregation of youth • provision of sanitation facilities
• abolition of the fee system by which jailers obtained money from prisoner

7. Alexander Macanochie – He is the Superintendent of the penal colony at Norfolk Island in Australia (1840) who introduced the Mark System.
A progressive humane system in which a prisoner is required to earn a number of marks based on proper department, labor and study in order
to entitle him for ticket for leave or conditional release which is similar to parole.

*Macanochie’s Mark System cosnsist of 5 stages:

1. Strict custody upon admission to the penal colony
2. Work on government gangs
3. Limited freedom on the island within
a prescribed area
4. Ticket of leave
5. Full restoration of liberty
8. Manuel Montesimos – The Director of Prisons in Valencia Spain (1835) who divided the number of prisoners into companies and appointed
certain prisoners as petty officers in charge, which allowed good behavior to prepare the convict for gradual release.
9. Domets of France –Established an agricultural colony for delinquent boys in 1839 providing housefathers as in charge of these boys.
10. Sir Evelyn Ruggles Brise – The Director of the English Prison who opened the Borstal
institution for young offenders.
Borstal Institution – is considered as the best reform institution for young offenders today.
11. Walter Crofton – he is the director of the Irish Prison in 1854 who introduced the Irish
system that was modifies from the Macanochie’s mark system.
12. Zebulon Brockway – the Director of the Elmira Reformatory in New York (1876) who introduced certain innovational programs like the
following training school type,compulsory education of prisoners,casework methods, extensive use of parole, indeterminate sentence.

The Elmira Reformatory – considered as the forerunner of modern penology because it had all the elements of a modern system.

13. Jean Jacques Philippe Villain –founded the Maison de Force in Gent, Belgium. He introduced:
a. felons and misdemeanants should be
separated and
b. women and children must have separate
quarters
14. Fred T. Wilkinson- the last warden of Alcatraz Prison
15. James Bennet – director of Federal Bureau of Prisons who wrote about the closing of Alcatraz Prison.
Alcatraz Prison
- opened in 1934, closed on March 31, 1963 but it was costly on operation. When it closed, it has 260 inmates.
- now, a tourist destination in New York.
•Australia – the place which was a penal colony before it became a country.
- convicted criminals in England were transported to Australia, a colony of Great Britain when transportation was adopted in 1790 to 1875
Two Rival Prison System in the History of Corrections:
1. The Auburn Prison System –also known as the “Congregate System”
- The prisoners are confined in their own cells
during the night and congregate work in
shops during the day. Complete silence was
enforced.
2. The Pennsylvania Prison
System – also known as the “Solitary System”

- Prisoners are confined in single cells day and night where they lived, slept, ate and receive religious instructions. Complete silence was also
required.
- Prisoners are required to read the bible.

LESSON 2
Time before enlightenment
Justice was often arbitrary or based on superstition
Punishment was cruel and did not fit the crime
Pre-classical Perspectives & Punishments
The period of seventeenth and eighteenth century in Europe was dominated by the scholasticism of Saint Thomas Aquinas. The dominance of
religion in State activities was the chief characteristic of that time. In political sphere, thinkers such as Hobbes and Locke were concentrating
on social contract as the basis of social evolution. The concept of Divine right of king advocating supremacy of monarch was held in great
esteem. As scientific knowledge was yet unknown the concept of crime was rather vague and obscure.

There was a general belief that man by nature is simple and his actions are controlled by some super power. It was generally believed that a
man commits crime due to the influence of some external spirit called ‘demon’ or ‘devil’.
Thus an offender commits a wrongful act not because of his own free will but due to the influence of some external super power. No attempt
was, however, made to probe into the real causes of crime. This demonological theory of criminality propounded by the exponents of
pre-classical school acknowledged the omnipotence of spirit, which they regarded as a great power.

The pre-classicals considered crime and criminals as an evidence of the fact that the individual was possessed of devil or demon the only cure
for which was testimony of the effectiveness of the spirit. Worships, sacrifices and ordeals by water and fire were usually prescribed to specify
the spirit and relieve the victim from its evil influence. An ordeal is an ancient manner of trial in criminal cases. When an offender pleaded
“not guilty”, he might choose whether he would put himself for trial upon God and the country, by 12 men or upon God only, and then it was
called ‘the judgment of God’, presuming that God would deliver the innocent. Examples of such ordeals are, throwing into fire, throwing into
water after tying a stone to his neck, administration of oath by calling up God’s wrath, trial by battle, etc.

Trial by battle was common mode of deciding the fate of criminal. The oaths and ordeals played a very important role in the ancient judicial
system in determining the guilt of the offender. The justification advanced for these rituals was the familiar belief that “when the human
agency fails, recourse to divine means of proof becomes most inevitable”. Though these practices appear to be most irrational and barbarous
to the modern mind, they were universally accepted and were in existence in most Christian countries till thirteenth century. The Roman law
completely ignored the system of ordeals and it was forbidden in Quran.

The right of society to punish the offender was, however, well recognized. The offender was regarded as an innately depraved person who
could be cured only by torture and pain. The evolution of criminal law was yet at a rudimentary stage. Hobbes suggested that fear of
punishment at the hands of monarch was a sufficient deterrent for the members of early society to keep them away from sinful acts which
were synonymous to crimes. Thus the theosophists, notably St. Thomas Aquinas and the social contract writers such as Donte Alighieri,
Machiavelli, Martin Luther and Jean Bodin provided immediate background for Beccaria’s classical school at a later stage. The pre-classical
thinking, however, withered away with the lapse of time and advancement of knowledge.

The Classical School of Criminology

The Classical School of theories remains important to our current understanding of these issues, even though they have fallen out of favor to
some extent. What distinguishes them is their emphasis on individual “free will” as well as rational decisionmaking – aspects of crime that are
not always emphasized by contemporary theories. The Enlightenment helped to provide Classical theory with a framework for thinking
through decisionmaking and rationality. The work of Cesare Beccaria here proved to be highly influential and he is considered to be the father
of the Classical School of Criminal Justice.

Cesare Beccaria
Beccaria advocated swift punishment as the best form of deterrent to crime. His best-known work was his treatise On Crimes and
Punishments (1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty. This work still stands as a pioneering study in the field of criminology.
Here, he argued that capital punishment was neither useful as a deterrent, nor was it necessary or ethically appropriate for the state to take
the life of any of its citizens. The book tackled criminal reform and suggested that criminal justice should conform to rational principles.

painful and corporeal punishment should never be applied to an fanaticism for being founded on pride it glories in persecution

Beccaria’s Understanding of Punishment

3 Characteristics

Punishment must be swift

Punishment must be certain
Punishment must be severe

Beccaria’s Ideas About the Death Penalty

Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments marked the high point of the Milan Enlightenment. In what was a major contribution, Beccaria put
forth the first arguments ever made against the death penalty. Beccaria claimed first and foremost that the use of capital punishment violated
the social contract. Secondly, he thought that reflected negatively on the government, as it not only set a poor example for the rest of society,
it failed to deter crime for reasons that it effectively endorsed barbarism (researchers have referred to this as the Brutalization effect).

Jeremy Bentham
One of the more notable theorists inspired by Beccaria’s work was the English philosopher and political radical, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham is
primarily known today for his moral philosophy, and especially his principle of utilitarianism, which evaluates actions based upon their
consequences. According to him, the most relevant consequences are the overall happiness created for everyone affected by the action.
Like Beccaria before him, Bentham was influenced by Enlightenment thinkers, especially empiricists such as John Locke and David Hume.
Bentham developed an ethical theory grounded in a largely empiricist account of human nature. He famously held a hedonistic account of
both motivation and value according to which what is fundamentally valuable and what ultimately motivates us is pleasure and pain.
Happiness, according to Bentham, is thus a matter of experiencing pleasure and lack of pain. One of his most important contributions was the
“hedonistic calculus” – the weighing of pleasure vs. pain that individuals potentially undertake when they think about committing a crime.

Bentham also became known for his design of a prison structure, known as the Panopticon (the model incorporates a wagon wheel design so
that a post in the center of the structure can conduct a 360-degree visual observation of prisoners – the spokes/corridors contain inmate cells).
One famous model can still be visited in the state of Pennsylvania at the Eastern Penitentiary, located in Philadelphia.

Neo-Classical School
In criminology, the Neo-Classical School continues the traditions of the Classical School within the framework of Right Realism. Hence, the
utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria remains a relevant social philosophy in policy term for using punishment as a deterrent
through law enforcement, the courts, and imprisonment

The ‘free will’ theory of classical school did not survive for long. It was soon realized that the exponents of classical school faultered in their
approach in ignoring the individual differences under certain situations and treating first offenders and the habitual alike on the basis of
similarity of act or crime. The neo-classists asserted that certain categories of offenders such as minors, idiots, insane or incompetent had to
be treated leniently in matters of punishment irrespective of the similarity of their criminal act because these persons were incapable of
appreciating the difference between right and wrong. This tendency of neo-classists to distinguish criminals according to their mental
depravity was indeed a progressive step inasmuch as it emphasized the need for modifying the classical view. Thus the contribution of
neo-classical thought to the science of criminology has its own merits.

