108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY- BASED TREATMENT FOR OFFENDERS IN THE
PHILIPPINES: OLD CONCEPTS, NEW APPROACHES,BEST PRACTICES
Celia Copadocia Yangco*
I. INTRODUCTION
The reintegration of offenders into theirown community and society is one of theuniversally accepted goals of corrections,
whether the latter is carried out ininstitutions or through non-custodial
measures. To ensure that offenders
discharged from detention centers, jails,
penal institutions or rehabilitation centersre-claim their part and role in society, there
is a need to assist them in theirreunification with their families and reentry into the community. Thus, it isimperative to sustain rehabilitation andachieve reintegration through thecommunity-based treatment of exoffenders.
Moreover, the commission of crime is a
result or consequence of the inter-play offactors and conditions in one’s self, theimmediate and bigger environment, andone’s choices and decision-making
processes. Hence, it is necessary that thesehuman and environmental factors are
examined closely and appropriate
measures adopted to assist ex-offenders intheir reintegration efforts.
Recognizing that the community is
usually also the locus of the offense orcrime, the community must be harnessedto assume greater responsibility inreforming offenders and preventing
recidivism. The community and society
must also play vital roles in the eliminationof the psycho-social, economic, and culturalbarriers and other causes of crime in its* Assistant Secretary, Department of Social Welfare
and Development, Philippinnes

environ, in order to prevent crime, ensure
peace, and promote development in thelocality.
To maximize the role of the community
in an offender’s reintegration process, there
is a need to continuously re-examine theconcepts related to community-based
corrections. At the same time, newapproaches that have evolved locally andglobally, related to these concepts, should
be appreciated. In this process, bestpractices in community based corrections
must be documented and replicated, so thatthey continue to be viable alternatives tocustodial care of offenders.
This paper is a modest contribution to
the continuous quest for effective
treatment measures to facilitate thereintegration of offenders into society. It
examines these measures mostly from asocial development perspective, withemphasis on the role of social institutions
such as the family and the community
within the Philippine experience. The term
‘offender’ rather than ‘prisoner’ has been
adopted and used throughout the paper
because it covers both adult and youth
offenders, as well as examines effective
practices before, during and after trial thatare conducive to the rehabilitation of
offenders.
II. RATIONALE FOR COMMUNITYBASED TREATMENT
The international community has longrecognized that the goals of a humane
criminal justice system are best served if
offenders are reintegrated andrehabilitated by means other than283

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
incarceration. In fact, it has been widely
accepted that incarceration or
imprisonment should be a last resort andutilized for those who have committed
serious and heinous crimes, and that
community-based treatment should
instead be promoted whenever possible andfeasible to hasten an offenders’reintegration into society.
Imprisonment leads to other problems
related to an offender’s stigmatization anddesocialization. Often, prisons thwart theoffenders’ potential for growth andexcellence, and spawn dependence andmistrust on their part instead. Prisons
usually alienate offenders from theirfamily, friends and acquaintances. Due toovercrowding, prisons lead todehumanizing conditions, which makereintegration and resocialization even moredifficult.
Prisons spawn the formation of “subcultures” among prisoners that tend toharden them. This is so because prisoners
have to counteract the effects ofdeprivations of imprisonment and theconditions prevailing in jails which areoften rigid and arbitrary.
Corrective actions and treatment
measures are better achieved in a naturalenvironment such as the community where
offenders can highlight and re-live theareas of their life they want to change.
Since the community is the natural locus
for legal, socio-economic and culturalchanges and development, community
based corrections enable offenders to adapt
more effectively to such changes in a more
realistic and flexible manner. The
community also provides a network of
relationships and a range of activities thatenable offenders to know themselves betterin a variety of real life situations, thus
improving their social skills and enhancing
their social functioning.
Moreover, offenders are able to continue
dispensing responsibilities for many dayto-day basic socio-economic commitments

284

such as managing a home, budgeting
resources, deciding on family matters, etc.
when s/he is with their family. This enables
them to maintain self-esteem. Due to their
exposure to the day-to-day realities of life
in society, they are afforded moreparticipation in planning, implementing
and evaluating their reintegration plans innatural settings. The planning process isalso more responsive and relevant because
both constraints and resources in thecommunity are taken into consideration by
the offender in a “here-and-now” situation
which calls for dynamic responses fromthem. This contrasts with imprisonment,
where rehabilitation work is based more
on a reflection of past failures and planningfor the future.
The implementation and evaluation ofrehabilitation and reintegration plans, on
the other hand, can be monitored moreclosely as these are related to the offenders’daily living in the community. Due to this,re-planning can be easily resorted to, basedon immediate feedback.
From an economic point of view, theburden of maintaining an entire prison
bureaucracy is eliminated in communitybased treatment. It is a fact that the costof rehabilitation is relatively cheaperoutside of prison, where huge personnel
complements, operating costs, capitaloutlays and other costs have to be
maintained. The cost of assisting andsupervising offenders is supplemented andcomplemented by existing community
resources and infrastructures, which areotherwise not present in institutionalarrangements.
Moreover, community-based corrections
offer opportunity costs that are not present
in most custodial-care arrangements.
Examples of these opportunity costs are thecosts of income and productive efforts ashead or a member of the family and thecommunity.

