ANALYTICAL PAPER ON ISSUES CONCERNING THE STATE OF
NON-INSTITUTIONAL CORRECTIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES
_______________________________________________
A PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION
_______________________________________________
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE SUBJECT
NON-INSTITUTIONAL CORRECTIONS
OLIPANI, MARY JOY G.
FLORES, AARON M.
CASTILLO, NICOLE ANNE C.
UBIAS, GERALD B.
MARCH 2024
INTRODUCTION
Probation was first introduced in the Philippines during the
American colonial period (1898 -1945) with the enactment of Act No. 4221
of the Philippine Legislature on August 7, 1935. This law created a
Probation Office under the Department of Justice. On November 16, 1937,
after barely two years of existence, the Supreme Court of the
Philippines declared the Probation Law unconstitutional because of some
defects in the law's procedural framework. In 1972, House Bill No. 393 was
filed in Congress, which would establish a probation system in
the Philippines. This bill avoided the objectionable features of Act 4221
that struck down the1935 law as unconstitutional. The bill was passed by
the House of Representatives, but was pending in the Senate when Martial
Law was declared and Congress was abolished. In 1975, the National
Police Commission Interdisciplinary drafted a Probation Law.
The Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known as the Probation Law of
1976 was enacted on July 24, 1976 by President Ferdinand E. Marcos. This
law was upon the promulgation of this law, hailed by criminal justice
experts and practitioners as a significant milestone in the treatment of
offenders in these contemporary times. Probation as a science and an art
in dealing with certain types of offenders, has exemplified compassionate
and restorative justice with the context of social reforms, thus earning the
tag as “pristine jewel in the crown of criminal justice system”.
Furthermore, the confinement of all offenders in prisons and other
institutions with rehabilitation programs constitutes an onerous drain on
the financial resources of the country and there is a need to provide a less
costly alternative to the imprisonment of offenders who are likely to
respond to individualized, community-based treatment programs as to
give the light offenders a chance to reform and at the same time a chance
to be reintegrated to the society without being discriminated for their
previous offense. The provisions of PD No. 968 were drafted in
consideration of the government’s program to further integrate the
concept of Restorative Justice in the Philippine Judicial System, therefore
this law is to be construed liberally as to prevent the rise of criminality
and recidivism.
The Organization
The Probation Administration was created by virtue of Presidential Decree
No. 968, The Probation Law of 1976‖, to administer the probation system.
Under Executive Order No. 292―The Administrative Code of 1987‖ which
was promulgated on November 23, 1989, The Probation Administration
was renamed Parole and Probation Administration‖ and given the added
function of supervising prisoners who, after serving part of their sentence in jails are
released on parole pardon with parole conditions. Effective August 17, 2005, by
virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Dangerous Drugs Board, the
Administration performs another additional function of investigating and supervising
first-time minor drug offenders who are placed on suspended pursuant to Republic
Act No. 9165.
Mission
To rehabilitate probationers, parolees and pardonees and promote their
development as integral persons by utilizing innovative interventions and techniques
which respect the dignity of man and recognize his divine destiny.
Mandate
The Parole and Probation Administration is mandated to conserve and/or redeem
convicted offenders and prisoners who are under the probation or parole system.
Goals
The Administration's programs set to achieve the following goals:
Promote the reformation of criminal offenders and reduce the incidence of
recidivism, and;
Provide a cheaper alternative to the institutional confinement of first-time
offenders who are likely to respond to individualized, community-based
treatment program.
Functions
To carry out these goals, the Agency through its network of regional and field parole
and probation offices performs the following functions:
to administer the parole and probation system.
to exercise supervision over parolees, pardonees and probationers.
to promote the correction and rehabilitation of criminal offender.
1. Compare the objectives and provisions of PD 968 with
contemporary approaches to non-institutional corrections in
other countries. What similarities and differences do you
observe? How do cultural, legal, and social factors influence the
implementation and effectiveness of probation and parole
systems across different contexts?
Objectives of PD 968:
Aims to prevent the commission of offenses, promote the correction and
rehabilitation of offenders by providing them with individualized
treatment, and integrate them into the community as constructive
individuals.