When crime and recidivism are perceived to be a problem, the first political reaction is to call for increased policing, stiffer penalties, and
increased monitoring and surveillance for those released on parole. Intuitively, politicians see a correlation between the certainty and severity
of punishment, and the choice whether to commit crime. The practical intention has always been to deter and, if that failed, to keep society
safer for the longest possible period of time by locking the habitual offenders away in prisons (see Wilson). From the earliest theorists, the
arguments were based on morality and social utility, and it was not until comparatively recently that there has been empirical research to
determine whether punishment is an effective deterrent.

The main tenets of neo-classical school of criminology can be summarized as follows

Neo-classists approached the study of criminology on scientific lines by recognizing that certain extenuating situations or mental disorders
deprive a person of his normal capacity to control his conduct. Thus they justified mitigation of equal punishment in cases of certain
psychopathic offenders.

Positivist School
Cesare Lombroso (1835 – 1909)
- “Father of Modern Criminology”
- army physician / psychiatry professor /
criminal anthropology professor

a. Integrated positivism / evolutionism

- relationship: crime to body
- “The Criminal Man”
- criminology: a modern science
- investigation into causes
Lombroso, cont.
b. Replaced free will / determinism
- born criminal
- lower life form
- apelike ancestors
- both traits / dispositions

c. Atavistic stigmata
- physical features
- earlier stage of development
- before becoming fully human

d. Criminals have:
- huge jaws / strong canine teeth
- born female criminal: prostitute

e. First clinical criminologist

- categorize / classify types of criminals
- first criminal typology
 f. Criminal types:
- born / insane / criminoloids

(1) Insane criminal

- not from birth
- change in brain
- interferes with ability (right from wrong)

(2) Criminoloids
- ambiguous group
- habitual / by passion
- diverse types: epileptic / occasional

Objectives of punishment
- protection of society
- improvement of criminal
- should be individualized

The Modern Criminology

In recent years, there seems to have been a transformation of criminological views
regarding somewhat skeptical question of criminal accountability. Modern critics attack
the traditional criminological view on the ground that their search for characteristic
differences between the class of criminals and the class of non-criminals rests upon
erroneous assumption. This false dichotomy has been based on a misconceived
characterization of criminals as ‗criminal type‘. As Michael Phillipson aptly observes that
to take crime out of its social context and to try to explain it as a product of physical

characteristics or mental deficiencies is a myth. He summarizes his criticism of traditional

criminology by suggesting that it contains four false assumptions, namely,
1. That there are universal causes of crime;
2. That the human population can be divided into two groups, criminals and
non-criminals;
3. That crime can be located by the study of individual criminals; and
4. That the official statics are indices of trends in crime.

The proponents of modern criminology attempt to explain criminality in terms of social conflict. Engels (1971) pointed out that resentment
among the deprived class of society due to their exploitation and demoralization was one of the reasons for growing criminality. Therefore,
there was need to change the whole of the social and economic structure of society. Thus modern criminology attributes societal reasons
for general criminality and suggests a pragmatic
approach to the resolution of the problem.

The advocates of modern criminology firmly believe that distinction between criminals and non-criminals is the direct outcome of a mistaken
notion of labelling certain individual offenders as criminal types‘. Modern criminologists prefer to identify the criminal with a particular social
type who has been a victim of well known inequalities between social classes, private wealth, private property, social power, and life
chances.Thus there is nothing like criminal type‘ as suggested by traditional criminologists. modern criminologists have succeeded in
substituting the traditional belief regardingcrime causation by social deviance as a cause of criminal behavior.

LESSON 4
Prison and Jail system during the 19th and 20th century in advanced countries. The History of Philippine Prisons and Jails, the present Jails and
Prison system of the Philippines. Confinement facilities of Law Enforcement Agencies , its legal basis, creation, purpose and accountability.

About 19th Century Prisons

How many prisons were there in the nineteenth century? Where were they located? How did they relate to each other?
The penal system in nineteenth-century England was incredibly complicated. It comprised two types of prisons, convict prisons and local
prisons. While convict prisons were under the direct control of the Home Office, local prisons were, until the 1877 Prisons Act, managed by a
whole host of different local authorities, from counties and boroughs to liberties and even cathedrals. Moreover, included among convict
prisons were penitentiaries, public works prisons and prison hulks (aka floating prisons!). And among local prisons were gaols, bridewells and
lock-ups.

This complexity has meant that penal historians have confined their work to studies of either convict prisons or local prisons, and even more
typically, to case studies of individual institutions. There remain big gaps in our knowledge. Simply put, we don’t even know how many prisons
existed in nineteenth-century England.

19th Century Prisons marks the first stage in recovering that lost landscape. It was borne out of an Arts and Humanities Research Council
project, ‘Educating Criminals in Nineteenth-Century England’ (2015-18), the core aim of which was to chart the spread of basic literacy and
numeracy programmes in English prisons during the eighty years that followed the 1823 Gaols Act, legislation which directed penal officials to
teach those incarcerated to read and write. Not only was it necessary to know what prisons existed in nineteenth-century England, but also
what was happening within these institutions.

Lists of penal institutions created by reformers and government officials, supplemented by a range of other local sources, such as county
directories, were used to construct an as-near-as-possible definitive map of prisons that existed in nineteenth-century England. At the same
time, lists of surviving institutional records were gathered from public archives up and down the country in the hope of uncovering accounts of
prison schools. This activity led to the development of a dataset with a wide range of possible uses beyond the original project.

Thus, in 2018, funding was provided by the AHRC and The Open University to transform this dataset into an online resource. At the same time,
a book version of the database, in the form of a more traditional finding aid, was created. The Guide to the Criminal Prisons of
Nineteenth-Century England was published by London Publishing Partnership in September 2018.

19th Century Prisons contains critical information (operational dates, location, jurisdiction, population statistics, and appearances in primary
and secondary sources) on, and lists of surviving archives for, 846 English local prisons (421), convict prisons (17), prison hulks (30) and
lock-ups (378) used to confine those accused and convicted of crime in the period 1800-1899. The lists of local prisons and convict prisons are
probably about as exhaustive as we can ever get. But we know there were many more lock-ups, and potentially more prison hulks, too. And
there were debtors’ prisons, military prisons, and hulks used for prisoners of war in this period, not to mention related institutions such as
reformatories and criminal asylums which formed part of the penal landscape.

20th Century and Beyond

Due to massive reform efforts, changing prison systems, and advancement in technology, the entire prison system has fluxuated to meet the
needs of society. Despite all of the goals and achievements, Americans today are asking the question: How did the United States become the
world's biggest jailer? It is clear that early republic leaders and legislative acts were propelled to combat the high incarceration rates with
reform. It was evident that the nation was truly able to develop a new sense of self at the time, straying from old traditions of the past.
Americans were able to focus on progressive movements and prisons aimed to ensure a prosperous balance. But, was that enough to shape
the nation for centuries to come?

Among the most significant innovations of prison reform were probation, parole, and sentencing changes. Probation is the concept of trying to
rehabilitate a convicted criminal without sending that person to jail. It became widespread during the first decade of the twentieth century. A
person sentenced to probation underwent counseling and was supervised by a probation officer

In the late 19th century and early 20th century, women's-only prisons and juvenile facilities began to emerge. Many of the reforms that
improved quality of life for inmates, such as vocational training, educational classes, libraries and recreation, can be credited to innovations
pioneered in women's prisons (1). This was a major goal for early Republic reformers who knew that women and children were among the
most vulnerable classes in the system.

The 20th century marked a clear shift in penal policy from prisons being correctional facilities to institutions built maintain social order and
isolate unwanted individuals. This attitude led most prison facilities to be constructed in remote, rural areas rather than the cities from which
most inmates originated. Laws were passed restricting hard prison labor as a method of punishment. It was compared to as a type of slavery
that had no real purpose. Until the early twenty-first century, under the state-use system, prisoners worked to produce items for use by the
government. These items included license plates, government publications, and office furniture. When prison labor was outlawed, many
prisons focused their efforts on job training, teaching prisoners a trade that could be useful upon their release

Throughout history, reformers have been in widespread agreement that U.S. prisons are flawed. The tension between the goals of punishing
prisoners and also rehabilitating them has proven nearly impossible to resolve, though numerous generations of reformers and corrections
officials have tried. Future generations will continue the debate, applying ideas old and new in an effort to devise a system of effective yet
humane penalties for criminals

History: The History of Philippine Prisons and Jails, the present Jails and Prison system of the Philippines.

Pre-Colonial and Spanish Regimes

During the pre-colonial times, the informal prison system was community-based, as there were no national penitentiaries to speak of.
Natives who defied or violated the local laws were meted appropriate penalties by the local chieftains. Incarceration in the community was
only meant to prevent the culprit from further harming the local residents.