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
III. OLD CONCEPTS AND NEW
APPROACHES IN THE TREATMENTOF OFFENDERSThe Philippines has been supportive of
the goals of community-based treatment
and has continuously adopted measuresconsistent with the United Nations
Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial measures or the Tokyo Rules.
In order to appreciate fully the goals andadvantages of community-based treatmentin the context of the Philippines, there is aneed to revisit the old and traditional
concepts of treating offenders and those of
emerging ones, specifically from a social
development framework.
Social development, as defined by theUnited Nations, is the greater capacity ofthe social system, social structure,
institutions, services and policy to utilize
resources to generate favorable changes inlevels of living, interpreted in the broad
sense as related to accepted social values
and a better distribution of income, wealthand opportunities. Social development
therefore, covers a comprehensive, yet
integrated, field that encompasses
education, health and nutrition, livelihood,social welfare, etc. It involves the servicesof educators, medical practitioners, social
workers, psychologists and other social
scientists that contribute to improvementin the quality of human life.
Doreen Elliott (1993) argues that social
development values represent an ideology
close to that of the values of social work,
except that the values are less individuallyfocused. She argues further that whilesocial work is essentially individuallyoriented and politically conservative, social
development is globally and radicallyoriented. Omer (1979) suggests thathuman dignity, equality and social justice
are key values in a social development
approach. These values are therefore
consistent with those adopted by theUnited Nations Minimum Standard thatencourages countries to pursue crime
prevention and criminal justice within theframework of the promotion of humanrights, social justice and social
development.
From this social development context, it
is best to examine old concepts related tothe treatment of offenders vis-a-vis the new
approaches in this field.
A. Individual Pathology vis-a-vis
Empowerment Approach
The traditional concept of treating
offenders has been towards examining theoffender’s characteristics, behavior, values
and other personal traits and the causes
behind committing a crime, among otherfactors. Criminals would be examined froma criminologic point of view, which usually
led to self-blaming. Thus, the treatment
approach would be individual therapy,
focusing on behavior modification.
The empowerment approach, which isbasically a social development approach,however, looks not only at simplistic unicausal explanations, but at the offender asa “person-in-environment”, i.e., one in a
dynamic relationship with theirenvironment and prescribed roles in variedsocial situations. It assumes aninterdependence of relationships between
the parts (the offender and his/her family)
and the whole (community and society).
Thus, while behavior modification
continues to be a goal in rehabilitation andreintegration, empowerment, which is theharnessing of the offender ’s adaptive
capacities, decision-making abilities andcapability to link and access to outside
resources, is a tandem goal in our present
efforts. Harnessing and honing adaptive
capacities are deemed necessary becauseof the fast changing conditions in theenvironment brought about by
globalization, information technology,
accelerated development and other factors.
The failure of some individuals andfamilies to adapt to such sudden and swift

285

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
changes brings about crisis in theiradaptation and social functioning. This
therefore calls for harnessing not only theoffender’s capacity to handle crisis, solve
problems, and make right and timely
decisions, but also their own and family’sability to identify resources. Through thisempowerment scheme, they are madeaware of what are the resources fromwithin and outside the family, which they
can tap to address their needs andproblems.
B. Analytical cum Systems
Approaches
Consistent with a lesser emphasis onindividual pathology is the move from theanalytical approach towards a systems
approach. In the analytical approach, thewhole is broken into parts and examinedclosely. Thus, an offender ’s mental,
psychological and socio-economic
conditions are examined thoroughly anddissected carefully as basis for treatment
goals.
In the systems approach, on the other
hand, the parts are linked and integrated
as a whole. It is an inter-disciplinary andholistic approach. Elliott offers a context
model or paradigm for the systems analysis
node of guidance in approaching social
problems, as shown in Table I. It ranges
through the system levels: international,
national, state, regional, local,
organizational, family and individual, andsets these alongside functional social
systems such as economic, political, sociocultural, scientific and religious.
Through this paradigm, problems will beless likely viewed from an individual

TABLE I
SocialSystemEconomic

Context Model for Systems Analysis
Political
Sociocultural
Scientific

Religious

SystemLevel
International

Production

Distribution of
goods,
services,income,wealth,opportunity

Structures,groups,sub-groups

MedicalWorship

National

Distribution

Identifying
needs

Communication
systems

Ecological

Unification
andBonding

State
Regional

Exchange

Value/education
rationalization

Creativity

PhysicalHealing

Local

Power
Recreation
distribution
and maintenance

Organizational

Access to goods

FamilyIndividual286

Education

Mathematicaland services

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
pathology but from a systems approach.
Elliott is cited as an example of theexamination of the interface between
economic (on the social system dimension)and the drug culture and the individual (onthe system level). Drug culture offers many
young people in the cities a quick way toachieve material goals, which may beclosed to them through legitimate means.
The lack of social stimulation and a poor
environment clearly impinges on drugrelated behavior. Current responses suchas border control and the growth of prisonsemphasize social control.
A social development approach, however,would address the problems at various
levels, namely:(1) individual therapy so that immediateand short term considerations are notignored;(2) economic re-structuring with a focus
on urban and rural poverty;(3) preventive educational campaigns;
and(4) empowerment schemes.
Thus, participants in the drug culture
would not be seen as criminal or sick perse, but as underprivileged and victims ofsocial injustice.
C. Micro-Macro Continuum
Approach
The foregoing discussions lead to theadoption of a micro-macro continuum in theprevention of crime and treatment ofoffenders. It links micro, or individual
therapy approaches, to macro or systems
approaches that enable multi-level andmulti-system intervention.
These multi-level approaches andinterventions from the Philippines
experience include:
1. Total Family Approach
A recognition of the importance which
the family plays in the commission of crimeand on the offender ’s rehabilitation

continues to be the focus of contemporarycommunity-based corrections in the
country. Today not only is the offender thefocus of intervention, but also their family
as well. Realizing and recognizing that thecrime offenders commit can be a symptomof a deeper problem or dysfunctioning
within the family, the family members are
assisted and harnessed to realize theirpotentials as individuals in this most basic
unit of society.
The family has been considered as a
primary support group for the offender’srehabilitation and eventual reintegration.
Most rehabilitation efforts are focused on
maintaining harmonious relations between
the offender, their family and thecommunity; strengthening andempowering them altogether. This stems
from the realization that in a number of
instances, the offender ’s reason forcommitting a crime is family-related i.e.,
the family is poor or hungry, lacking inbasic amenities, needing hospitalization,
etc.. Family-related concerns are also
reasons frequently given by offenders fortheir escape from jails, prisons or
rehabilitation centers and their desire tobe free.
The influence of family members is also
evident in the rehabilitation process,especially since most family members
constitute the “significant others” in an
offender’s life; thus providing a source of
motivation, help and “healing” to theoffender.
The total family approach in communitybased corrections looks at the offender inthe context of their family - its strengths
and weaknesses, its resources andproblems, potentials and constraints.
Family resources- both human andmaterial - are pooled together so that theoffender’s reintegration can be hastened
and facilitated, while at the same time
addressing the problems of other family
members.
Family-centered treatment is therefore

