THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
6 J$; -7 
’> 7 
I
;
 
INTRODUCED BY HON. MANNY VILLAR 
- 
EXPLANATORY NOTE 
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6036, otherwise known as “AN ACT PROVIDING 
THAT BAIL SHALL NOT, WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS, BE REQUIRED IN 
CASES OF VIOLATIONS OF MUNICIPAL OR CITY ORDINANCES AND IN 
CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHEN THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY FOR SUCH 
OFFENSES IS NOT HIGHER THAN ARREST0 MAYOR AND/OR A FINE OF 
TWO THOUSAND PESOS OR BOTH,” took effect on August 4, 1969 or more 
jhan three (3) decades ago. 
From tt&.time of the promulgation of R.A. No. 6036 to the present, so 
many political’and social developments occurred worldwide that resulted to the 
alteration and modification of human ideas involving the criminal justice system. 
In the penological aspect of the criminal justice system, the current thrust of most 
governments, particularly those adhering to the principles of democracy and 
republicanism, is towards the adoption of the so-called “Restorative Jusfice” 
concept. The 1987 Constitution specifically states that the State shall promote 
social justice in all phases of national development. 
The provisions of R.A. No. 6036 not requiring those persons charged with 
the aforecited violations or any criminal offense punishable by not more than six 
(6) months imprisonment and/or a fine of two thousand pesos (P2,000,00), or 
both subject to the conditions set by law and by the court, is laudable in the 
sense that being mere accused they are being allowed to still enjoy their precious 
freedom in consonance with the adherence to the presumption of innocence until 
proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt. The existing realities, however, 
particularly the rising clamor for the correction of those branded as “anti-poor 
laws”, demand that the coverage of R.A. No. 6036 be expanded. 
Another and more immediate concern that would warrant the amendment 
of R.A. No. 6036 is the congestion problem in almost all jails. Most of the jails 
nationwide are accommodating detention prisoners whose numbers are more 
than double their respective maximum capacities. On the other hand, the 
construction or improvement of detention facilities and the implementation of 
ideal rehabilitation programs that would improve the living condition of the 
inmates are hampered by budgetary constraints and other conditions. These 
result to the rise of more socially-relevant issues. 
Bail should no longer be required if the maximum imposable penalty for 
the crime charged against a person is SIX (6) YEARS imprisonment and/or fine 
of TWENTY-FOUR (24) THOUSAND pesos, or BOTH. With this amendment, 
some misperceptions that our laws are “pro-rich’’ because only those accused 
who are wealthy and thus who have more capability to pay the required bail are 
to be released from detention may be reduced. 
t 


After all, even if one is, convicted of a criminal offense and imposed the 
penalty of imprisonment for six years or less, he can avail of probation under 
certain conditions. Why then take away his precious freedom even before 
conviction? 
The prompt and immediate passage ol'this bill deserves utmost attention. 
Senato "Y 


THIRTEENTH CONGRESS OF: THE 
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES 
Second Regular Session 
S. No. 23 
AN ACT AMENDING SECTION 1, PARAGRAPH I 
OF REPUBLIC ACT 
NO. 6036, PROVIDING THAT BAIL SHALL NOT, WITH CERTAIN 
EXCEPTIONS, BE REQUIRED IN CASES OF VlOLATlONlj OF MUNICIPAL 
OR CITY ORDINANCES AND IN CRIMINAL OFFENSES WHEN THE 
PRESCRIBED PENALTY FOR SUCH OFFENSES IS NOT HIGHER THAN 
PRlSlON CORRECTIONAL AND/OR A FINE OF TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND 
PESOS OR BOTH 
Section I. 
Section 1, paragraph 1 of Republic Act No. 6036, is hereby amended 
to read as follows: 
“Section I. 
Any provision of existing law to the contrary notwithstanding, 
bail shall not be required of a person charged with violation of a municipal or city 
ordinance, a light felony and/or a criminal offense the prescribed penalty for 
which is not higher than six (months) YEARS imprisonment andlor a fine of (two 
thousand pesos) TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND PESOS, or both, where said 
person has established to the satisfaction of the court or any other appropriate 
authority hearing his case that he is unable to post the required cash or bail 
bond, except in the following cases: 
(a) When he is caught committing the offense in flagranti; 
(b) When he confesses to the commission of the offense unless the 
confession is later repudiated by him in a sworn statement or in open court 
as having been extracted through force or intimidation; 
(c) When he is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement, 
evaded sentence, or jumped bail; 
(d) When he is found to have previously violated the provisions of Section 
2 hereof; 
(e) When he is found to be a recidivist or a habitual delinquent or has 
been previously convicted for an offense to which the law or ordinance 
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more offenses to which it 
attaches a lighter penalty; 
(9 When he commits the offense while on parole or under conditional 
pardon; and 
(9) When the accused has previously been pardoned by the municipal or 
city mayor for violation of municipal or city ordinance for at least two times. 


Section 2. Repealing Clause.- All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and 
issuances inconsistent with this Ac,:t are hereby repealed, amended or modified 
accordingly. 
Section 3. Effectivity Clause.- This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following 
its publications in the Official Gazette of in any two (2) newspapers of general 
circulation. 
Approved.