The formal prison system in the Philippines started only during the Spanish regime, where an organized corrective service was made
operational. Established in 1847 pursuant to Section 1708 of the Revised Administrative Code and formally opened by Royal Decree in 1865,
the Old Bilibid Prison was constructed as the main penitentiary on Oroquieta Street, Manila and designed to house the prison population of
the country. This prison became known as the “Carcel y Presidio Correccional” and could accommodate 1,127 prisoners.

The prison occupied a quadrangular piece of land 180 meters long on each side, which was formerly a part of the Mayhalique Estate in the
heart of Manila. It housed a building for the offices and quarters of the prison warden, and 15 buildings or departments for prisoners that
were arranged in a radial way to form spokes. The central tower formed the hub. Under this tower was the chapel. There were four
cell-houses for the isolated prisoners and four isolated buildings located on the four corners of the walls, which served as kitchen, hospital and
stores. The prison was divided in the middle by a thick wall. One-half of the enclosed space was assigned to Presidio prisoners and the other
half to Carcel prisoners.
 In 1908, concrete modern 200-bed capacity hospitals as well as new dormitories for the prisoners were added. A carpentry shop was
organized within the confines of the facility. For sometime the shop became a trademark for fine workmanship of furniture made by prisoners.
At this time, sales of handicrafts were done through the institutions and inmates were compensated depending on the availability of funds. As
a consequence, inmates often had to sell through the retail or barter their products.

On August 21, 1869, the San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm in Zamboanga City was established to confine Muslim rebels and recalcitrant
political prisoners opposed to the Spanish rule. The facility, which faced the Jolo sea had Spanish-inspired dormitories and was originally set on
a 1,414-hectare sprawling estate.

The American and Commonwealt Government

When the Americans took over in the 1900s, the Bureau of Prisons was created under the Reorganization Act of 1905 (Act No. 1407 dated
November 1, 1905) as an agency under the Department of Commerce and Police.

It also paved the way for the re-establishment of San Ramon Prison in 1907 which was destroyed during the Spanish-American War. On
January 1, 1915, the San Ramon Prison was placed under the auspices of the Bureau of Prisons and started receiving prisoners from Mindanao.

Before the reconstruction of San Ramon Prison, the Americans established in 1904 the Iuhit penal settlement (now Iwahig Prison and Penal
Farm) on a vast reservation of 28,072 hectares. It would reach a total and area of 40,000 hectares in the late 1950s. Located on the
westernmost part of the archipelago far from the main town to confine incorrigibles with little hope of rehabilitation, the area was expanded
to 41,007 hectares by virtue of Executive Order No. 67 issued by Governor Newton Gilbert on October 15, 1912.
Other penal colonies were established during the American regime. On November 27, 1929, the Correctional Institution for Women (CIW)
was created under Act No. 3579 to provide separate facilities for women offenders while the Davao Penal Colony in Southern Mindanao was
opened in 1932 under Act No. 3732.

Transfer of Bilibid Prison to Muntinlupa

The increasing number of committals to the Old Bilibid Prison, the growing urbanization of Manila and the constant lobbying by conservative
groups prompted the government to plan and develop a new site for the national penitentiary, which was to be on the outskirts of the urban
center. Accordingly, Commonwealth Act No. 67 was enacted, appropriating one million (P1,000.000.00) pesos for the construction of a new
national prison in the southern suburb of Muntinlupa, Rizal in 1935. The old prison was transformed into a receiving center and a storage
facility for farm produce from the colonies. It was later abandoned and is now under the jurisdiction of the Public Estates Authority.
On November 15, 1940, all inmates of the Old Bilibid Prison in Manila were transferred to the new site. The new institution had a capacity of
3,000 prisoners and it was officially named the New Bilibid Prison on January 22, 1941. The prison reservation has an area of 587 hectares, part
of which was arable. The prison compound proper had an area of 300 x 300 meters or a total of nine hectares. It was surrounded by three
layers of barbed wire.

Developments after World War II

After World War II, there was a surplus of steel matting in the inventory and it was used to improve the security fences of the prison. A death
chamber was constructed in 1941 at the rear area of the camp when the mode of execution was through electrocution. In the late ‘60s, fences
were further reinforced with concrete slabs. The original institution became the maximum security compound in the 70s and continues to be
so up to present, housing not only death convicts and inmates sentenced to life terms, but also those with numerous pending cases, multiple
convictions and sentences of more than 20 years.

In the 1980s, the height of the concrete wall was increased and another facility was constructed, 2.5 kilometers from the main building.
This became known as Camp Sampaguita or the Medium Security Camp, which was used as a military stockade during the martial law years
and the Minimum Security Camp, whose first site was christened “Bukang Liwayway”. Later on, this was transferred to another site within the
reservation where the former depot was situated.
Under Proclamation No. 72 issued on September 26, 1954, the Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm in Occidental Mindoro was established. In
The Leyte Regional Prison followed suit under Proclamation No. 1101 issued on January 16, 1973.

Non-Operational National Prisons

FORT BONIFACIO PRISON: A committee report submitted to then President Carlos P. Garcia described Fort Bonifacio, formerly known as Fort
William McKinley, as a military reservation located in Makati, which was established after the Americans came to the Philippines.
The prison was originally used as a detention center for offenders of US military laws and ordinances.

After the liberation of the Philippines, the reservation was transferred to the Philippine government, which instructed the Bureau of Prisons to
use the facility for the confinement of maximum security prisoners. For several years, incorrigibles were mixed with political prisoners (those
convicted of rebellion) at the Fort Bonifacio facility until June 30, 1968, when it was converted into a prison exclusively for political offenders.
After a bloody April 1969 riot at the Muntinlupa facility, however, incorrigible prisoners from Muntinlupa were transferred to Fort Bonifacio.
During the administration of President Diosdado Macapagal, the Fort was renamed Fort Andres Bonifacio. The correctional facility
was also renamed Fort Bonifacio Prison. The one-story building now stands on a one-hectare area.

The Fort Bonifacio Prison continued to be a satellite prison of the national penitentiary even after martial law was lifted. It was only in
the late 1980’s that the facility was vacated by the Bureau of Prisons.
 CORREGIDOR PRISON STOCKADE: In 1908 during the American regime, some 100 prisoners were transferred from the OldBilibid Prison
to Corregidor Island to work under military authorities. This move was in accordance with an order from the Department of Instructions,
which approved the transfer of inmates so they could assist in maintenance and other operations in the stockade.
The inmates were transported not to serve time but for prison labor. Until the outbreak of the Second World War, inmates from Old
Bilibid Prison were regularly sent to Corregidor for labor purposes.

When the War broke out, prisoners on Corregidor were returned to Bilibid Prison. The island prison was never reopened.
BONTOC PRISON: The Philippine Legislature during the American regime passed Act No. 1876 providing for theestablishment of a prison
in Bontoc in Mountain Province. The prison was built for the prisoners of the province andinsular prisoners who were members of
the non-Christian tribes of Mountain Province and Nueva Viscaya.
Bontoc prison could be reached only through narrow, poorly developed mountain roads. Due to the enormous expenses incurred in
transporting personnel, equipment and supplies to the prison, the facility

MIDTERMS
LESSON 5
DOJ - BUCOR
The Bureau of Corrections Logo
The Bureau of Corrections was founded in 1905. The eleven (11) bay leaves, which represent a decade per leaf, refer to the achievement and
developments of BUCOR since its existence. It also cover the 112th anniversary of BUCOR where its first ever modernization law put into place.
The man-figure represents the Person Deprived if Liberty (PDL), who had undergone security and effective rehabilitation programs (prison
railings with green background) through meaningful justice
Bureau of Prisons and Bureau of Corrections Logo
The three (3) keys symbolized the three Century Prisons : the Old Bilibid Prison (1866), San Ramon Penal Farm (1870) and Iwahig
Penal Colony (1904), integrated into one (1) office of the Bureau of Prisons
The façade of the Bureau of Prisons with the iron bars and the post towers reflected the function of safekeeping of prisoners confined in its
custody.
The seal signifies the productive and worthwhile activities that an inmate is engaged in while inside prison. The focus of an education as means
of self-actualization and personal growth supported with sports, skills development and religious activities that would help him assume a new
outlook in life. He is also engaged in various livelihood programs under the operation of agro-Industries to enable him to have employment
opportunities once released.
The seal features a rehabilitated inmate (white) while in custody of the seven (7) prisons and penal farms (bars) thru educational, therapeutic,
productive approaches and restorative justice. He looks forward to a brighter future (rays of the sun), but would need the assistance of his
family and loved ones, the society and the church, for him to completely undergo transformation and re-integrates successfully in the
community.

The Bureau of Corrections was founded in 1905. The eleven (11) bay leaves, which represent a decade per leaf, refer to the achievement and
developments of BUCOR since its existence. It also cover the 112th anniversary of BUCOR where its first ever modernization law put into place.
The man-figure represents the Person Deprived if Liberty (PDL), who had undergone security and effective rehabilitation programs (prison
railings with green background) through meaningful justice (justice symbol), is about to be released from prison facing the EAST where the sun
rises which represent the free society and symbolized new hope. The seven rays of the sun further symbolized the seven (7) Operating Prison
and Penal Farms of BUCOR.