287

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
adopted and maximized by organizations
to assist the offender and their family. For
example, due to realization of theimportance of the family as a support
system, youth offenders who no longer havefamilies are placed in foster care, wage
homes or are afforded kinship-support
assistance to ensure that they are provided
the benefits and advantages of living in anatural, home-life situation andatmosphere.
2. Community Structure Support
Next to the family, the immediate
community is seen as a valuable support
system for an offender. The community
should assume primary responsibility forthe offender, as it is usually the origin ofcrime. It is in the community where theoffender’s roots are, where his/her peers
and friends are often found, where they canbe further educated and trained, where
they practice their religion, pursue life
goals and continuously strive to belong. It
is also a resource for their and their family,
in times of need and desolation, and towhich they and their family also contribute
their share and resources wheneverpossible. The community is thus the bigger
locus for an offender ’s change andtransformation given its resources,
networks and the opportunities it offers to
pursue a productive and useful life.
New approaches in community-based
treatment involve the harnessing andmaximization of community structures
outside of the family. Schools, the church,community leaders and members, nongovernment, voluntary and people’sorganizations, civic associations, businessgroups and other sectors, in addition to
government, should be tapped andmobilized to contribute their resources tothe treatment and reintegration of
offenders, and the strengthening of theirfamilies. These community structurescomplement and supplement the services
for offenders offered by the State.

288

Wi t h t h e m u s h r o o m i n g o f n o n governmental organizations, people’sorganizations, civic, religious orprofessional groups, and other community
structures, there are now many resources
to help offenders and their families leadproductive and meaningful lives.
Volunteer groups have become necessarycomponents in the rehabilitation of
offenders and their reintegration. Both at
the institutional and non-institutionalsettings, volunteer groups form part of therehabilitation resources. They are utilized
in the educational, physical, spiritual,social and cultural activities of offenders.
The Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment (DSWD) has a Volunteer
Intervention Program for Youth in Conflictwith the Law, which utilizes senior citizens,
women groups, civic, religious and otherorganizations and individuals. These
volunteers are trained and provided
technical assistance in their volunteer
work of assisting and monitoring the youth
as they are rehabilitated and reintegrated
into society.
The Department of Justice correctional
bureaus also utilize volunteer groups to alarge extent. The Probation and Parole
Administration (PPA) utilizes volunteer
probation aides which assist probation
officers in rehabilitating parolees andprobationers. Likewise, volunteers are
utilized in penitentiaries and penal
institutions.
The local government units and the
Bureau of Jail Management and Penology,
under the Department of Interior and Local
Government, also utilize volunteers to agreat extent in educational, medical,
religious, cultural and recreational
activities.
3. Maximizing Socio-Cultural Values as
Treatment Stimulus
The role of culture in crime prevention
and the treatment of offenders has long
been recognized. In the Philippines,

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
certain cultural values are maximized toassist in the reintegration of offenders andin their “healing “ process.
Among the strengths of the Filipino
character is a deep faith in God or belief ina Supreme Being. Such belief arouses
reverence, gratitude, the will to obey andserve and other positive values. In
ordaining and promulgating the country’s
Constitution, and in everyday life, theFilipino people invoke the aid of Almighty
God, whether this God at the individuallevel is Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha,
Jehovah, etc.. We ascribe human traits,
our fate, and fortune to a supernatural God
whom we honor and love. This enables us
to accept reality in the context of God’s will
and plan. Due to this sense of spirituality,
we can be optimistic even at the mostpressing of times. Spirituality encourages
a life with values based on truth and loverather than the acquisition of material
things.
This sense of spirituality is thus
recognized and considered in formulating
treatment measures for the socially andeconomically disadvantaged, including
offenders. The spiritual dimension ofreintegration not only into the family andthe community, but also with one’s Creator
makes the treatment plans more complete
and holistic. It also makes the offender
more remorseful and insightful because of
the belief that “man does not live by breadalone” and that s/he must also take care ofwhat happens to their spirit.
Spiritual programs are therefore
integrated among the services andopportunities afforded to offenders, both ininstitutional and non-institutionalsettings, enabling them to strive towards
moral purity and healthy living inaccordance with God’s intent and purposes.
Moreover, among the regular volunteers
in prisons, jails or rehabilitation centers,
as well as community-based programs, arespiritual and religious groups. These
groups contribute to the improvement andbetterment of the offenders’ personality
and character, by giving deeper meaning
to life and the enhancement of thecorrections’ programs.
4. Devolution of Basic Services
Recent development of management
practices at the sub-regional levels of thecountry have also contributed to the micromacro continuum of the treatment ofoffenders. In 1992, the national
government through the Local Government
Code, devolved responsibility for theprovision of basic services, together withthe corresponding funds, manpower andother resources, to the local government
units in the provinces, cities, municipalities
and barangays (villages). This signaled thechange of responsibility from national
agencies to local government units over theprovision of basic social services. Includedin this devolution is the management ofcommunity-based services along with thesocio-economic development of families
within the local government’s area of
responsibility. Local government units
have therefore taken primary roles in the
alleviation of poverty among theirconstituencies, the promotion of peace andorder, and socio-economic development intheir areas.
Due to this devolution, support services
needed for the rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders into thecommunity became closer and moreaccessible to them and their families. Inview of the autonomy given to local
governments, they have embarked on new
and innovative ways of managing andadministering basic social services aimed
at improving the lives of their constituentsand promoting growth with equity. This
move complemented the strengthening offamilies and communities as support
groups for the disadvantaged such as theoffenders. It also afforded local
governments the opportunitiy to craft newservices that are relevant and responsive

