NINETEENTH CONGRESS  
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session  
 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez 
House Bill No.  _____ 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
Jails and prisons are primarily designed to promote justice, public order and safety by 
the humane safekeeping anddevelopment and rehabilitation of those accused of crimes and 
convicted offenders, respectively. The unabated increase of jail population, however, has 
caused an appalling environment of jail and prison congestion that spawned human rights 
violations, corruption, inmate illness and deaths, perennial escape of inmates and other 
adverse jail incidents aggravated by the incessant insufficiency of resources especially 
manpower that ironically undermine public safety and national security. 
Currently, the congestion rate at BJMP jails is 442%. For the National Capital Region, 
the congestion rate is at 608%. This is a big loss to the economy on two terms; one, by the 
loss of valuable human resource or labour that could be more wisely used to meet the 
demands of the growing national economy or meet the much needed social services required 
by the citizenry, and second, by the huge amount of funds appropriated for the basic provisions 
of the inmates, construction of facilities and equipment on top of the compensation and other 
benefits of prison and jail personnel. To address just the current congestion and maintain the 
ideal capacity of 4.7 square meters per inmate, BJMP estimates a budget of at least Php 5 
Billion for Metro Manila alone. This amount could be reduced substantially by reducing the 
number of detainees and prisoners by equally effective means of restraint and rehabilitation 
that require less resource but provide more meaningful and effective treatment of criminals. In 
sum, the proposedmeasure will reduce government expenditure but will provide a better 
restraint of those accused of crimes and a more rationalized system of rehabilitative 
punishment of criminals resulting to a higher degree of reintegration and ultimately healing 
and restoration between and among the offenders and the community bringing about justice 
that leads to peace.  
At the outset, imprisonment is not the only plausible means or a panacea cure to 
protect public safety or carry out the ends of justice. Aside from being extremely costly, it 
creates stigma or public labelling that makes it more difficult to facilitate the reintegration of 
inmates whether convicted or not, into the mainstream of society. Worse, victims are not 
compensated merely because offenders are not able to work gainfully once detained, hence, 
the latter is unable to produce money to compensate the former. Imprisonment thus becomes 
an excuse to the offender from being accountable to the victims of their indiscretion.Too, 
substantial amount of government resource is unduly wasted yet unable to effectively resolve 
crime, by our inclination, unbridled overuseor almost exclusive use of imprisonment as an 
instrument of justice. On the other hand, there are other available instruments or tools to attain 
the same ends of justice with the least economic burden to the government and the smallest 
amount of socio-economic cost to the offenders and the community. Prison and jails should 
be reserved only to those who are violent and recalcitrant. 
Hence, passage of this bill is most respectfully sought. 
RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ 
December 13, 2022
1:32PM
6634


NINETEENTH CONGRESS 
) 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ) 
First Regular Session 
) 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
Introduced by Representative Rufus B. Rodriguez 
House Bill No.  _____ 
AN ACT 
ADOPTING 
COMMUNITY 
SERVICE, 
RESTITUTION, 
REPARATION 
OR 
INDEMNIFICATION, FINE, DESTIERRO, HOUSE ARREST AND OTHER RESTORATIVE 
JUSTICE MEASURES AND PROCESSES INCLUDING COMPLIANCE TO ATTACHED 
CONDITIONS SUCH AS COUNSELLING, INSTITUTIONAL OR NON-INSTITUTIONAL 
REHABILITATION, AS ALTERNATIVES TO IMPRISONMENT. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress 
assembled: 
SECTION 1. This Act shall be known as the “Alternative Modes to Imprisonment Act”. 
SECTION 2. The duty and discretion of the courts of justice to determine the most appropriate 
penalty or imprisonment which may be imposed based on the felony or offense committed 
under the Revised Penal Code or other laws, based on their responsiveness to the needs of 
all stakeholders and the maintenance of public safety is recognized and expanded. 
SECTION 3. In making its decision, the Courts, taking into consideration the rehabilitative 
needs of the offender, the protection of society and the interests of the victim, who should be 
consulted whenever appropriate, are hereby allowed to impose, in lieu of penalties of up to six 
(6) years imprisonment, any of the following sanctions as alternatives to imprisonment:
a.
Admonition, reprimand and warning, verbal or written;
b.
Conditional discharge, suspended or deferred sentence;
c.
Community service order;
d.
Work or education order
e.
Confiscation or an expropriation order;
f.
Restitution to the victim or compensation order;
g.
Referral to an attendance centre;
h.
Fine;
i.
House arrest;
j.
Destierro;
k.
Other restorative justice measure/s or any other mode of non-
institutional treatment and some combination of the measures listed
above.
SECTION 4. Any of the alternatives to imprisonment or combination thereof may be imposed 
as an equivalent penalty with the same duration or less, as deemed applicable and at the 
discretion of the court, if imprisonment would have been imposed for the felony or offense 
committed. The courts may also impose in combination with a reduced sentence of 
imprisonment, at the discretion of the court, any or a combination of the foregoing sanctions 
where the penalty that may be imposed for an offense is higher than six (6) years.   
SECTION 5. Before the imposition of any of the alternatives to imprisonment aforementioned, 
the courts may refer a case for thorough study by a psychologist or psychiatrist and for 
6634


investigation to a probation officer, to determine with greater certainty the appropriateness of 
the alternative sanction/s to be imposed.   
 
SECTION 6. Where appropriate, the police, the prosecution service and/or other agencies 
dealing with criminal cases are hereby empowered to discharge the offender if they consider 
that it is not necessary to proceed with the case for the protection of society, crime prevention 
or the promotion of respect for the law and the rights of victims. For the purpose of deciding 
upon the appropriateness of discharge or determination of proceedings, a set of established 
criteria shall be crafted jointly by the Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior 
and Local Government. For cases where the imposable penalty does not exceed six years, 
the prosecutor may recommend suitable non-custodial measures or that bail shall not be 
necessary. 
 
SECTION 7. The Department of Social Welfare and Development, the Department of Interior 
and Local Government, particularly, the Philippine National Police and the Bureau of Jail 
Management and Penology, and the Department of Justice, particularly, the Bureau of 
Corrections, Board of Pardons and Parole, the Parole and Probations Administration, and the 
National Bureau of Investigation shall be tasked to assist the court in the implementation of its 
order imposing any or a combination of the alternatives to imprisonment. For this purpose, the 
agencies concerned shall submit a report of their compliance to the court order. 
 
SECTION 8. If any provision of this Act is rendered invalid or unconstitutional, the other 
provisions which are not declared unconstitutional shall remain valid and subsisting. 
 
SECTION 9. Any law or executive issuance inconsistent with this Act shall be repealed, 
modified or amended accordingly. 
 
SECTION 10. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official 
Gazette. 
 
Approved,