History
The Bureau of Corrections is an agency under the Department of Justice (DOJ), tasked to effectively rehabilitate and safekeep national
prisoners sentenced to more than three (3) years. It was formerly called Bureau of Prisons when its main thrust before was safekeeping of
national prisoners. The Bureau of Prisons was established on November 1, 1905 under the Department of Public Instruction through
Reorganization Act 1407 of the Philippine Commission. The Bureau was renamed from PRISONS to CORRECTIONS on November 23, 1989
under Section 26 of the
Administrative Code of 1987, to emphasize rehabilitation as the primary goal of the Bureau.On 24 May 2013, the Republic Act No.10575,
otherwise known as the Bureau of Corrections Act of 2013 was signed into law, which provides for the modernization,
professionalization and restructuring of the Bureau.Presently, Bureau of Corrections maintains seven (7) correctional facilities strategically
located all over the country, as follows;

New Bilibid Prison

NEW BILIBID PRISON (NBP): The projected increase in the prison population prompted the government to plan and develop a
new site for the national penitentiary. The growing urbanization of Manila and constant lobbying by conservative groups fueled
the idea of transferring the Old Bilibid Prison to a new site, which at the time was considered remote and on the outskirts of the urban
center. Accordingly, Commonwealth Act No. 67 was enacted, appropriating one million pesos for the construction of a new
national prison in Muntinlupa. On November 15, 1940, all inmates of the Old Bilibid Prison in Manila were transferred to the new site.
The new institution had a capacity of 3,000 prisoners and it was officially named the New Bilibid Prison on January 22, 1941. The prison
reservation had an area of 587 hectares, part of which was arable. The prison compound proper had an area of 300 x 300 meters
or a total of nine hectares. It was surrounded by three layers of barbed wire.
After World War II, there was a surfeit of steel matting in the inventory and it was used to improve the security fence. In the 1980s, the height
of the concrete wall was increased and another facility was constructed, 2.5 kilometers from the main building. This
became known as Camp Sampaguita or the Medium Security Camp.
On January 22, 1941 the electric chair was transferred to New Bilibid Prison. The death chamber was constructed in the rear area of the camp
when the mode of execution was through electrocution. Today, it is a security zone where those convicted of drug offenses are held.

The NBP expanded with the construction of new security facilities. These were the Medium Security Camp, which was used as a military
stockade during martial law and the Minimum Security Camp, whose first site was christened Bukang Liwayway. This was transferred to
another site within the reservation where the former depot was situated.

Correctional Institution for Women CIW

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN (CIW): In a report dated January 22, 1959, submitted to a committee created by Administrative
Order No. 287 by the President of the Philippines, it was noted that “before a separate building was constructed especially for women
prisoners, all female convicts were confined at the Old Bilibid Prison on Azcarraga St., Manila. The male prisoners were confined in
dormitories near the women’s quarters. Because of these conditions, vocational activities of the women prisoners were limited to
embroidery. When they became ill, the women were confined in a separate building which served as a hospital with nurses and prison
physicians. When women prisoners needed surgery, they were operated on at the Bilibid Prison.
Prison authorities were aware of the conditions that the women prisoners had to endure. Consequently, the transfer of the women to a
separate site became inevitable. After a series of negotiations started by Prison Director Ramon Victorio, the Philippine Legislature passed
Republic Act No. 3579 in November, 1929. It authorized the transfer of all women inmates to a building in Welfareville at Mandaluyong, Rizal
and appropriated P60,000 for the move.
On February 14, 1931, the women prisoners were transferred from the Old Bilibid Prison to the building especially constructed for them. Its
old name, “Women’s Prison, was changed to “Correctional Institution for Women.” This was in keeping with emerging trends in penology,
which emphasized correction rather than punishment. Convicts were brought back into the social mainstream adjusted and rehabilitated with
a better outlook in life.
CIW, according to a Senate report, occupied 18 hectares. The original structure was a one-story building which housed the office, the brigades,
mess hall, kitchen, chapel, infirmary, bathrooms and employees restrooms. The building has a central courtyard with trees and flowering
plants. The prisoners vocational activities were expanded to include poultry and piggery as well as cultivation of crops, flowers and fruits.
Living quarters for the institution’s employees were later constructed in the compound. During the Japanese occupation, the CIW, despite a
drastic reduction in the number of its employees, continued with its work. A number of female military prisoners were also confined in the
institution. They were later freed by the U.S. Army.
After the war, the CIW resumed its normal operations. Weekly catechism classes were introduced. A dental clinic was built. Local telephones
were installed in the guards quarters. The Bureau of Public Works made major repairs on the main building and a workshop and infirmary
were constructed for the inmates use. The infirmary during that time could accommodate around 16 patients.
In 2000, a new four-story building was constructed by the Department of Public Works within the grounds of CIW. It eased the growing
congestion in the facility. The CIW, with a capacity for only 200 inmates, had to accommodate 1,000 inmates.

Davao Prison and Penal Farm

DAVAO PENAL COLONY: The Davao Penal Colony is the first penal settlement founded and organized under Filipino administration. The
settlement, which originally had an area of approximately 30,000 hectares in the districts of Panabo and Tagum, Davao del Norte, was formally
established on January 21, 1932 by virtue of Act No. 3732. This Act authorized the Governor-General to lease or sell the lands, buildings and
improvements in San Ramon Prison and Iwahig Penal Colony. It also granted authority to the Secretary of Justice to establish a new prison and
penal colony in a suitable public land. A budget of P500,000 was allocated. Several committees were created to pick a suitable site for the enal
settlement.
In accordance with the recommendation of these committees, Governor Dwight Davis signed Proclamation No. 414 on October 7, 1931, which
reserved a site for the penal colony in Davao province in Mindandao. The site offered ideal conditions for agricultural activities.

During World War II, the colony was converted into a concentration camp where more than 1,000 Japanese internees were committed by the
Philippine-American Armed Forces. The Japanese weretreated in accordance with the orders of the American commanding officer.
On December 20, 1941, the Japanese Imperial Forces attacked Davao and the colony was among the establishments taken over by the
invading army.The entire settlement was thrown into confusion and a great numberof prisoners escaped. Normal operations were inevitably
disturbed. November 8, 1942, a representative of the Director of Prisons transferred the colony and its properties to the Japanese authorities.
The remaining colony employees, their families and the inmates evacuated to Iwahig where they organized the Davao Penal Colony at
Inagawan sub colony (Palawan). The organization of the colony in exile was authorized by virtue of Memorandum Order No. 60 dated June 28,
1943 and signed by the Director of Prisons.
After the liberation of the Philippines, the colony-in-exile in Palawan returned to its old site in Davao. A great deal of rebuilding and repair had
to be done because the war had almost completely destroyed the colony.

Iwahig Prison and Penal Farm

IWAHIG PENAL COLONY: This facility was established during the American occupation. It was however, during the Spanish regime that
Puerto Princesa was designated as a place where offenders sentenced to banishment were exiled. A specific area of Puerto Princesa was
selected as the site for a correctional facility. The American military carved out a prison facility in the rain forest of Puerto Princesa. The
institution had for its first Superintendent Lt. George Wolfe, a member of the U.S. expeditionary force, who later became the first prisons
director.
 Governor Luke Wright authorized the establishment of a penal colony in the province of Palawan on November 16, 1904. This penal
settlement, which originally comprised an area of 22 acres, originally served as a depository for prisoners who could not be accommodated
at the Bilibid Prison in Manila. In 1906, however, the Department of Commerce and Police (which later became the Department of Public
Instruction) moved to turn the institution into the center of a penal colony supervised in accordance with trends at the time. Through
the department’s efforts, the Philippine Commission of the United States government passed Act No. 1723 in 1907 classifying the settlement
as a penal institution.
The settlement was at first beset by attempted escapes. But under the supervision of Col. John R. White of the Philippine Constabulary,
whowould become superintendent of Iwahig in 1906, the colony became a successful settlement. A merit system was devised for the
prisoners and vocational activities were offered. These included farming, fishing, forestry, carpentry, and hospitalparamedical work.
Prisoners could choose the vocational activities they wanted.
In 1955, Administrative Order No. 20 was promulgated by the President and implemented by the Secretary of Justice and the Secretary of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. This order allowed the distribution of colony lands for cultivation by deserving colonists. The
order also contained a list of qualifications for colonists who wished to apply for a lot to cultivate, the conditions for the settler’s stay in his
land, loan requirements and marketing of the settlers’ produce. Lots granted did not exceed six hectares.
On August 16, 1959, a committee was created by President Carlos P. Garcia to study the state of national prisons. Accordingly, prisoners in
Iwahig were divided into two groups: the settlers and colonists. The settlers are those engaged in farming for their own benefit; they are
the ones whose applications for land to cultivate have been approved. The government furnishes the land and initial requirements for tools,
dwellings and beast of burden. They are required to reimburse expenditures incurred for their maintenance and that of their families out of
the products of their farms. Upon their release from the colony, they receive whatever amount of money they have credited in their favor,
after deducting the obligations they have.
Iwahig is subdivided into four zones or districts: Central sub-colony with an area of 14,700 hectares; Sta. Lucia with 9,685 hectares;
Montible with 8,000 hectares and Inagawan with 13,000 hectares.
Recent developments and presidential proclamations have dramatically reduced the size of the prison reservation of Iwahig.