289

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
to the local residents, given their resources
and the problems to be confronted. In fact,
a number of provincial governments havemade innovations in the management ofprovincial jails which are now under them,a welcome development in thereintegration of offenders.
5. Adoption of Social Reform Agenda
In 1994, the Philippines launched theSocial Reform Agenda (SRA) which is thecommitment of the Ramos Administration
to attain a balance between economic
growth and social equity. The SRA is a
package of programs and reforms that
addresses the minimum basic needs offamilies, and the reform needs of basic
sectors to reduce poverty. It is likewise astrategy of effectively converging all sectors— government, civil society and businesssectors-and matching their programs with
the needs of target communities andfamilies. It is aimed at improving thequality of life of Filipino families, especiallythose whose income falls below the poverty
threshold.
A feature of the SRA that directly relates
to the reintegration of offenders andstrengthening of their family is the use of
the Minimum Basic Needs (MBN)
approach in assessing the socio-economic
levels of poor families. It addresses
purposively the survival, security andenabling needs of poor families through 33
indicators.
The MBN for survival comprise ofmaternal and child health, adequate
nutrition, water and sanitation and basic
clothing. The MBN regarding security isaddressed by the program in terms ofincome and employment, security andsafety of families, and housing.
Specifically, under the security minimum
basic needs, two indicators are identified
directly with crime prevention, i.e.,
Indicator no. 18 (no family member is tobe victimized by crime against persons) andIndicator no. 19 (no family member is to290

be victimized by crime against property).
Since there is a purposive targeting offamilies in given communities through the
MBN, the poor conditions that spawn crimeand impinge on the successful
reintegration of offenders are improved.
Also, the prevention of crime is mademanifest at the family and village levels,
because target families of the program
consciously exert efforts to prevent crimeand avoid being victims or offenders.
The enabling needs addressed are
education, people’s participation and family
care/psycho-social requirements.
IV. MODALITIES IN THE
TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS IN
THE PHILIPPINES
Like many countries, the correctional
system in the Philippines has both an
institution-based and a community-based
component. It also has separate treatment
systems for youth offenders and adultoffenders.
The custodial care of adult offenders ishandled by the following:
1. The Bureau of Jail Management andPenology (BJMP) under the
Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) which has
supervision over all district, city andmunicipal jails and detention centers.
These jails house detainees awaiting
judicial disposition of their case andoffenders whose sentence range fromone (1) day to three (3) years.
2. The Provincial Governments, whichhave supervision and control overprovincial jails. These jails housecourt detainees and prisoners whose
prison terms range from six (6)months and one (1) day, to three (3)years.
3. The Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR)

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
under the Department of Justice(DOJ), which has control over thenational penitentiary and its penal
farms, houses convicted offenders
with prison sentences ranging fromthree (3) years and one (1) day, to life
imprisonment.

administered by the DSWD through its
regional field offices nationwide, incoordination with the local government’ssocial welfare and development offices.
After-care and follow-up services are
likewise carried out for youth offenders by
the DSWD.

Youth offenders in the Philippines aretreated differently. A youth offender isdefined as a child over nine (9) years but
below eighteen (18) years of age at the timeof the commission of an offense. Under thecountry’s laws, these youth offenders areentitled to a suspended sentence. Insteadof serving their sentence, they are
rehabilitated in regional youth
rehabilitation centers, which are managed
and supervised by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD). There
are ten (10) rehabilitation centers for youth
offenders, one of which is a National
Training School for Boys and the other, aNational Training School for Girls. Theirstay in the center can be shorter than theirsentence term, depending on how they
respond to the rehabilitation process
therein.
The non-institutional treatment of adultoffenders is managed primarily by the
Department of Justice (DOJ) through its
Parole and Probation Administration and
the Board of Pardons. Probation for adultoffenders is available to those whose
penalty of imprisonment does not exceed
six (6) years. It is considered as a matterof privilege and not of right. Hence, theadult offender has to apply for probation
before the court upon conviction. This isalso true for the parole system.
The Department, in cooperation withother agencies and the Asia Crime
Prevention Philippines Inc. (ACPPI), now
operates the recently constructed
Philippine-Japan Halfway House, a newalternative for treating adult offenders.
On the other hand, community-based
rehabilitation services for the youth are

V. BEST PRACTICES INCOMMUNITY BASED TREATMENT
After revisiting the concepts, approaches
and modalities in community-based
treatment of offenders in the Philippines,
an appreciation of the “best practices” oreffective treatment measures during the
pre-trial, trial, post trial and post
institutionalization is in order.
1. Pre-Trial(1)The “Katarungang
Pambarangay” (Village Justice
System)The Philippines takes pride in the factthat it has a unique and indigenous wayof settling disputes and treating
offenders at its smallest political unit
level - the village or “barangay”. The
system is called “Katarungang
Pambarangay” and is aimed at theamicable settlement of disputes at thebarangay level. Established in 1978, itaims to promote the speedy, peaceful andinexpensive administration of justiceand to relieve the police, prosecutors’
offices and courts of concileable cases.
Settlements and awards rendered under
this system have the force and effect ofa final court judgment.
Under the jurisdiction of the“Katarungang Pambarangay” are all
disputes which are punishable byimprisonment not exceeding one (1) year
or a fine not exceeding P5,000 between
and among parties actually residing inthe same village, city or municipality.
Non-criminal cases outside of thecoverage of the Katarungang

