Scribd
Upload
233 views1 page

Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

Section 23 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 prohibits plea bargaining, which Salvador Estipona argued was unconstitutional as it encroached on the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. Estipona filed a motion to enter a plea agreement after being accused of illegal drug possession, but his motion was denied based on the plea bargaining prohibition in Section 23. The Supreme Court ultimately granted Estipona's petition and declared Section 23 unconstitutional, as it violated the Supreme Court's authority to promulgate rules of procedure under the 1987 Constitution.

Uploaded by

magen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
233 views1 page

Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

Section 23 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 prohibits plea bargaining, which Salvador Estipona argued was unconstitutional as it encroached on the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court. Estipona filed a motion to enter a plea agreement after being accused of illegal drug possession, but his motion was denied based on the plea bargaining prohibition in Section 23. The Supreme Court ultimately granted Estipona's petition and declared Section 23 unconstitutional, as it violated the Supreme Court's authority to promulgate rules of procedure under the 1987 Constitution.

Uploaded by

magen
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Rule-making power of the Supreme Court

Salvador Estipona, Jr. v. Hon. Frank E. Lobrigo, G.R. No. 226679, August 15, 2017

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/aug2017/gr_226679_2017.html

Facts: The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 is challenged of its constitutionality
speci cally in Section 23 prohibiting Plea-bargaining. The facts of the case are not in dispute
but for origin the facts are as follows; Estipona was accused of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs;

Estipona led a Motion to Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea Bargaining Agreement
praying to withdraw his not guilty plea and instead enter a plea of guilty for violating Sec 12 of
Ra 9165; (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs) with a penalty of rehabilitation being he’s a rst time o ender and
considering that the seized dangerous drug in his possession was minimal.

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 in its opposition explained that the motion in issue may be granted to give life
to the intent of the law provided in par. 3, Section 2 of RA 9265 yet the prohibition to plea
bargaining’s express mention in Section 23 of the same act should leave the court no choice
but to reject the proposal of the accused. The RTC judge denied Estipona’s motion. Estipona’s
Motion for Reconsideration (MR) as denied, hence this petition.

Issue: Whether section 23 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional for encroaching upon the power of
the SC to promulgate rules of procedure.

Ruling: Petition for certiorari and prohibition granted. Section 23 of RA 9165 is declared
unconstitutional for being contrary to the rule making authority of the SC under section
5(5) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Page 7 of 30
fi
fi
fi
ff

You might also like