Salvador Estipona V.

Lobrigo
G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017
Facts:
Petitioner Salvador A. Estipona, Jr. (Estipona) is the accused for violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs).
On June 15, 2016, Estipona filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement, 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) the
prosecution manifested that it "is open to the Motion of the accused to enter into plea
bargaining to give life to the intent of the law as provided in paragraph 3, Section 2 of
[R.A. No.] 9165, however, with the express mandate of Section 23 of [R.A. No.] 9165
prohibiting plea bargaining, it is left without t any choice but to reject the proposal of the
accused."
RTC issued an Order denying Estipona's motion.
Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied hence, this petition.
Issues:
WHETHER OR NOT SECTION 23 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 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.