5 laws held void for overstepping SC's rule-making power


The trias politica principle prevents Congress from promulgating rules regarding pleading, practice and procedure. The separation of powers among the three co-equal branches of our government has erected an impregnable wall that keeps the power to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure within the sole province of this Court. The other branches trespass upon this prerogative if they enact laws or issue orders that effectively repeal, alter or modify any of the procedural rules promulgated by the High Court. (G.R. No. 226679. August 15, 2017)

Viewed from this perspective, the Supreme Court has rejected previous attempts on the part of the Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power, to amend the Rules of Court (Rules), to wit:

[1] Fabian v. Desierto - Appeal from the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman in an administrative disciplinary case should be taken to the Court of Appeals under the provisions of Rule 43 of the Rules instead of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6770.

[2] Cathay Metal Corporation v. Laguna West Multi-Purpose Cooperative, Inc. - The Cooperative Code provisions on notices cannot replace the rules on summons under Rule 14 of the Rules.[3] RE: Petition for Recognition of the Exemption of the GSIS from Payment of Legal Fees; Baguio Market Vendors Multi­-Purpose Cooperative (BAMARVEMPCO) v. Han. Judge Cabato-Cortes; In Re: Exemption of the National Power Corporation from Payment of Filing/Docket Fees; and Rep. of the Phils. v. Hon. Mangotara, et al. - Despite statutory provisions, the GSIS, BAMARVEMPCO, and NPC are not exempt from the payment of legal fees imposed by Rule 141 of the Rules.

[4] Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals (Sixth Division) - The first paragraph of Section 14 of R.A. No. 6770, which prohibits courts except the Supreme Court from issuing temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin an investigation conducted by the Ombudsman, is unconstitutional as it contravenes Rule 58 of the Rules.

[5] Estipona v. Judge Lobrigo - The Supreme Court declared that the Section 23 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL for being contrary to the rule-making authority of the Supreme Court under Section 5(5), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. Said provision of law used to say: "Any person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the provision on plea-bargaining." Plea bargaining is a rule of procedure which is within the sole and exclusive prerogative of the Judiciary.

Popular Posts