1.

) As Kerwin Dayans counsel who is accused of alleged sale of shabu and who seeks to enter
a plea of guilt to a charge of illegal possession of drugs, but is prohibited under Section 23 of
Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, I would
advise him that assailing the constitutionality of the said provision as according to him it violates
Section 5, Article VIII of the Philippine Constitution which provides that the Supreme Court shall
have the power to promulgate rules concerning the protection of constitutional rights, pleading,
practice and procedure in all courts x x x. is not the proper recourse for him to be allowed to
avail the plea of guilt. As the said power of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules is merely
procedural in nature as such rules are limited to the following: the rules shall provide a simplified
and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases; they shall be uniform for all
courts of the same order; and most importantly, they shall not diminish, increase, or modify
substantive rights. The Rules of Court was promulgated in the exercise of the Courts rule-
making power. It is essentially procedural in nature as it does not create, diminish, increase or
modify substantive rights (Re: Petition for Recognition of the Government Service Insurance
System from Payment of Legal Fees AM NO 08-2-01-0). As a rule, in case of conflict between
procedural rules and substantive rules, the latter shall prevail over the former. There being said,
the Supreme Courts power to promulgate rules being procedural in nature, and Section 23 of
Republic Act No 9165 having the nature of a substantive rule as it affects or takes vested rights-
the former cannot prevail over the latter. Hence, questioning the constitutionality of Section 23 of
Republic Act No 9165 based on the ground that it is violative of Section 5 Article VIII of the
Constitution is not the proper recourse.

2.)
a.) In case if Kerwin Dayan insists on assailing the constitutionality of Section 23 of
Republic Act No 9165, the proper court action would be to file a petition for declaratory relief.
Under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, a petition for declaratory relief may be filed by any person
x x x whose rights are affected by a statue, executive order or regulation may, before breach or
violation thereof, bring an action in the appropriate Regional Trial Court x x x. Kerwin Dayans
right to enter a plea of guilt is affected by Section 23 of Republic Act No 9165 which prevents a
person charged under any provision of the said Act to avail of the provision of plea-bargaining.
Furthermore, the requisites for Declaratory Relief, as discussed in Caltex v. Palomar, are all
present in the case at bar. The first requisite is that there must be a justiciable controversy (in
the case at hand, there is a justiciable controversy as what is being questioned is the legality of
Sec 23 RA no 9165 as it affects the right of Mr. Dayan to enter a plea of guilt); second, the
controversy is between persons whose interests are adverse (the interest of Mr. Dayan to enter
a plea of guilt and the prohibition of said act is adverse); the party seeking the relief has a legal
interest in the controversy (Dayan has legal interest in the controversy as it affects his right) ;
and the issue is ripe for judicial determination (filed within the earliest possible opportunity).
Hence, the proper court action to be filed in questioning the constitutionality of Section 23 of
Republic Act No 9165 is a petition for declaratory relief as enshrined in Rule 63 of the Rules of
Court.

b.) As what is required under Section Rule 63 of the Rules of Court, I will file the petition for
declaratory relief in the Regional Trial Court where Mr. Dayan resides or in the place where the
alleged crime charged was committed. I would file a separate action in questioning the
constitutionality of Section 23 of Republic Act No. 9165 in the criminal case pending against him
provided that I will raise the constitutional question in the same court where the pending criminal
case against him is tried. This is for the reason, it has been decided in the case of Francisco v.
House of Representatives, that the court cannot decide regarding the constitutionality of law-in
the case at bar, the said provision- without it being raised or questioned before them. As stated
in Section 5(2-a) Article VIII, the proper court in deciding whether Section 23 of Republic Act No.
9165 is constitutional or not is the Supreme Court en banc. As provided in Section 1 Rule 63 of
the Rules of Court regarding the venue of action in filing the petition for declaratory relief, the
action may be commenced and tried in the appropriate Regional Trial Court. In the case at hand,
since Mr. Dayan is already tried in the court of Makati, the said action should be filed in the
Regional Trial Court of Makati where the said criminal action is being tried.

c.) The requisites for judicial inquiry as enumerated in the case of Angara v. Electoral
Commission are as follows:
1. there must be an actual controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power (there
must be a justiciable controversy)
2. the person challenging the act must have a legal standing to sue or it must be raised
by the proper party (it must be the party who has sustained or is in immediate danger of
sustaining an injury as a result of the act complained of)
3. the constitutional question must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity (it must
be raised in the pleadings)
4. the decision of the constitutional question must be necessary to the determination of
the case itself