Estipona vs Lobrigo

G.R. No. 226679

August 15, 2017

FACTS: Estipona was charged with an offense under RA 9165. He wants to enter into a plea
bargaining agreement but Judge Lobrigo did not allow him to do so because Section 23 of the
said law specifically prohibits plea bargaining in drugs cases which states that:

SEC 23. Plea-Bargaining Provision. - Any person charged under any provision of this Act
regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-
bargaining.

Petitioner argues that Section 23 of RA 9165 which prohibits plea bargaining in all violations of
said law violates:
1. The intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof;
2. The rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution; and
3. The principle of separation of powers among the three equal branches of the
government.

ISSUE:
Is Section 23 of RA 9165, which prohibits plea-bargaining in drugs cases, unconstitutional?

HELD: Yes, Section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It violates the doctrine of separation of

powers by encroaching upon the rule-making power of the Supreme Court under the
constitution Section 5(5), Article VIII provides: Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the
admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged.
Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of
cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.

Therefore, Plea-bargaining is procedural in nature and it is within the sole prerogative of

the Supreme Court.

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari and prohibition is GRANTED. Section 23 of

Republic Act No. 9165 is declared unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule-making
authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.