Contemporary Approaches:
Many countries now emphasize restorative justice, which seeks to repair
the harm caused by criminal behavior through reconciliation with victims
and the community at large. This approach goes beyond individual
treatment and incorporates community engagement and victim
involvement in the correction process.
Provisions/Approaches:
Community Service:
Many countries, including the Philippines under PD 968, use community
service as a form of non-institutional correction. This allows offenders to
contribute positively to society as part of their rehabilitation.
Electronic Monitoring:
Some countries use electronic monitoring to allow offenders to serve their
sentences outside of detention facilities while being monitored for
compliance with probation conditions. PD 968 does not explicitly mention
electronic monitoring, reflecting technological advancements and policy
updates in more recent approaches.
Restorative Justice Programs:
Not specifically mentioned in PD 968, restorative justice programs are
increasingly common, focusing on the offender’s reconciliation with the
victim and community. This approach is more prevalent in contemporary
corrections systems, emphasizing healing over punishment.
Similarities:
Focus on Rehabilitation: Both PD 968 and contemporary approaches
emphasize the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into
society as law-abiding citizens.
Use of Probation Officers: The supervision of probationers by probation
officers is a critical component of both PD 968 and other countries’
approaches, ensuring compliance with the conditions of probation.
Differences:
Scope of Eligibility:
PD 968 has specific eligibility criteria for probation, including the offense’s
nature and the sentence’s length. Contemporary approaches in some
countries have broadened eligibility criteria to include a wider range of
offenses and situations, reflecting a more inclusive approach to
rehabilitation.
Technological Integration:
Contemporary approaches are more likely to incorporate technology, such
as electronic monitoring, to enhance the supervision and management of
offenders, a feature not present in PD 968.
Community and Victim Involvement:
Modern approaches often involve the community and victims in the
correction process to a greater extent than PD 968, recognizing the
importance of repairing relationships and harm caused by criminal
activities.
Influence of PD 968 in:
Cultural Factors:
Attitudes Towards Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: Cultural beliefs about
justice and rehabilitation play a critical role. In societies where there is a
strong belief in rehabilitation and second chances, probation and parole
systems are likely to be more robust and supported. In contrast, cultures
with a more punitive approach to justice may place less emphasis on non-
institutional corrections.
Stigma Associated with Conviction:
The cultural stigma around being convicted of a crime can affect the
reintegration of individuals into society. In cultures where ex-offenders are
heavily stigmatized, probationers and parolees may struggle to find
employment and rebuild social connections, undermining the
effectiveness of these systems.
Legal Factors:
Legislation and Policy:
The legal framework governing probation and parole, including eligibility
criteria, conditions, and procedures, directly affects how these systems
function. The comprehensiveness and flexibility of legal provisions can
impact the adaptability of probation and parole systems to individual
cases.
Judicial Discretion: The extent of judicial or administrative discretion in
granting probation and deciding on parole can influence these systems’
implementation. Legal systems that allow for greater discretion might see
more personalized and potentially more effective rehabilitation plans but
also risk inconsistencies and inequities.
Social Factors:
Social Support Systems:
The availability of social support services, such as employment assistance,
education, and counseling, plays a vital role in the effectiveness of
probation and parole. Societies with strong support networks are better
equipped to facilitate the reintegration of offenders.
Public Perception and Community Engagement:
Public support for probation and parole is crucial for their success.
Community engagement in the rehabilitation process, through initiatives
like restorative justice programs, can enhance the social integration of
probationers and parolees. Conversely, a lack of public support can lead to
underfunding and marginalization of these systems.
Economic Factors:
Resources and Funding:
While not strictly a cultural, legal, or social factor, the economic context
significantly affects the implementation and effectiveness of probation
and parole. Adequate funding is necessary for staffing, training,
monitoring, and support services. Economic constraints can limit the
capacity of these systems to effectively manage and rehabilitate
offenders.