291

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
Pambarangay may be referred, foramicable settlement, to the “Lupong
Tagapamayapa” or peacekeeping board
at any time before trial by the police,prosecutor or court.
This peace-keeping board carries out
the functions of the Katarungang
Pambarangay and is created in each of
the more than 42,000 barangays/villages
in the Philippines. It is headed by thebarangay Chairman and not less than10, nor more than 20, members selected
every three (3) years from among thebarangay residents or persons working
in the barangay not otherwise
disqualified by law.
A three-member “pangkat na tagapagkasundo” or mediation team isconstituted from among the Lupong
Tagapamayapa to continue conciliatory
efforts when the barangay chairman
fails to amicably settle disputes
submitted before the Lupon.
This form of justice administration
enables both the victim and the offender
the opportunity to amicably settle theirdisputes amongst people who have amore intimate knowledge of them, andtherefore the reasons for their dispute.
Due to their proximity to the locus of thecrime, the Lupon members are also able
to take stock of the socio-economic andcultural dimensions of the dispute andthus have a better understanding of thecrime and the parties involved.
Consequently, since the barangay
chairman, who is the chief executive
officer at the village level, is also thechair of the Lupon, he/she can link theparties involved in productive andmeaningful endeavors and address theroot causes of or contributory factors totheir problems which may be present in
the community which she heads. These
community factors may include the lackof employment, the presence of vices,
negative peer influences and so forth.
Thus, the early detection of possible

292

offenders and the correction of their
negative behavior can hopefully bebetter addressed in a manner that ismore responsive and relevant to themthrough the Katarungang Pambarangay
which prevents their further
involvement in crimes and offenses.
(2)Release on Recognizance andOther Diversion Services
A Filipino juvenile who comes inconflict with the law whether at thebarangay or police level is immediately
referred to the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD), or
the local social welfare offices, by virtueof the provisions of the Child and YouthWelfare Code or Presidential Decree(PD) 603 enacted in 1974, way ahead of
the Beijing Rules. This law provides full
protection of the rights of Filipino
children and youths and enhances their
meaningful participation in national
development, regardless of their sociocultural and economic status in life.
Through community-based diversion
services, social welfare workers arecalled upon to assist youths who havecome in conflict with the law as early as
when they come to the attention of the
Lupon Tagapamayapa at the barangay.
They also visit detention centers andjails regularly i.e., at least once a week,
to check whether there are women andyouth offenders in detention. These
workers also maintain close coordination
with Women Desks and Child and Youth
Relations Units of police stations, whichhave Women Desk Officers and Childand Youth Relations Officers among thepolice force. So juvenile offenders arediverted from the criminal justicesystem, released on recognizance andplaced under supervision of a responsible
adult or are reunited with his/her family
under the supervision of a social worker.
Once diverted or out of detention, theyouths are assisted in their problems, in108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
the context of their family conditions andsituations, through the formulation of atreatment and rehabilitation plan. Mostof them are assisted to go back to school,
to gain some skills or, if already able towork, assisted in having self or open
employment. Their families’ concerns
are also looked into and they are linked
to resources that can help them.
This scheme enables the youth to beprotected, rehabilitated and trained forsocio-economic and civic responsibility
for the betterment of himself/herself,
their family and community, without
undergoing unnecessary detention andeventual alienation.
The Republic Act 306 or the Releaseon Recognizance Law also applies tooffenders whose penalty is six (6) months
or less and/or a fine of P2,000.00. They
are usually released in to the custody ofa responsible person in the community,
instead of posting a bail bond.
2. Trial or Adjudication Stage(1) Suspended Sentence for Youth
Offenders
Under the provisions of the Child andYouth Welfare Code, the execution of thesentence of youth offenders is suspended
and s/he instead is either committed tothe care and custody of the DSWD’s
rehabilitation centers for youths, orplaced under its custody supervision/
probation servise.
The probationary treatment ofjuvenile offenders in the Philippines
preceded that of the adult offenders andstarted on December 3, 1924 when Act
3202, the first juvenile delinquency lawof the land was passed. The probation
service for the youth offenders starts
when, after formal adjudication, s/he isreleased to their family, guardian or
responsible person in the community
under the direct supervision of theDSWD, instead of commitment to ayouth rehabilitation center. The

placement continues until such time that
the Court terminates the case upon
proper recommendation of the DSWD
social worker.
The social worker and the youth,
together with their family, prepare atreatment and rehabilitation plan thatguides the youth. Linkages and referral
to community services and institutions
such as school, the church, nongovernment organizations and othergovernment agencies are maintained toenable the early reintegration of the
youth offender.
Commitment to a DSWD
rehabilitation center for youths alsooffers various opportunities for an
offender ’s early reintegration to thec o m m u n i t y. S i n c e t h e D S W D ’s
rehabilitation centers are open
institutions and are situated in theregions where offenders come from, theyouth is afforded an opportunity tointerface with the community or
experience homelife conditions in a
number of ways that are conducive toreintegration and rehabilitation. These
opportunities are integrated in a
package of programs and services withthe acronym “SHEPHERDS”, namely:(a) Social Services: The DSWD social
workers in rehabilitation centers takethe lead not only in the formulationof treatment plans but also in the
integration of services for the offenderand their family. The social worker
ensures that offenders are afforded
individualized treatment by therehabilitation team. Case conferences
are done regularly among therehabilitation team members tomonitor the progress of treatment
plans.
In addition to providing the youth
casework and counseling services, therehabilitation centers provide
opportunities for the youth to293

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
continue contact with their family not
only by mail, but also through regular
visitations by the offender to theirfamily and vice-versa. The centers
also celebrate a “Family Day” once amonth where the youths’ families areinvited to a day of inter-action not
only with their children, but also withthe latter ’s fellow wards, social
workers, substitute houseparents
and the Center’s other personnel.
The youth can also be granted an“out-on-pass” privilege through thecourt to attend important family
developments such as when a parent
is sick or passed away; during
Christmas and New Year, and othersignificant occasions, based on good
behavior.
To ensure the successful reintegration of the offenders into theircommunity, the Center staff involvethe community-based social workers
in the treatment planning andimplementation, where the latterattends to the needs of the offender’sfamily. As early as the treatment
planning stage, reintegration isalready included as a goal for theoffender’s family. For instance, where
an offender’s problem stems from thefact that their family has a low
income, his/her siblings are not inschool, or his/her parents lackparenting skills, the community
social worker addresses theseconcerns and reports progress onthese efforts to the Center staff.
The center-based and communitybased social workers also collaborateon the discharge planning for theoffender. Eventually, the community
social worker provides supervision
and after care services to thedischarged offender to ensure thatthe reintegration plan is put into
action.