San Ramon Prison and Penal Farm

SAN RAMON PRISON AND PENAL FARM: According to historical accounts, the San Ramon Prison was established in southern Zamboanga
on August 21,1870 through a royal decree promulgated in 1869. Established during the tenure of Governor General Ramon Blanco (whose
patron saint the prison was named after), the facility was originally established for persons convicted of political crimes.
Considered the oldest penal facility in the country, prisoners in San Ramon were required to do agricultural work.
During the Spanish-American War in 1898, the prisoners in San Ramon were hastily released and the buildings destroyed. In 1907, the
American administration re-established the prison farm. In 1912, Gen. John Pershing, chief executive of the Department of Mindanao and
Sulu, classified the institution as a prison and penal colony and therein confined people sentenced by the courts under his jurisdiction. Under
Pershing’s supervision, several buildings with a capacity for 600 prisoners were constructed. After several years, the colony became
practically self supporting, with 75,000 coconut trees, which were planted at the beginning of Pershing’s administration, contributing tothe
colony’s self-sufficiency. Aside from coconuts, rice, corn, papaya and other crops were also cultivated.
On November 1, 1905, Reorganization Act No. 1407 was approved creating the Bureau of Prisons under the Department of Commerce
and Police, integrating the Old Bilibid Prison, San Ramon Penal Colony and Iwahig Penal. The Philippine Coconut Authority took
over management of the coconut farm from San Ramon.
In 1995, Congresswoman Maria Clara Lobregat proposed the transfer of San Ramon Prison to Bongiao town, in the mountainous area of
Zamboanga, to give way to a special economic zone.

Sablayan Prison and Penal Farm

SABLAYAN PRISON AND PENAL FARM: Nearer to Manila than other penal colonies, the Sablayan Penal Colony is located in Occidental
Mindoro and relatively new. Established on September 26, 1954 by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. 72, the penal colony has a total
land area of approximately 16,190 hectares.
Prison records show that the first colonists and employees arrived in Sablayan on January 15, 1955. Since then several buildings have been
constructed, including the colonists, dormitories, employees, quarters, guardhouse, schoolhouse, chapel, recreation hall, and post exchange.
Three sub-colonies were later organized. One is a reservation which this day remains part of a protected rainforest. Another is in a
coastal area. The third was used by the national government as a relocation site for refugees from the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo eruption in
1991.
Sablayan prison is a facility where prisoners from NBP are brought for decongestion purposes. It follows the same colony standards as other
penal farms.

Leyte Regional Prison

LEYTE REGIONAL PRISON: The Leyte Regional Prison, situated in Abuyog, Southern Leyte, was established a year after the declaration of
martial law in 1972 by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 28. While its plantilla and institutional plan were almost ideal, lack of funds made the
prison unable to realize its full potential and its facilities are often below par compared with those of other established penal farms.
The LRP has an inmate capacity of 500. It follows the same agricultural format as the main correctional program in addition to some
rehabilitation activities. The prison admits convicted offenders from Region VI and from the national penitentiary in Muntinlupa.

BuCor
Mandate
Safekeeping and instituting reformation programs to national inmates sentenced to more than 3 years.
Vision
“A safer society by 2028 through reformed persons reintegrated by a highly efficient and competent corrections service
Mission
“To protect the public by safekeeping and reforming persons
under our custody adhering to international standards of corrections service.”

Core Values
God Centered Integrity
Vigilance Innovativeness

1. The modernized BuCor shall consist of the following organizational

units:
1.1 Office of the Director General: Shall oversee the entire operations of the Bureau, and exercise command, administration and
supervision of the entire agency in the pursuit of its mandate.
Deputy Director General (Operations, Administration and Rehabilitation) : Assist the Director General in the formulation and
implementation of BuCor’s objectives and policies.
1.1.2 Planning and Management Division (PMD):Shall spearhead the formulation of plans, programs and projects, and monitor the
implementation thereof. Shall also house the Management Information System (MIS).

1.2 Directorate for Administration (DA): Shall manage the housekeeping operations of the Bureau such as administrative, financial and general
ancillary services.
1.2.1 Administrative Division (AD):Shall provide services relating to personnel, records, supplies, and cash management.
1.2.2 General Services Division (GSD):Shall manage activities pertaining to engineering, property, and logistics.
1.2.3 Finance Division (FD):Shall handle accounting, budgeting and financial activities.
1.3 Directorate for Reception and Diagnostic (DRD): (formerly Assessment, Rehabilitation, Program Development and Monitoring Division):
Shall formulate and oversee the implementation of policies, standards and rules on reception and
diagnostics of inmates admitted.
1.3.1 Assessment and Program Monitoring Division (APMD):Shall formulate policies and standards for diagnostic procedures in
gathering information on inmate behavior, treatment needs and security risks. Shall also develop monitoring tools to assess the progress and
adjustments of inmate to prison life.
1.3.2 Case Management Division (CMD): Shall formulate policies and standards to improve case management procedures to be
used for appropriate individual or for collective rehabilitation plans.
1.4 Directorate for Security and Operations (DSO): Shall plan, control, direct and coordinate the BuCor’s security operations and integrated
support activities.
1.4.1 Security and Safekeeping Division (SSD):Shall provide advisory and technical support in crafting strategies and program of
operations to ensure the safekeeping of inmates.
1.4.2 Intelligence and Investigation Division (IID): Shall formulate plans to pre-empt the entry of contrabands and thwart the
proliferation of illegal activities inside the prison, as well as review security arrangements. The IID shall also investigate incidents involving
inmates and visitors, and file cases if warranted.
1.4.3 Inmates’ Documents and Processing Division (IDPD):(formerly Rehabilitation Operations Division): Shall develop standards and guidelines
relative to prison sentence
structures, grant of credits for good behavior, parole eligibility, clemency, service of inmate, etc.
1.4.4 Communications Operations Division (COD): Shall act as the Message Center Network of the Bureau. Shall provide technical and
administrative support to the DSO in
monitoring, conducting, surveillance and management of all incoming and outgoing communications and communication networks in
penitentiaries.
1.5 Directorate for Reformation (DR): Shall formulate plans and policies and programs to further promote the delivery of reformation services
through various interventions.
1.5.1 Education and Training Division (ETD): Shall formulate policies and develop programs that strengthen and upgrade literacy of inmates
thru formal and non-formal education, vocational and training skills, sports and recreational activities.
1.5.2 Health and Welfare Division (HWD): Shall formulate and oversee the implementation of policies and guidelines for the provision of
quality health care (clinical, medical, behavioral, etc.) to the inmates.
1.5.3 Moral and Spiritual Division (MSD): Shall formulate policies and plans to facilitate the religious, spiritual and pastoral reformation of
inmates.
1.5.4 Work and Livelihood Division (WLD): Shall establish programs that provide inmates with the necessary livelihood skills even inside the
prison camp.

1.6 Directorate for External Relations (ERD): Shall craft pre-release and post release plans and programs for inmates who will be rejoining
society.
1.6.1 External Affairs Division (EAD):Shall establish linkages with NGOs, private companies and concerned government agencies for the
reintegration program of inmates about to be released.
The EAD shall also monitor the progress of released inmates as ordinary citizens of the community.
1.7 Prison and Penal Farms (PPFs): Shall directly implement the custodial and reformation programs, projects and activities.

LESSON 6

General Provisions
Admission and Confinement of Inmates
Reception and Diagnostic Center
that receives newly committed prisoners coming from the jails nationwide. Inmates accepted by the RDC will be studied and classified, the
purpose of which, is the formulation of the individualized treatment program designed to achieve the most successful rehabilitation

Upon admission, the inmate or detainee if he has a pending case, will be put in quarantine in a designated cell at the RDC for a minimum of
five (5) days during which he shall be administered the ff. Physical exam , mental, orientation, private interview and etc.

PURPOSE
Provision of a secured and safe environment for Person Deprived of Liberty is not only a single process but integral to all core processes ; such
as admission, reformation and release processes.

SCOPE
This procedure includes searching, receiving, issuance of
provisions, accounting, security classification, visitation, discipline, movement and discharge from prison.

GUIDELINES

6.1. Searching (Part 2, Chapter 2, Sec 7-8 BuCor Operating Manual)

6.1.1. Search of PDL and Personal effect:
6.1.1.1. Upon admission, the PDL shall be searched thoroughly. He shall be allowed to retain in his
possession only such articles as authorized by the prison administration;
6.1.1.2. A list of all articles taken from the PDL shall be entered in the PDL record and receipted for by the guard in charge thereof;
6.1.1.3. All articles taken from the PDL shall be returned to him upon his discharge unless previously disposed of at the PDL’s request or
ordered condemned by the Superintendent after a lapse of two (2) years.

