View full case

SALVADOR ESTIPONA

FACTS:

Petitioner Estipona is charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for possession of dangerous drugs. He filed a motion to enter into a plea bargaining agreement but it was denied by the trial court. Estipona argues that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the intent of the law, the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court, and the principle of separation of powers. The prosecution opposed the motion, citing Section 23 as the reason for its denial. The trial court denied Estipona's motion, stating that while there might be a basis to declare Section 23 unconstitutional, it is not for the lower court to make such a declaration. Estipona filed a motion for reconsideration but it was also denied.

The petitioner in this case filed a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The petitioner argued that Section 23 violates the right to due process and the right against self-incrimination because it allows warrantless arrests and searches in drug-related cases. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the petition should be dismissed on procedural grounds, including failure to implead the Congress as an indispensable party and failure to satisfy the requisites of judicial review. The OSG also contended that the constitutionality of Section 23 cannot be attacked collaterally and that the proper recourse should have been a petition for declaratory relief or a petition for certiorari. Despite these procedural concerns raised by the OSG, the court emphasized its power to make exceptions to the rules of court and to resolve issues of substantial and transcendental importance, especially in the context of the drug problem in the Philippines. The court acknowledged the gravity of the drug menace and the need to protect the rights of the accused while also assisting in efforts to combat drug-related crimes.

The case discusses the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. Under the 1935 Constitution, the Court's power to promulgate rules was subject to the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement. However, in the case of In re: Cunanan, the Court struck down a law enacted by Congress regarding the passing grade in the bar examinations, stating that the power to grant licenses for the practice of law belonged exclusively to the Court. The ruling of In re: Cunanan was not changed by the 1973 Constitution, which reiterated the Court's power to promulgate rules, subject to repeal, alteration, or supplementation by the Batasang Pambansa. The 1987 Constitution further strengthened the Court's power by granting it the authority to promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights and to disapprove rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Furthermore, the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure was removed.

The case involves a debate over the rule-making powers of the Supreme Court and whether it should be shared with Congress. The Constitutional Commission discussed this issue during the drafting of the constitution. Initially, there was a suggestion to give Congress the power to repeal, alter, or supplement the Court's rules with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court. However, Commissioner Felicitas S. Aquino proposed to delete this provision and instead include a phrase stating that the rules would be made with the concurrence of the National Assembly. Eventually, a compromise was reached wherein the provision granting Congress the power to amend the rules was deleted completely.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165, which prohibits plea bargaining in all violations of the said law, is unconstitutional for being violative of the constitutional right to equal protection of the law.

  2. 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.

  3. Whether the Regional Trial Court, as presided by Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction when it refused to declare Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 as unconstitutional.

RULING:

  1. On the Rule-Making Power of the Supreme Court Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 is unconstitutional as it encroaches upon the Supreme Court’s exclusive power to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts. This power is vested by Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which does not allow the legislative branch to repeal, alter, or supplement the Court's rules.

  2. On Equal Protection The Supreme Court did not resolve whether Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 violates the equal protection clause in order not to preempt future discussions on the policy considerations behind this provision.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Separation of Powers The rule-making power concerning the judiciary is exclusively vested in the Supreme Court by the Constitution to ensure judicial independence.

  • Plea Bargaining Plea bargaining is a procedural matter, and procedural rules cannot be altered by legislative enactments that encroach upon judicial prerogatives.

  • Judicial Discretion and Rule-Making The judiciary's prerogative to accept or deny plea bargains is integral to its independence and ability to administer justice efficiently.

  • Invalidation of Legislative Encroachment Legislative provisions that contravene procedural rules established by the Supreme Court can be declared unconstitutional.

  • Public Interest and Judicial Review The Supreme Court may waive procedural technicalities in cases of substantial and transcendental importance, especially when public interest demands a clear judicial pronouncement.