294(b) Homelife Services: enables the youth
to learn household chores such as
shopping, cooking, cleaning, making
beds, etc., as well as positive values
in relation to their present homebased roles as son/daughter, brother/sister, etc., in addition to those roles
they will assume in the future if theychoose to have their own families.
(c) Educational Services: these centersutilize existing schools within thevicinity or, if the schools are within
the center, the youths in the nearby
community are allowed to avail of thecenter ’s school. This enables the
youth offender to be mainstreamed
and to interface with other youths
without cases, thus preventing theirfurther alienation. In a few instances,offenders are allowed to pursue
education beyond high school incooperation with nearby colleges anduniversities.
(d) Psychological Services: provide theyouth opportunities to understandthemselves better, to know how tobehave in a group, and to relate withothers. Upon admission, the youth
undergoes psychological testing
which is utilized in the crafting of thetreatment and reintegration plan,and in helping them modify their
behavior according to the sociocultural norm of the community.
Through this service, individual andgroup sessions are held with theCenter’s residents.
(e) Health Services: are provided toyouth offenders to hasten their
physical development. Medical anddental services enable the youth toattain physical well being that
contributes to their personality
development and sense of security as
they prepare to be reintegrated into

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
their community.
(f) Economic Programs and Services in
Rehabilitation Centers: provide skills
training, entrepreneurial or business
management exposure and direct
experience in productivity or
livelihood projects to the offenders.
The skills or crafts they are trainedin and exposed to are in accordancewith their “back-home situation”. For
example, if an offender comes froman agricultural area, s/he is trainedin agricultural productivity skills.
The offender is also equipped with theappropriate work ethics and values
relevant to their work when they are
finally discharged from therehabilitation center, thus ensuringthat reintegration is easier.
(g) Recreational Services: are likewise
made available to the offender in linewith their interest and physicalcondition. Recreation can come in theform of indoor or outdoor games andsports, television viewing, painting,reading, and the like. Their exposure
to sports enables the offender topractice discipline, sportsmanshipand know how to relate with others.
(h) Developmental Services: are also
afforded to the offenders throughtheir exposure to group meetings,
consultations, and other groupexperience. The offenders areorganized into youth groups known
as “Pag-asa (Hope) Youth Association(PYA)” which becomes a means foroffenders to participate in theplanning and decision-making
processes inside the Center. Since the
PYA is also present in the community
where they live, it becomes easier forthe offender to be re-integrated into
the community by linking them withexisting PYA groups in the area.

Their experience as a member orleader of the youth group enables
them to have planning andmanagement skills that will be useful
should they wish to be active
members of their barangay
development councils and/or assumecommunity leadership roles in the
future.
(i) Socio-cultural Programs: are likewise
available in the DSWD’s
rehabilitation centers. These include
cultural presentations that enable
the youth to develop their talents andskills along theater, acting, drama,
dancing, singing, etc., as well as toappreciate cultural practices handed
over from one generation to another,to deepen their roots and love ofcountry.
Spiritual programs are part of thiscategory of services for the offender.
By experiencing a deeper relationshipwith their Creator, the offenders areafforded more guidance, protection,liberation and friendship. Throughthis program, they are encouraged tohave faith in their capacity to change,
and in God, and in God’s plan forthem. They are made to understandthat they are unique and have a
distinct role to play to make the world
a better place, hence are enabled toperform all their daily roles with careand enjoyment.
The statistics of the DSWD for 1996 and1997 indicate that for every one (1) youth
offender served in the Rehabilitation
Centers, a corresponding number of four(4) offenders avail of custody supervision/
probation in the community, or a ratio of
1:4 institutional versus non-institutional
treatment. Table II details these figures.
From the figures in the table II, it can begleaned that community-based treatment
has been maximized for youth offenders by

295

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
the DSWD. This is not only in line withthe country’s support for the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, but inaccordance with the provisions of thePhilippine Constitution which recognizes
the vital role of the youth in nationbuilding, and promotes and protects their
physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual andsocial well-being.
TABLE II
NO. OF YOUTH OFFENDERSSERVED BY DSWD (1996 - 1997)
Corrections Mode
1. Served in 10
Rehabilitation Centers
2. Served throughCustody/Supervision
TOTAL

