Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Frank Lobrigo
August 15, 2017
Facts:
•! Petitioner is the accused in a criminal case for violation of Section 11 of the
Dangerous Drugs Act: “possessing or otherwise using any regulated drug and
without the corresponding license or prescription […]”
•! June 15 2016 – he filed a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter Into a Plea
Bargaining Agreement
o! He prayed that he withdraw his not guilty plea to a plea of guilty for violation
of Section 12 instead.
o! 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
•! Petitioner also argued that Section 23 of the DDA violates:
o! The intent of the law expressed in paragraph 3, Section 2 thereof
o! The rule making authority of the SC under the Constitution
o! Principle of separation of powers
•! Prosecution’s side
o! They moved for the denial of the motion for being contrary to Section 23 of
the DDA
o! Section 23 is justified by the Congress’ prerogative to choose which offense it
would allow plea bargaining
o! Petition should have been outright dismissed because Congress wasn’t
impleaded as an indispensable party
o! Constitutionality of Section 23 cannot be attacked collaterally
o! Proper recourse should have been a petition for declaratory relief
•! RTC Judge issued an Order denying petitioner’s motion.
o! Within the spirit of the disquisition in People v. Martinez, there might be
plausible basis for the declaration of Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which bars
plea bargaining as unconstitutional because indeed the inclusion of the
provision in the law encroaches on the exclusive constitutional power of the
Supreme Court.
o! it is thus not for this lower court to declare Sec. 23 of R.A. No. 9165
unconstitutional given the potential ramifications that such declaration might
have on the prosecution of illegal drug cases pending before this judicial
station.
•! MR was denied
Issue:
•! Whether Section 23 is unconstitutional for encroaching upon the power of the SC to
promulgate rules of procedure? YES.
Held:
1.! [With respect to the procedural issues]
•! It is within the Court’s power to make exceptions to the rules of court.
•! Court shall not shrink from its obligation to determine novel issues or issues
of first impression, with far-reaching implications.
•! Matters of procedure and technicalities normally take a backseat when issues
of substantial and transcendental importance are present.
•! The drug problem in the PH is harrowing, epidemic, and monstrous.
•! AKA IN OTHER WORDS: When public interest requires, the Court may
brush aside procedural rules in order to resolve a constitutional issue.
•! Rules of procedure should be viewed as mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice.
•! Rules should not be applied rigidly so as not to override substantial issues.
2.! [With respect to SC’s power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice, and
procedure]
•! 1935 Consti - The Congress shall have the power to repeal, alter or
supplement the rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure, and the
admission to the practice of law in the Philippines.
i.! The said power of Congress, however, is not as absolute as it may
appear on its surface. In re Cunanan Case
•! 1973 Constitution further strengthened the independence of the judiciary by
giving to it the additional power to promulgate rules governing the integration
of the Bar.
•! The 1987 Constitution expanded the SC’s rule making power. It was now
allowed to promulgate rules concerning protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights.
•! It was also granted the power to disapprove rules of procedure for
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
•! Most importantly, it took away the old power of Congress to repeal, alter, or
supplement rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. It is a power
no longer shared with Congress and Executive Department.
•! In Carpio-Morales v. CA: the power to promulgate rules concerning the
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice, and procedure in all courts belongs exclusively to this Court.
•! The Court have rejected previous attempts on the part of the Congress, in the
exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules) in
numerous Jurisprudence
•! 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.
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.