2. Evaluate the effectiveness of PD 968 in achieving its stated
objectives since its enactment in 1976. What evidence exists to
support the claim that probation has contributed to reducing
recidivism rates and promoting community safety in the
Philippines? How do factors such as access to rehabilitation
programs, supervision quality, and community support influence
the success or failure of probation outcomes? What reforms or
improvements could enhance the efficacy of non-institutional
corrections under PD 968 in addressing contemporary challenges
in the Philippine criminal justice system?
Effectiveness of PD 968:
Since its enactment in 1976, PD 968, or the Probation Law of the
Philippines, aimed to provide an alternative to incarceration, promote
rehabilitation, and ensure community safety. Evaluating its effectiveness
requires a thorough examination of its impact on recidivism rates,
rehabilitation outcomes, and community safety. A comprehensive
evaluation of PD 968's effectiveness necessitates empirical evidence and
scholarly research. While there might not be specific court decisions
directly evaluating the law's effectiveness, academic studies and
government reports provide valuable insights into its outcomes.
Evidence on Probation's Impact on Recidivism:
Numerous studies have explored the relationship between probation and
recidivism rates globally. In the context of the Philippines, specific
research might be limited, but broader findings can still be informative.
For example, a meta-analysis by Dowden and Andrews (1999) found that
probation was associated with lower recidivism rates compared to
imprisonment across various jurisdictions. Additionally, a study by Tiatco
et al. (2019) in the Philippine context highlighted the importance of
community-based rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism among
probationers.
Here are the pieces of evidence supporting the claim that probation has
contributed to reducing recidivism rates and promoting community safety
in the Philippines may include:
Statistical Data:
Analyzing recidivism rates among individuals on probation compared to
those who served custodial sentences can provide empirical evidence.
Lower rates of re-offending among probationers would suggest the
effectiveness of probation in rehabilitation.
Program Evaluations:
Evaluations of probation programs in the Philippines can offer insights into
their effectiveness. These evaluations may assess factors such as
compliance with probation conditions, participation in rehabilitation
programs, and rates of reintegration into society.
Qualitative Studies:
Qualitative research can provide narratives and personal experiences of
individuals on probation, probation officers, and community members.
Success stories of rehabilitation and community reintegration can
highlight the positive impact of probation on reducing recidivism and
enhancing community safety.
Comparative Analysis:
Comparative studies between jurisdictions with and without robust
probation systems can help assess the impact of probation on reducing
crime rates and promoting community safety. Such analyses may
consider factors like crime rates, public perceptions of safety, and the
cost-effectiveness of probation compared to incarceration.
Longitudinal Studies: Long-term studies tracking the progress of
individuals after completing probation can offer valuable insights into the
sustained effects of probation on reducing recidivism and improving
community safety over time.
Expert Opinions: Input from criminologists, probation officers,
policymakers, and other experts in the field can provide informed
perspectives on the role of probation in reducing recidivism and
promoting community safety in the Philippines. By considering these
types of evidence, a comprehensive understanding of the impact of
probation on reducing recidivism rates and promoting community safety
in the Philippines can be achieved.
Factors Influencing Probation Outcomes:
Access to rehabilitation programs, supervision quality, and community
support significantly influence the success or failure of probation
outcomes.
1. Access to Rehabilitation Programs:
Research consistently demonstrates that participation in rehabilitation
programs is associated with reduced recidivism rates among offenders
(Andrews & Bonta, 2010). In the Philippine context, the availability and
effectiveness of such programs could be critical in determining probation
outcomes.
2. Supervision Quality:
Effective supervision by probation officers is essential for ensuring
compliance with court orders and promoting positive behavioral change
among probationers (Latessa & Smith, 2019). Factors such as caseload
size, training of probation officers, and the use of evidence-based
supervision practices are crucial in determining supervision quality.
3. Community Support:
The support of the community plays a vital role in the successful
reintegration of probationers into society. Studies have shown that
community support networks reduce recidivism by providing social capital
and opportunities for pro-social activities (Uggen et al., 2006).
To enhance the efficacy of non-institutional corrections under PD 968 and
address contemporary challenges in the Philippine criminal justice system,
several reforms are necessary:
1. Expansion of Rehabilitation Programs:
Investing in a diverse range of evidence-based rehabilitation programs
tailored to the specific needs of probationers, including education,
vocational training, substance abuse treatment, and mental health
services.