1996

1997

1,861

1,691

7,361
9,222

6,747
8,438

Source: DSWD Planning Service(2) Probation for Adult Offenders
Probation for adult offenders in thePhilippines came much later than that foryouth offenders. Started in 1976 throughPresidential Decree (PD)968, adultprobation can be availed only once, andusually only by first time offenders, forpenalties of imprisonment not exceedingsix (6) years. Thus, an offender has to apply
for probation before the court uponconviction.
Probation as defined in the PD, refers
to a disposition under which a defendant,
after conviction and sentence, is released
subject to conditions imposed by the Court
and under the supervision of a probation
officer. The investigation and supervisionof probationers are latched on the
Department of Justice’s Parole andProbation Administration (PPA) which was
created upon the passage of PD 968 in
1976, and which has administrative
authority over probation officers.
Probation supervision aims to bring about
the rehabilitation of the probationer and296

their re-integration into the community.
The probationers are afforded by the
PPA the opportunity to continue education(whether formal or non-formal), be
employed or engaged in income generating
activities and pursue other worth-while
projects while under supervision. These
are carried out directly by the PPA or
through coordination with othergovernment agencies such as the DSWD,
the Department of Education, Culture andSports (DECS) and local government
agencies, as well as private and civic
groups. While already a form ofcommunity-based treatment by itself,
probation in the Philippines allows forearly termination of probation cases oncertain grounds.
The following probationers are eligible
for recommendation of early terminationof their cases:(1) Those who are suffering from serious
physical and/or mental disability suchas the deaf-mute, lepers, the crippled,the blind, the senile, the bed-ridden,
and the like.
(2) Those who do not need further
supervision as evidenced by thefollowing:(a) Consistent and religious compliancewith all the conditions imposed in
the order granting probation;(b) Positive response to the programsof supervision designed for theirrehabilitation;(c) Significant improvements in theirsocial and economic life;(d) Absence of any derogatory record
while under probation;(e) Marked improvement in their
outlook in life through becomingsocially aware and responsible
members of the family andcommunity; and(f) Significant growth in self-esteem,
discipline and self-fulfillment.
Provided that, the probationers involved
have already served one-third of the

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
imposed period of probation; and provided
further, that in no case shall the actual
supervision period be less than six (6)months.
(3) Those who have:(a) To travel abroad due to any of thefollowing:· An approved overseas job contract
or any other similar documents;or· An approved application for
scholarship, observation tour or
study grant for a period not lessthan six (6) months; or· An approved application for
immigration;(b) To render public service:· Having been elected to any public
office; or· Having been appointed to any
public office.
Provided, however, that the probationers
involved have fully paid their civil
liabilities, if any.
(4) Other probationers who have fully
cooperated with/participated in the
programs of supervision designed fortheir rehabilitation and who aresituated under conditions/circumstances similar in nature to
those above described at the discretionof the proper authorities.
3. Post-Trial Stage(1) Open Prison Programs
The Bureau of Corrections (Bucor)
under the Department of Justice also
maintains penal colonies and farms
outside of prisons where deserving
prisoners can bring their families.
They are also allowed to engage inlivelihood by being contract farmers,
cultivating a piece of land, raising
livestock and poultry, engaging indifferent crafts for their subsistence
and being involved in other economic
and socio-cultural activities. This open

arrangement also enhances
reintegration efforts for ex-offenders
and their re-adjustment in community
setting.
(2) Pardon
The act of forgiving the wrongdoing of
an offender and which is conducive toearly reintegration, is also practiced in
the Philippines. Under Philippine Law,a Board of Pardons and Parole oversees
this program and recommends to the
President of the Republic the grant ofexecutive clemency to certain
prisoners. Executive clemency refers
to either the commutation of sentence,absolute pardon and conditional
pardon, with or without parole
conditions as may be granted by the
President upon recommendation of theBoard.
(3) Parole
Which refers to the conditional releaseof an offender from a penal orcorrectional institution after s/he hasserved the minimum period of theirprison sentence under the continued
custody of the State and underconditions that permit theirreincarceration if s/he violates a
condition for their release, is also
administered by the Parole andProbation Administration (PPA).
The Board of Pardons and Parole,
which recommends both pardon andparole privileges to the President, doso under the policy of “uplifting andredeeming valuable human material toeconomic usefulness and to prevent
unnecessary and excessive deprivationof personal liberty”.
4. Post-Institutionalization(1) Halfway House for Adult Prisoners
An essential transition arrangement
between institutional placement,
especially among prisoners or offenders
long confined in closed institutions, and297

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54that of community-based services isthat of a halfway house. A halfway
house, as the term connotes, is a
residential facility where released
prisoners can be provided theopportunities to gradually adjust tocommunity life, and to prepare themfor full reintegration to society.
The first halfway house for offenders
in the Philippines was that for youth
offenders. Set up in the mid-1960’s ina regular community in Quezon City,
Metro Manila, this halfway house,
known as a Youth Residence, wassupervised by the DSWD for youth
offenders released from the National
Training School for Boys (NTSB). At
that time, there was only one
reformatory school for boys. Whenregional youth rehabilitation centerswere established all over the country
in the late 1970’s, the need for the YouthResidence was no longer seen asnecessary. This was because theregional centers provided a communitybased setting for the youth offenders
that hastened their reintegration
process without the necessity of going
through a halfway house. Thus, theYouth Residence was phased out in
1979.
It was, however, a different case for
adult prisoners confined in the national
penitentiary, who needed a halfway
facility because the national penal
institution was situated in Metro
Manila. Thus in 1996, a PhilippinesJapan Halfway House was started toprovide residential setting for releasedor pre-released prisoners. The facility
was a joint effort of the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACFP), theNagoya West Lions Club, and UNAFEI
from the Japanese end, while the Asia
Crime Prevention Philippines, Inc.
(ACPPI), the Department of Justice,
the National Police Commission, theDepartment of Social Welfare and298

Development, the Muntinlupa Lions
Club, and other non-governmentalorganizations provided the support
from the Philippines end.
The halfway house provides home
life and group living experiences to theadult ex-offenders, offers them
opportunities for vocational andeconomic skills, and subsequently job
placement and employment. The
residents are likewise afforded
opportunities to grow emotionally,
mentally, physically and spiritually for
their eventual reintegration into theirfamily and community. A multidisciplinary team of social workers,
psychologists, educators, and otherrehabilitation workers manage thehouse.
(2) After Care Services
Youth offenders discharged from the
DSWD’s rehabilitation centers areprovided after care services upondischarge up to a period of one (1) year.
As discussed earlier in this paper, social
workers in the communities where theyouth come from are involved early inthe formulation of the treatment anddischarge planning. Thus, they are
maximized in monitoring and assisting
the discharged youth in thereintegration process. Communication
is maintained between the center andcommunity social workers on theminor ’s status, and those of theirfamily, to determine if they needfurther assistance.
The youth is assisted by thecommunity social worker to either goback to school, acquire productivity
skills or be employed if of employableage. Meanwhile, the halfway house for
adult prisoners also provides after-caremonitoring for ex-residents of thehouse, in coordination with the DSWD
and DOJ regional and field offices, local
government units and other entities.

