ESTIPONA vs. LOBRIGO G.R. No.

226679

POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT: Estipona is accused of violating Section 11, Article II
of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs). He filed a Motion to Allow to Enter into
a Plea Bargaining Agreement. He argued that Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165 which prohibits
plea-bargaining for offences committed under said act is unconstitutional for being contrary to
the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution. The prosecution, however, moved for the denial of the motion for being contrary
to Section 23 of R.A. No. 9165, which is said to be justified by the Congress' prerogative to
choose which offense it would allow plea bargaining. The power to promulgate rules of
pleading, practice and procedure is now the Supreme Court exclusive domain and no longer
shared with the Executive and Legislative departments. The 1987 Constitution took away
the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice
and procedure. As it now stands, Congress has no authority to repeal, alter, or supplement
rules concerning pleading, practice, and procedure. Thus, 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.

DE LIMA vs. GUERRERO G.R. No. 229781

JURISDICTION OVER DRUG CASES. Senator Leila DeLima was charged for violation of
Section 5 in relation to Section (ii), Section 26(b), and Section 28 of RA 9165 otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act before the RTC. She filed a Motion to Quash
arguing that the Sandiganbayan has the jurisdiction to try and hear the case against her because
the Information charges her not with violation of RA 9165 but with Direct Bribery-a felony
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan given her rank as the former Secretary
of Justice with Salary Grade 31. A plain reading of RA 9165, as of RA 6425, will reveal that
jurisdiction over drug-related cases is exclusively vested with the Regional Trial Court and
no other. The exclusive original jurisdiction over violations of RA 9165 is not transferred to
the Sandiganbayan whenever the accused occupies a position classified as Grade 27 or
higher, regardless of whether the violation is alleged as committed in relation to office.

PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANT: Petitioner maintains that

respondent judge failed to personally determine the probable cause for the issuance of the
warrant of arrest since, as stated in the assailed Order, respondent judge based her findings on
the evidence presented during the preliminary investigation and not on the report and
supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor. This hardly deserves serious
consideration. It may perhaps even be stated tha respondent judge performed her duty in a
manner that far exceeds what is required of her by the rules when she reviewed all the
evidence, not just the supporting documents. With this, respondent judge certainly
discharged a judge's duty in finding probable cause for the issuance of a warrant. There is
no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of excess of jurisdiction.

Ocampo, et al. v. Eriquez, et al. G.R. No. 225973, November 08, 2016
During the campaign period for the 2016 Presidential Election, then candidate Rodrigo R.
Duterte (Duterte) publicly announced that he would allow the burial of former President
Ferdinand E. Marcos (Marcos) at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani (LNMB). The respondents
Secretary of National Defense and AFP Rear Admiral then issued a memorandum and directive
in compliance with the verbal order of President Duterte to implement his election campaign
promise to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB. Assailed is the validity of such
issuance.

Under the Administrative Code, the President has the power to reserve for public use and for
specific public purposes any of the lands of the public domain and that the reserved land shall
remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or
proclamation.149 At present, there is no law or executive issuance specifically excluding the
land in which the LNMB is located from the use it was originally intended by the past
Presidents. The allotment of a cemetery plot at the LNMB for Marcos as a former President
and Commander-in-Chief,150 a legislator,151 a Secretary of National Defense, a military
personnel, a veteran, and a Medal of Valor awardee, whether recognizing his contributions or
simply his status as such, satisfies the public use requirement.

POLITICAL QUESTION. The Court agrees with the OSG that President Duterte’s
decision to have the remains of Marcos interred at the LNMB involves a political question
that is not a justiciable controversy. In the exercise of his powers under the Constitution
and the Executive Order (E.O.) No. 292 (otherwise known as the Administrative Code of
1987) to allow the interment of Marcos at the LNMB, which is a land of the public domain
devoted for national military cemetery and military shrine purposes, President Duterte
decided a question of policy based on his wisdom that it shall promote national healing
and forgiveness.

LOCUS STANDI. Petitioners, who filed their respective petitions for certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, in their capacities as citizens, human rights violations
victims, legislators, members of the Bar and taxpayers, have no legal standing to file such
petitions because they failed to show that they have suffered or will suffer direct and
personal injury as a result of the interment of Marcos at the LNMB.

DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES. Petitioners

violated the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies by directly filing a case with
the Supreme Court. The case should have been brought to The Secretary of National
Defense to be given opportunity to correct himself, if warranted. If petitioners would still
be dissatisfied with the decision of the Secretary, they could elevate the matter before the
Office of the President which has control and supervision over the Department of National
Defense (DND).

HIERARCHY OF COURTS. While direct resort to the Court through petitions for the
extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are allowed under
exceptional cases, which are lacking in this case, petitioners cannot simply brush aside
the doctrine of hierarchy of courts that requires such petitions to be filed first with the
proper Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC is not just a trier of facts, but can also resolve
questions of law in the exercise of its original and concurrent jurisdiction over petitions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, and has the power to issue restraining order
and injunction when proven necessary.