6.1.2. Confiscation of Contraband

6.1.2.1. Narcotics and all other prohibited drugs or substances;
6.1.2.2. All types of weapons, substances or chemicals that may cause injury to persons;
6.1.2.3. Other items or articles which a PDL is not allowed to possess under prison rules shall be considered as contraband and shall be
confiscated accordingly.

6.2. Receiving (Part 2, Chapter 2, Sec 1-6 BuCor Operating Manual)

6.2.1. Admission
6.2.1.1. A PDL shall be received at the Assessment Rehabilitation Program Development and Monitoring Division (ARPDMD) for New Bilibid
Prison and in the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC) for other operating prison and penal farms upon presentation of the following
documents:
a. Mittimus/Commitment Order of the court;
b. Information and Court decision in the case;
c. Certificate of Detention, if any; and
d. Certificate that the case is not on appeal.
6.2.1.2. A female PDL shall only be received at CIW.

SECURITY AND SAFEKEEPING

The Bureau of Corrections Quality Manual ISO 9001:2015 QMS
6.2.2. Form of mittimus/commitment order
6.2.2.1. It shall be under the signature of the judge;
6.2.2.2. It shall bear the seal of the court; and
6.2.2.3. It shall be duly attested by the Clerk of Court.
6.2.3. Registration Sheet
6.2.3.1. A prison shall keep a bound registration sheet wherein all commitments shall be recorded chronologically.

The register shall contain the following entries:

a. Name of PDL;
b. Reason for commitment and the authority thereof;
c. Sentence;
d. Date and hour of admission; and
e. Date and hour of discharge or transfer and
basis thereof.

6.2.4. Admission process

6.2.4.1. After registration, the PDL shall be:
a. Photographed, front and side view;
b. Fingerprinted;
c. Assigned a permanent prison number; and
d. The male PDL shall then be given a regulation haircut and his beard/mustache , if any, shall be shaven off.

6.2.5.1. A PDL may not wear a wig or artificial hairpiece,

unless medical authorization to do so is approved
by the Superintendent.
6.2.6. Place of Admission
6.2.6.1. A PDL shall be placed in an area that is physically
separated from the general prison population.

6.3. Issuance of Provisions (Part 2 Chapter 1, Sec 9 BuCor Operating Manual)

6.3.1. The newly-admitted PDL shall be issued two (2) regulation uniform t-shirts. Whenever practicable, he shall also be issued the following
items:
a. One (1) blanket;
b. One (1) mat;
c. One (1) pillow with pillow case;
d. One (1) mosquito net;
e. One (1) set, mess kit; and
f. One (1) pair, slippers.

Q: What are the purposes of confinement?

A: (a) segregation from society, and
(b) rehabilitation

Q: What are the basic principles in the admission, custody and treatment of inmates?

A: (a) promote discipline/secure reformation/safe custody of inamtes ;

(b) impartial application
Q: What is prison?
A: Prison refers to Penal establishment under control of BUCOR includes 7 penal colonies
Q: What is carpeta ?
A: Institutional record of inmate:
(1) mittimus /commitment order,
(2) prosecutor’s information,
(3) decision of trial court, including that of appellate court
Q: What is prison record?
A: Information re inmate’s (1) personal circumstances, (2) offense committed, (3) sentence, (4) criminal case # in trial & appellate courts, (5)
date of commencement of service, (6) date received for confinement, (7) place of confinement, (8) date of expiration of sentence, (9) # of
previous convictions, (10) behaviour /conduct while in prison
Q: Up to how many days will an inmate remain in RDC after the quarantine period?
A: Not ↑ 55days
Q: What shall be done to inmate w/in this period (not ↑ 55days)?
A: He undergoes examination: (1) psychiatric, (2) psychological, (3) sociological, (4) vocational, (5) education, (6) religious, (7) others
Q: What data are contained in the inmate record?
A: (1) inmate’s personal circumstances, (2) brief personal, social & occupational history, (3) result of inmate interview, (4) initial security
classification
Q: What are the requirements before an inmate is admitted in RDC?A: (a) mittimus /commitment order (MCO), (b) information & court
decision, (c) certification of detention, (d) certification: case not on appeal
What is the form of MCO?
A: (1) signature of judge, (2) seal of court, (3) attestation of clerk of court
Q: What is a registration book?
A: Chronological record of commitments.
Q: What are the contents of registration book?
A: (1) name of inmate, (2) reason for commitment & authority therefor , (3) sentence, (4) date & hour of admission, (5) date & hour of
discharge/transfer & basis therefor .
Q: Enumerate the process of admission
A: After registration: (1) photographed – front & side view, (2) fingerprinted, (3) assigned permanent prison #, (4) male: regulation haircut &
beard/mustache shaven off
Q: May an inmate wear hairpieces?
A: Wig/artificial hairpiece not allowed, except: (1) medical authorization, (2) approval of Superintendent
Q: Describe the place for admission.
A: Physically separated from general prison population.
Q: What is the procedure of body search and personal effects?
A: (1) searched thoroughly, (2) allowed to retain authorized articles, (3) all articles taken
listed/recorded/receipted by guard in charge, (4) all articles taken returned upon discharge, except: (a) disposed of at inmate’s request, or (b)
ordered condemned by Supt after lapse of 2 yrs.
Q: What is contraband?
A: (1) prohibited drugs, (2) all types of weapons, (3) substances/chemicals: causing injury, (4) items/articles: inmate not allowed under prison
rules

LESSON 7

Discipline (Part 4 Chapter 1 Section 1-4 BuCor Operating Manual)

Lesson 9

Disciplinary controls, purpose

efforts shall be made to instil in the minds of all PDL the concept that self-discipline is an essential characteristic of a well-adjusted person.

Guideline on disciplinary control

Disciplinary control on PDL shall be firm to ensure safety and good order in prison.
Breaches of discipline shall be handled objectively, and sanctions shall be executed with firmness and justice.

Due process accorded to PDL

Every breach of discipline shall be reported to proper prison authorities. The erring PDL shall be given due process before he is punished.
Ignorance of prison rules shall not be countenanced or considered an excuse for its non-observance.

Prohibited acts – the following acts shall subject the PDL to

disciplinary action:
Participation in illegal sexual acts or placing himself in situations or behavior that will encourage the commission of illegal sexual acts;

Openly or publicly displaying photographs,

pictures, drawing, or other pictorial representations of persons engaged in sexual acts, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions
or lewd or obscene exhibitions of genitals;

Maximum Security
iii. Remand PDL or detainees whose sentence is twenty (20) years and above and those whose sentence are under review by the Supreme
Court or the Court of Appeals;
iv. Those with pending case;
v. Recidivist, habitual delinquents and escapee;
vi. Those confined at the ARPDMD/RDC;
vii. Those under disciplinary punishment or safekeeping; &
viii. Those who are criminally insane or those with severe personality or emotional disorders that make them dangerous to fellow PDL or the
prison staff.

Medium Security
this shall include those who cannot be trusted in less-secured areas and those whose conduct or behaving require
minimum supervision. Under this category are:
i. Those whose minimum sentence is less
than twenty (20) years imprisonment;

ii. Remanded PDL or detainees whose sentence are below twenty (20) years;
iii. Those who are eighteen (18) years of age and below, regardless of the case and sentence;
iv. Those who have two (2) or more records of escapes. They can be classified as medium security PDL if they have served eight (8) years since
they were recommitted. Those
with one (1) record of escape if they have serve five (5) years; and

v. First offenders sentenced to life imprisonment. They may be classified as medium security PDL if they have served five (5) years in a
maximum security prison or less, upon recommendation of
the Superintendent. Those who were detained in a city and/or provincial jail shall not be entitled to the said classification.

Minimum Security
this shall include those who can be reasonably trusted to serve their sentence under less restricted conditions.
Under this category are:
i. Those with severe physical handicap as
certified by the Chief Medical Officer of the
prison;

ii. Those are sixty-five (65) years old and above, without pending case and whose convictions are not on appeal;
iii. Those who have served one-half (1/2) of their minimum sentence or one-third (1/3) of their maximum sentence, excluding Good Conduct
Time Allowance (GCTA); and
iv. Those who have only six (6) months more to serve before the expiration of their maximum sentence.

Transfer of PDL
Transfer of PDL to another prison – a PDL may be transferred by the Director upon the recommendation of the Superintendent concerned to
another prison facility to bring said PDL closer to his family or as part of his rehabilitation program.

Transfer of insane PDL – PDL who has been confirmed to be mentally abnormal or insane may be transferred to a mental hospital with the
approval of the Director.

