Estipona vs.

Lobrigo: A Landmark Case

Challenged in this petition for certiorari and prohibition is the constitutionality of

Section 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002, " 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.

Issue

Whether or not Section 23 of RA 9165 is constitutional.

HELD:

No. Pursuant to Section 5 (5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, the power to
promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights,
pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to the Supreme
Court. Congress has no authority to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning
pleading, practice, and procedure. Hence, Section 23 of RA 9165, an act of Congress,
is unconstitutional.

Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure. In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been
defined as “a process whereby the accused and the prosecution work out a mutually
satisfactory disposition of the case subject to court approval.” There is give-and-take
negotiation common in plea bargaining. The essence of the agreement is that both
the prosecution and the defense make concessions to avoid potential losses. Properly
administered, plea bargaining is to be encouraged because the chief virtues of the
system – speed, economy, and finality – can benefit the accused, the offended party,
the prosecution, and the court.