108TH INTERNATIONAL SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
VI. LESSONS LEARNED:NEED FOR AN INTEGRATEDAPPROACH IN REINTEGRATING
EX-OFFENDERSThe management of community-based
treatment measures for persons in conflictwith the law has its share of problems andweaknesses. Firstly, low priority has been
given to budgetary outlays and support foroffenders and prisoners because of thestigma attached to crimes and offenses.
Secondly, the general public perception on
offenders continues to be in the context thatthey have violated laws and human rights.
Thus, continuous advocacy efforts have to
be done to change the mind set about
offenders and their capacity to berehabilitated and be productive.
Thirdly, while village level efforts arewelcome and widely used, personal andfamilial ties sometimes influence decisions
at that level, thus, affecting the efficacy ofsome corrective measures. This is a
disadvantage of the informal system, which
can be addressed by constant orientation,
information, and education of community
leaders and residents.
Fourthly, while youth offenders arewelcomed easily, adult offenders are lessaccepted by communities because of thefact that they are perceived to have fullcognisance of their offenses andwrongdoing. Thus, there are more
opportunities for youth offenders thanadult, because of the perceived higher
chance of rehabilitation by the latter.
The fifth, and most important lesson, isthat investing in prevention anddevelopmental programs, to ensure
economic stability and social equity among
the populace, is far better and less costlier
than the treatment of offenders. This is inconsonance with the old saying that “anounce of prevention is better than a poundof cure.” Thus, the government and civil
services are investing in strengthening
families as a basic unit of society thatshould nurture, care and develop its
members to be useful and responsible
members of society.
Crime prevention and the treatment ofoffenders are among the most importanttasks and responsibilities of governments.
This fact is confirmed by the 1997 WorldBank Development Report that listed thefive fundamental tasks of the States in ourchanging world. The five tasks are:
1. Establishing a foundation of law.
2. Maintaining a non-distortionary
policy environment, including macroeconomic stability.
3. Investing in basic social services andinfrastructure.
4. Protecting the vulnerable.
5. Protecting the environment.
Clearly, tasks numbers 1 and 4 (above)cover crime prevention and control andtreatment of offenders, respectively. Thus
states of the world should invest in thisendeavor in order to ensure that its
development goals are achieved and its
progress attained.
To fully operate these state tasks,
particularly in the field of the communitybased treatment of offenders and exoffenders, there is a need for acomprehensive and integrated planning,
implementation, monitoring andevaluation system between and among thefive (5) pillars of the criminal justice. Since
these pillars have the same goals that vary
only in degree of congruence and emphasis,
they form a chain of efforts to rehabilitate
and reintegrate offenders. These pillars
constitute the sectors in a reintegration
continuum: community (development,
prevention, early detection); law
enforcement (interrogation,detention);prosecution (investigation); courts(adjudication); corrections (retribution,
rehabilitation)
The initial step towards this integrated
approach is ensuring a common paradigm
in reintegration that starts and ends withthe community as the vital and leading

299

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 54
component of a reintegration continuum.
Proceeding from a systems approach inrehabilitation, reintegration goals must
permeate and be integrated in all pillarsof the criminal justice system. This also
calls for a comprehensive and wholistic
view of reintegration as a continuum starting at the point where an offender isseparated from their community, to thetime s/he is brought before law enforcement
entities, the prosecution, the courts, thecorrections authorities and finally back to
the community. Thus, even at the first
instance when s/he is apprehended, thepolice must view an offender not just as acriminal, but a human resource that canbe a potential loss and a subject forrehabilitation and eventual reintegration.
Subsequent pillars, to which the offendermust be exposed, should also have thesecommon goals.
At the initial stages of interrogation,
detention and investigation, therefore, anoffender must be seen not only as anindividual whose criminal behavior needs
to be contained or curtailed, but also as aperson in an especially difficult
circumstance who should nonetheless be
helped in facing their problems and copingwith life’s realities. Similarly, while theprosecution and the court pillars treat
offenders as worthy of deterrent measuresand punishment, they must havereintegration in final view. Correction
officials and staff should not, therefore, be
the only advocates for reintegration.
This reintegration continuum approach,at the formal criminal justice pillar levels,must be supplemented and complemented
by informal social control and economic
growth mechanisms at the community
level to improve quality of lives andstrengthen the prevention of crime at its
very source - the individual, their family
and community. These efforts must be
supported by all the elements and sectorsof a nation that must see crime as amanifestation of weaknesses in a given

300

society. For in ultimate analysis, thestrength of a nation can only be truly tested
at the level of its poorest and mostvulnerable families, and those of its
weakest communities.
REFERENCES
United Nations (1969). ‘ The Role ofSocial Factors in Development,’ Expert
Group Meeting on Social Policy andPlanning, Background Paper No.2, p.2.
Stockholm:UN.
Elliot, Doreen (1993) ‘ Social Work andS o c i a l D e v e l o p m e n t : To w a r d s a n
Integrative Model for Social Work Practice,’
International Social Work, Sage; London,
Vol.36 pp.21-36.
Omer, S.(1979) ‘ Social Development ‘International Social Work, Vol. XXII (3):1126
Department of Social Welfare andDevelopment (DSWD) Reports for 1996 and1997
Rules and Regulations of the Board of
Pardons and Parole, Department ofJustice, 1990