Transfer of PDL to a stockade of the Armed Forces of the Philippines – the confinement of the PDL may be transferred to an AFP stockade
provided, that the PDL is certified as minimum security risk and does not belong to any of the following categories:
PDL serving a life term or sentenced to death;
PDL with previous record of escape;
Recidivist; .
Female PDL;

PDL who had previously been transferred to an AFP stockade and was returned to prison for cause;
PDL who is more than fifty (50) years old or who can no longer perform manual work;
PDL who is a permanent resident of a place within a radius of one hundred (100) kilometers from the stockade where he is being transferred;
or

Transfer of PDL not eligible to be a colonist to a prison and penal farm – upon
recommendation of the Classification Board, the Director may also transfer to a prison and penal farm a PDL who, although not eligible for
classification as a colonist, is:

Physically and psychologically fit to absorb the rehabilitative program in the colony, or
That such PDL is the therapeutically
indicated.

Transfer to a provincial jail and vice versa – The President of the Philippines may direct, as the occasion may require, the transfer of PDL from a
national prison to a provincial jail, or vice versa.

The expense for such transfers shall be borne by the Bureau except the cost of escort service which shall be provided by the Philippine
National Police.

Outside Movement of PDL

Movement of PDL outside confinement facility – the Superintendent of a prison may authorize a PDL to be taken out of prison in the following
instances:
To appear in court or other government
agency as directed by competent authority;
For medical examination/treatment or
hospitalization in an outside clinic or

To view the remains of a deceased

relative.
Approval by the Secretary of outside movement the prior approval of the Secretary shall be required for the outside movement of an NBP or
CIW PDL as provided in paragraphs b. and c.
above.

Outside movement of death convict – a death convict shall not be allowed to leave his place of confinement except for the urgent treatment
or diagnosis of a life-threatening or serious ailment, if the diagnosis is cannot be done or the treatment
provided in the prison hospital.

Basis of Court appearance – the court appearance of an PDL shall be based on a subpoena issued by the court as endorsed by the Director.
Court appearance of life termer or death convict – no PDL sentenced to death or life imprisonment confined in the NBP shall be brought
outside said prison for appearance or
attendance in any court except when the Supreme Court authorizes the presiding judge of the court, upon proper application, to take in effect
the said transfer of said PDL.

Application to view the remains of deceased

relative

– a minimum or medium security PDL may, upon written application, be allowed by the Superintendent to view the remains of the following
relatives upon written application and submission of the original or certified true copies of the death certificate, the burial permit and the
documents specified hereunder;
Wife or husband (marriage certificate);
Child (birth certificate of child and marriage certificate of the PDL);
Brother/sister (birth certificate of brother/sister and birth certificate of
the PDL);

Grandchild (birth certificate of grandchild and of the latter’s parent who may be son or daughter of the PDL); and

Grandparent (birth certificate of the PDL and of his/her parent who is the son/daughter of the deceased grandparent).

When to file application – the application to view the remains of the deceased relative and all his supporting documents shall be filed with the
Superintendent at least two (2) days before the enjoyment of the privilege sought.

In case of an NBP or CIW PDL, the application and its supporting documents, together with the prison record of the PDL and the favourable
recommendation of the Superintendent thereof and the Director shall be forwarded to the Secretary for final action at least one (1) working
day before the privilege is to be enjoyed.

Duration of privilege – the PDL may be allowed, more or less, three (3) hours to view the deceased relative in the place where the remains lie
in state but shall not be allowed to pass any other place in transit, or to join the funeral cortege.

Distance of travel – the privilege may be enjoyed only if the deceased relative is in a place within the radius of thirty (30) kilometres by road
from the prison. Where the distance is more than thirty (30) kilometres, the privilege may be extended if the PDL can leave and return to his
place of
confinement during the daylight hours of the same day.

Escort Procedures
Primary duties of escort guards – escort guards shall exercise extreme caution at all times and shall see to it that the PDL does not:
Escape;
Converse with unauthorized persons;
Obtain forbidden articles, especially
intoxicants or weapons;
Distance of guard from PDL – if escorting a group of PDL, a guard shall keep a distance of not less than ten (10) paces from his
charge. Upon arrival at the destination, he shall station himself at a vantage point where all PDL are within sight and can be properly
controlled.

When on board a ship or boat, the group of PDL

shall be positioned in the most secure part of the
vessel and shall be required to sit down. The guard shall station himself at strategic points where he can effectively respond. A PDL shall not
be allowed to stand up or move about until the
vessel is ready to dock, except when the guard
needs to have a clear view of the port and starboard passages.

Basic Escort Procedures

an escort guard shall strictly observe the instructions written at the back of the PDL’s pass and the purpose and destination of the escort
mission. These include, but not
limited, to the following:

While in transit, the PDL shall not be allowed to stop at any place or contact any person until the destination is reached; The PDL shall at all
times be placed under proper restraint e.g. handcuffs. However, the same shall be removed when the PDL enters the courtroom;

The PDL shall be returned to the prison facility immediately after the purpose of the pass has been served; and The use of a privately-owned
vehicle in transporting a PDL is prohibited.

Escort procedures for court appearance – in escort duties for court hearing, the Superintendent shall provide at least two (2) guards for every
PDL.

However, when two or more PDL are to be escorted, the number of guards may be reduced proportionally without sacrificing security
requirements. If a PDL is notorious or has a previous record of escape, additional escort guards shall be assigned.

Appearance in Metro Manila Courts – in conducting NBP or CIW PDL for appearance in Metro Manila courts, the escort detail shall be headed
by a supervising guard or by a senior officer. If the court concerned is in the suburbs of
Metro Manila e.g., Cavite, Bulacan, Rizal, Laguna and Batangas, the escorts shall return their wards to the NBP or CIW immediately after the
hearing.

Turnover of PDL to local jail – a guard assigned to escort a PDL for court hearings who cannot return to the prison of origin on the same day
shall request the court to issue an order turning over the
PDL to the nearest provincial/city jail or police
detention cell. The escort guard shall not stay in a
private dwelling or hotel with the PDL.

Acknowledgment of turnover of PDL – upon

turning the PDL over to an authorized officer at the destination, the escort-in-charge shall secure an acknowledgment receipt for the custody
of the PDL.
This shall clearly bear the name of the receiving officer, his designation and the date and time the PDL was received.

Postponement/resetting of hearing – after the hearing or if the scheduled hearing is

postponed/reset to another date, the PDL shall be returned to the prison of origin without delay. If feasible, the escort-in-charge shall secure
from the court an order committing the PDL to the provincial/city jail or other detention center.

Procedure if escort guard becomes sick – if the escort guard becomes sick, he shall notify the Superintendent of the prison of origin thereof by
the fastest means available so that a replacement can be sent to continue the mission.

Fake or spurious subpoena – if the subpoena received by the prison turns out to be spurious, or if, in spite of a valid subpoena, the scheduled
trial is not held, the PDL shall be immediately returned to the prison of origin. The escort-in-charge shall submit a written report to the
Superintendent on the matter.

Certificate of appearance – Immediately after the trial but before leaving the court premises, escort-in-charge shall secure from the clerk of
court a certificate or other proof of appearance.

Procedure during outside movement of PDL –

the following security procedures shall be observed during the outside movement of a PDL:
Before departure from prison.
The written mission order issued by the Superintendent, the mittimus and other prison records of the PDL shall be given to the escort guards.
In case of a detainee, the records shall include the written authorization of the appellate or sentencing court for the outside movement of the
detainee.

Whenever possible, the transfer shall be taken in effect during the daylight hours.
The escort guards shall be given detailed instructions on their duties and responsibilities, to include the instruction that they use the most
direct travel route to
their authorized destination.

The PDL shall be thoroughly searched for contraband or deadly weapons or objects which may be used for escape or self-destruction.

Money found in the possession of the PDL shall be confiscated by the Desk Officer who shall issue a
receipt thereof and who shall return the money to the PDL upon his return. If the PDL is to be confined and needs money for medicines and
food, the money therefore shall be turned over under receipt to the escort guard. All disbursements made by the escort guard shall be
properly receipted for.

The PDL shall be placed in handcuffs or other instrument of restraint. If there is more than one PDL to be transferred, they shall
be grouped in pairs and securely connected to one another by a rope, ascertaining that the PDL does not have crippled deformed or
very small hands to allow him to slip the handcuffs off. Handcuffs shall be properly

adjusted for tightness before departure to avoid the need of adjusting the same while on transit. The PDL shall stay inside the
prison premises until the vehicle to be used in transporting him is ready for boarding. The PDL shall board a motor vehicle ahead of the guard.

The handcuffs or instruments of restraint shall not be removed while the PDL is in transit. A PDL shall not be handcuffed to any part of the
vehicle during transit to avoid his being trapped in case of vehicular accident.
If it is necessary to board public transportation such as ship or airplane, the guards shall position themselves with their PDL in an area that is
cleared of civilians, or

All PDL being escorted shall be under the supervision of a guard at all times, including going to the toilet or washroom. The guard
shall always be close enough to the PDL to respond to any untoward incident.
If there is more than one PDL being escorted, there shall be a headcount of the PDL every turnover of guarding shifts.

A guard shall always walk behind and not in front of the PDL being escorted.
If armed, the guard shall not sit , stand or walk beside PDL, or in any case allow the PDL to reach his firearms.
The guard shall not pass any unauthorized place while in transit.