2. Training and Professional Development for Probation Officers:
Providing ongoing training and professional development opportunities for
probation officers to ensure they possess the skills and knowledge
necessary to effectively supervise probationers and facilitate their
rehabilitation.
3. Community Engagement Initiatives:
Implementing community-based initiatives to foster support for
probationers, raise awareness about the importance of rehabilitation, and
promote collaboration between stakeholders in the criminal justice system
and the community.
4. Data Collection and Evaluation:
Establishing robust data collection mechanisms to monitor probation
outcomes, evaluate program effectiveness, and identify areas for
improvement.
5. Policy Reform: Reviewing and updating PD 968 to align with
international best practices in probation and rehabilitation, as well as
addressing any legal or procedural barriers that may hinder the successful
implementation of non-institutional corrections.
Measures to Improve the Non-Institutional Treatment of Offenders
Problems/Issues Recommendations/Strategies
1. Prohibitive fees and 1.1 Strengthen inter-agency agreements to
charges in securing reduce fees
clearances for 1.2 Lobby for pertinent legislation
offenders applying for
probation, parole and
other forms of release
2. Inadequacy of 2.1 Sustain the revitalization of the Volunteer
services for detainees/Probation Aide (VPA) program, including
probationers/ parolees provision for travel, e.g., discounted bus fare,
and institutionalize the same.
2.2 Expand partnership/co-operation with
private sector/ individuals.
2.2.1 Enhance the aftercare programs,
particularly among drug dependents.
3. Enactment of laws 3.1 Amendment of certain provisions of
relative to community- Probation Law:
based alternatives to 3.1.2 Changing the name of VPA to Volunteer
incarceration Probation Officer or enactment of a VPO Law
3.1.2 Expanding the coverage of
probationable penalties from 6 years to
12 years
3.2 Merger of the PPA and the Board of Pardons
and Parole
3.3 Enactment of a Recognizance Law to allow
poor litigants who cannot post bail to be
released on recognizance.
3.4 Enactment of a law to unify the correctional
system or establishment of an inter-agency
monitoring/assessment system to unify the
thrusts of the corrections pillar
4. Lack of public 4.1 Maximizing existing information drives 4.2
information on how Engagement of the barangay information
corrections work system
CONCLUSION
Probation aims to help the offender rebuild himself and serve as a guide to
the right path. One of its benefits is that, even if the offender is serving
his/her sentence, they are still allowed to work in the community to
provide for their family. It also protects the society by the close
supervision of the offender. Probation is an important element of the
Criminal Justice System and also helps the offender, even though he
served his sentence outside the prison, he still needs to follow the rules
and conditions that the court may impose. The avoidance of committing
an offense or another crime means a positive change.
REFERENCES
Fernandez, D. M. B. (2019). A critical analysis of P.D. No. 968 otherwise
known as the “Probation Law of 1976”: Its implication and role in
restorative justice (Unpublished postgraduate thesis). Central Philippine
University, Jaro, Iloilo City. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12852/1087
Herradura, I. IMPROVING THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS THROUGH THE
ENHANCEMENT OF COMMUNITY-BASED ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION:
THE PHILIPPINE EXPERIENCE.
https://unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No79/No79_27VE_Herradura.pdf
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for Female Offenders: A
Meta-Analytic Review. Crime & Delinquency, 45(4), 438–452.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128799045004002
Smith, A., Heyes, K., Fox, C., Harrison, J., Kiss, Z., & Bradbury, A. (2018).
The effectiveness of probation supervision towards reducing reoffending:
A Rapid Evidence Assessment. Probation Journal, 65(4), 407–428.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0264550518796275
Jevandy. (n.d.). Research paper in Probation. Scribd.
https://www.scrib.com/doc/127328927/Research-Paper-in-Probation
Raynor, P., & Vanstone, M. (1994). Probation practice, effectiveness and
the Non-Treatment Paradigm. The British Journal of Social Work.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a056083
