Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Lobrigo, G.R. No.

226679, August 15, 2017

FACTS

Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition1 is the constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic

Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, "2 which provides:

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 Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. was accused in Criminal Case No. 13586 for violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) for not being lawfully authorized to possess
or otherwise use any regulated drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have, in his possession and under his control and custody, one
(1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as VOP 03/21/16- l G containing 0.084 [gram] of
white crystalline substance, which when examined were found to be positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrocloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug.

 Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement, 5 praying to
withdraw his not guilty plea and, instead, to enter a plea of guilty for violation of Section 12, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous
Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation in view of his being a first-time offender and the minimal quantity
of the dangerous drug seized in his possession. He argued that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 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.

the prosecution moved for the denial of the motion for being contrary to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165,
which is said to be justified by the Congress' prerogative to choose which offense it would allow plea
bargaining.

ISSUES

WHETHER SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS IT ENCROACHED

UPON THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO PROMULGATE RULES OF PROCEDURE.

RULING

YES. The SC held that The power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure is now in its
exclusive domain and no longer shared with the Executive and Legislative departments. The separation
of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that
keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this
Court.25 The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that
effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the Court.

Viewed from this perspective, We have rejected previous attempts on the part of the Congress, in the
exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules), to wit:

1. Fabian v. Desierto27 -Appeal from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative
disciplinary case should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 of
the Rules instead of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770.

2. Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. 28 - The Cooperative Code
provisions on notices cannot replace the rules on summons under Rule 14 of the Rules.

3. RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees; 29 Baguio
Market Vendors Multi-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Hon. Judge Cabato-Cortes; 30 In Re:
Exemption of the National Power Corporation from Payment of Filing/Docket Fees; 31 and Rep. of the
Phils. v. Hon. Mangotara, et al. 32 - Despite statutory provisions, the GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC are
not exempt from the payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 of the Rules.

4. Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division)33 - The first paragraph of Section 14 of R.A. No.
6770, which prohibits courts except the Supreme Court from issuing temporary restraining order and/or
writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, is
unconstitutional as it contravenes Rule 58 of the Rules.

Considering that the aforesaid laws effectively modified the Rules, this Court asserted its discretion to
amend, repeal or even establish new rules of procedure, to the exclusion of the legislative and executive
branches of government. To reiterate, the Court's authority to promulgate rules on pleading, practice,
and procedure is exclusive and one of the safeguards of Our institutional independence.