Arrival at Destination
Upon arrival at the authorized destination, the guards and their PDL shall stay in the public transportation until the same is cleared of the
other passengers. They shall only disembark after the PDL and his personal belongings have been searched or inspected and the
transportation that will bring them finally to their final destination is ready for boarding.

The handcuffs or instrument of restraint may be removed at the authorized destination if there is no danger of escape.
The guard shall return the PDL to the prison of origin as soon as the purpose of the outside movement has been served.

After-Mission Report – after completing the mission, the leader of the guard detail shall submit a written report to the Superintendent,
together with copies of the transmittal letter and certificate of appearance. In case a PDL being transferred to another prison or jail institution
or competent authority, the responsibility for said PDL shall remain with the custodian until formally received by another custodian.

LESSON 8
Rights and Privileges of Inmates
1. Decent and adequate provision of basic necessities such as shelters/quarters, food,
water, clothing, medicine;
2. Proper observance of prescribed privileges such as regulated communication and visitation; and

3. Efficient processing of necessary documentary requirements and records for their timely release. The processing of these documentary
requirements shall be undertaken by the Directorate for Inmate Documents and Records (DIDR).The core objective of these safekeeping
provisions is to “accord the dignity of man” to inmates while serving sentence in accordance with the basis for humane understanding of
Presidential Proclamation 551, series 1995, and with UNSMRTP Rule 60.

Reformation Program:
Work and Livelihood
The Bureau offers a variety of inmate work programs, from agricultural to industrial. The purpose of the inmate work program is to keep
the inmates busy, and to provide them money for their personal expenses and their families as well as help them acquire livelihood skills, in
order that they may become productive citizens once they are released and assimilated back into the mainstream of society.

Along this end, the Bureau under the present Director has encouraged agricultural and industrial production by providing farming
implements, tractors, fertilizers and other inputs in order to sustain this area of rehabilitation for inmates.

Different prison and penal farms provide institutional work programs for inmates. At the Davao Penal Colony, inmates work on the banana
plantations of Tagum Development Company (TADECO) which has a joint venture agreement with the Bureau. Similarly, the vast tracts of land
at the Iwahig Penal Colony are developed and tilled by inmates to produce various agricultural products, thereby generating income for the
Bureau. The Sablayan Prison and Penal farm also provides agriculture and aquaculture programs for inmates.

Healthcare Services
Upon his initial commitment to the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), the inmate’s medical history is recorded and properly
documented by the Medical Specialist. Medical information and mental status examinations are given to ascertain his overall physical / mental
fitness and whether he would be fit for work. This forms part of the diagnostic process which will eventually determine the most appropriate
rehabilitation program for the inmate.
The principal medical care of inmates is provided through a 500-bed capacity hospital at the New Bilibid Prisons and at six (6) other
mini-hospitals or clinics in the six (6) other prison and penal farms. All correctional facilities have a full and competent staff of medical
practitioners in charge of clinics, infirmaries and hospitals. These centers are capable of minor surgical operations, laboratory examinations,
radiology, psychiatric, rehabilitation and dental treatment.
Other government and private hospitals are also tapped in the implementation of standards pertaining to nutrition and protective health
services for the prison community. Medical services also include a wide range of counseling techniques and therapy programs which address
the psychological problems of inmates, including suicidal thoughts and feelings of rejection which may lead to disruption of peace and order
within the prison compounds. When an inmate’s ailment is beyond the competence of the in-house medical doctors, the inmate is referred to
a government hospital in accordance with prison rules and under proper security escorts.

Education and Skills Training

Rehabilitation can be facilitated by improving an inmate’s academic and job skills. Records show that many prisoners are poorly educated. A
majority are elementary school drop outs or have not even finished primary school. Prison education amounts to remedial schooling designed
to prepare inmates to obtain basic skills in reading, writing and mathematics.
In most correctional facilities, vocational programs are incorporated into job assignments and serve as on-the-job training. The goal is to
provide inmates with skills that will improve their eligibility for jobs upon release. Most prison vocational training is geared toward traditional
blue-collar employment in areas such as electronics, auto mechanics and handicrafts. At the Reception and Diagnostic Center, a basic
computer literacy course with typing as a support course is available for inmates who have finished at least high school level.
Vocational training and social education focus on job readiness. The concern in these areas is life skills. If inmates are to reenter society and
abstain from criminal activity, they must be employable and have the basic tools necessary to function as responsible citizens.
 The National Penitentiary has a college degree program and a tertiary degree correspondence course, in addition to the regular
secondary and compulsory basic literacy classes. Prisoners are strongly encouraged by the BuCor authorities to enroll while serving their
sentence and to advance their academic skills.

Sports and Recreation

The inmates enjoy sunrise by participating in daily calisthenics. There are various indoor and outdoor sports activities, programs, tournaments
and leagues all year round, to include basketball, volleyball, billiards, table tennis and chess. These sports competitions promote camaraderie
among inmates, good sportsmanship and team-building. The latest addition is the newly constructed indoor sports center/gymnasium at the
Maximum Security Compound which boasts of competition-standard flooring, sound system, locker rooms and bleachers.
All prison and penal farms have adequate recreational facilities for inmates, both for outdoor and indoor sports. Mini-bodybuilding gyms are
available in most prison facilities, including the Muntinlupa Juvenile Training Center and the Therapeutic Community Center for inmates with
drug cases.

For music lovers and musically-inclined inmates, numerous "videoke" centers are available. Musical instruments are available for
practice or for use in variety shows..

Visitation
Visiting rights – The PDL shall have the right to be visited by his family and reputable friends at regular intervals
Visitor List – the Superintendent shall compile and maintain a list of persons named by the PDL in the interview
who may visit the latter. The list may include the members
of the PDL’s immediate family such as his parents, step
parents, foster parents, brothers and sisters, wife or
husband and children. Upon the request of the PDL, the list
may also include his grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws
and cousins. Other visitors may, after investigation, be
included in the list if the PDL will benefit from such contact.

Visiting days and hours - PDL may be visited from

Sunday to Thursday from 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. Visitors shall
not be allowed to stay overnight in prison. There shall be no visits on Friday and Saturday.
Limitation on visiting rights - the Director may limit the
length or frequency of prison visits as well as the number of
visitors to avoid overcrowding. Exceptions may be granted
after taking into account special circumstances, such as the
distance of travel of the visitor and the frequency of the visit
received by the PDL.
Visiting room – whenever practicable, a prison shall have a
visiting room which shall be as comfortable and as pleasant
as possible and equipped to meet the needs of visitors,
including children.

Privacy of visits – Prison guards shall supervise the visiting

area in an obtrusive manner. They shall not eavesdrop on
conversation or otherwise interfere with the privacy of the
PDL and his visitor.

Conjugal visits – A male PDL may enjoy conjugal visits from his spouse in prisons where there are facilities therefore under such conditions as
may be prescribed by the Director.

Visit of Legal Counsel – PDL may be visited by his legal counsel of record at reasonable hours of the day or night.
Violation of visiting rules – any circumvention or violation of visiting rules by the PDL or his visitor shall result in the suspension or deprivation
of visiting privileges and initiation of disciplinary action against erring PDL.

What is good conduct time allowance?

Good conduct time allowance or GCTA is a sentence reduction provision afforded prisoners who show good behavior.

It has been in existence since 1906. Act 1533 provided for the “diminution of sentences imposed upon prisoners” in consideration of good
conduct and diligence.

Citing a 1908 decision, the SC said the law served a double purpose: to “encourage the convict in an effort to reform” and “induce...habits of
industry and good conduct” in the person beyond one’s sentence, and “aid to discipline” various jails and penitentiaries.

Twenty-four years later, the RPC, a legal code governing crimes and their punishment, was signed into law, incorporating good conduct time
allowances for “any prisoner in any penal situation.”
What is RA 10592 and how does it work?
In May 2013, then President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III signed RA 10592, amending Articles 29, 94, 97, 98, and 99 of the RPC, which sought
to: expand the application of the GCTA to those under preventive imprisonment or those detained prior and during criminal trial, who are
deemed too dangerous for release ; increase the number of days that may be credited for GCTA; allow an additional sentence deduction of 15
days for each month of study, teaching, or mentoring service; and expand the special time allowance for loyalty and make it applicable to
those under preventive imprisonment.
In cases of "special circumstances," such as calamities, prisoners who, after evading preventive imprisonment or the service of their sentence,
give themselves up to authorities within 48 hours after the "circumstance" had passed, will get a "loyalty" deduction of one-fifth of their
sentence.

Section 5 of the law says the BuCor director, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology chief, and/or the warden of a provincial, district,
municipal or city jail “shall grant allowances for good conduct.”
This means, prisoners who have evaded service due to fire, earthquake, explosion, or other catastrophes must surrender within two days from
authorities’ declaration that such events are no longer present to qualify for the loyalty deduction.

Section 5 of the law says the BuCor director, the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology chief, and/or the warden of a provincial, district,
municipal or city jail “shall grant allowances for good conduct.”