D.

Judiciary
CASES FACTS ISSUE RATIO

• While there is no express grant of the power to issue writ of certiorari, with
respect to the CTA, Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides,
Whether the CTA
• City of Manila: payment of taxes are nonetheless, that judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
has jurisdiction
a precondition to issuance of business lower courts as may be established by law and that judicial power includes the
over a special civil
permits duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are
action for
City of Manila vs Grecia- • Private respondents protested. legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has
certiorari assailing
Cuerdo • RTC granted writ of preliminary been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the
an interlocutory
injunction. part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.
order issued by the
• CA rno jurisidiction since it should • It can be fairly interpreted that the power of the CTA includes that of determining
RTC in a local tax
have been filed with CTA. whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
case. – YES
excess of jurisdiction on the part of the RTC in issuing an interlocutory order in
cases falling within the exclusive appellate jurisdiction of the tax court.

• The SC’s power of review is limited to actual cases and controversies dealing
with parties having adversely legal claims, to be exercised after full opportunity of
argument by the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or
the very lis mota presented.
• In the present case, the fitness of petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial
• 2 Consolidated petitions praying for review is grossly lacking. Petitioners have not sufficiently proven any adverse
the nullification of House Resolution injury or hardship from the act complained of.
No. 1109 – A Resolution Calling upon • Yet another requisite rooted in the very nature of judicial power is locus standi or
Whether the case
the Members of Congress to Convene standing to sue. Thus, generally, a party will be allowed to litigate only when he
Lozano vs Nograles is ripe for judicial
for the Purpose of Considering can demonstrate that (1) he has personally suffered some actual or threatened
review – NO
Proposals to Amend or Revise the injury because of the allegedly illegal conduct of the government; (2) the injury is
Constitution Upon a ¾ Vote of All the fairly traceable to the challenged action; and (3) the injury is likely to be redressed
Members of Congress. by the remedy being sought.
• In the cases at bar, petitioners have not shown the elemental injury in fact that
would endow them with the standing to sue. Locus standi requires a personal stake
in the outcome of a controversy for significant reasons. It assures adverseness and
sharpens the presentation of issues for the illumination of the Court in resolving
difficult constitutional questions.
 • Pres. Aquino issued EO 7, entitled
“Directing the Rationalization of the
Compensation and Position
Classification System in the [GOCCs]
and [GFIs], and for Other Purposes.” •
It took effect on September 25, 2010
• With the enactment of the GOCC Governance Act of 2011, the President is now
and precluded the Board of Directors, Whether EO 7 is
Galicto vs Aquino III authorized to fix the compensation framework of Government-Owned and
Trustees and/or Officers of GOCCs proper – YES
Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) and Government Financial Institutions (GFIs).
from granting and releasing bonuses
and allowances to members of the
board of directors, and from increasing
salary rates of and granting new or
additional benefits and allowances to
their employees.

• The Supreme Court does not have exclusive original jurisdiction over petitions
assailing the constitutionality of a law or an administrative regulation—the general
• In 2000, Moldex Realty, Inc. decided rule is that this Court shall exercise only appellate jurisdiction over cases involving
to stop paying the electric bills for the the constitutionality of a statute, treaty or regulation, except in circumstances
streetlights and advised Metrogate where the Court believes that resolving the issue of constitutionality of a law or
Complex Village Homeowners’ regulation at the first instance is of paramount importance and immediately affects
Whether the CA
Association to assume this obligation. the social, economic and moral well being of the people.
had jurisdiction
Respondent association applied for a • During the pendency of the petition before the CA, Board Resolution No. 699,
over the
preliminary injunction and preliminary series of 2001, entitled Amending the Rules and Regulations Implementing the
Moldex Realty vs HLURB constitutional
mandatory injunction with the Subdivision and Condominium Buyer’s Protective Decree and Other Related
question – YES,
HLURB against petitioner. Laws, was passed by the HUDCC. The regulation amended certain design
dismissal was
•CA dismissed the petition on the standards for subdivision projects, among which is the proportionate obligation of
improper
ground that petitioner should have subdivision homeowners in the payment of the electricity cost of streetlights. The
raised the constitutionality of HUDCC amendatory provision has superseded the provision in HUDCC Resolution No. R-
Resolution No. R-562, series of 1994, 562, series of 1994, directing subdivision developers to shoulder the electricity
directly to SC. cost of streetlights. At the time of the filing of the instant petition, the new
provision was already in effect. That being the situation, the instant petition has
become moot and academic.
 • Section 18, 63 Article II and Section 3, 64 Article XIII accord all members of the
labor sector, without distinction as to place of deployment, full protection of their
rights and welfare.To Filipino workers, the rights guaranteed under the foregoing
constitutional provisions translate to economic security and parity: all monetary
benefits should be equally enjoyed by workers of similar category, while all
• Serrano was hired by Gallant monetary obligations should be borne by them in equal degree; none should be
Maritime as Chief Officer, later forced denied the protection of the laws which is enjoyed by, or spared the burden
to accept downgraded position of imposed on, others in like circumstances. Such rights are not absolute but subject
Second Officer with promises to make to the inherent power of Congress to incorporate, when it sees fit, a system of
Whether Sec. 10 of
him Chief. Promise was never classification into its legislation; however, to be valid, the classification must
Serrano vs Gallant RA 8042 is
fulfilled, thus Serrano refused to stay comply with these requirements: 1) it is based on substantial distinctions; 2) it is
Maritime Services Unconstitutional –
and was repatriated. His contract was germane to the purposes of the law; 3) it is not limited to existing conditions only;
YES
supposed to be for 12mos, and when and 4) it applies equally to all members of the class.
he was repatriated he had only served • The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042 introduced a differentiated
for 2mos 7days, leaving unexpired rule of computation of the money claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on
portion of 9mos 23days. their employment periods, in the process singling out one category whose contracts
have an unexpired portion of one year or more and subjecting them to the peculiar
disadvantage of having their monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months
or for the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the while sparing the
other category from such prejudice, simply because the latter's unexpired contracts
fall short of one year.
• In Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc. and Marlow Navigation Co., Inc.
(2009), this court ruled that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less” is unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause and substantive due process. A statute or provision which was
declared unconstitutional is not a law. It “confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it
• Joy C. Cabiles alleged that in her
affords no protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been
employment contract (Wacoal), she
Whether limiting passed at all.” We are aware that the clause “or for three (3) months for every year
agreed to work as quality control for
wages that should of the unexpired term, whichever is less” was reinstated in R.A. No. 8042 upon
one year. In Taiwan, she was asked to
be recovered by an promulgation of R.A. No. 10022 in 2010.
work as a cutter.
illegally dismissed • We observe that the reinstated clause, this time as provided in Republic
• Sameer claims that a certain Mr.
Sameer Overseas vs overseas worker to Act. No. 10022, violates the constitutional rights to equal protection and due
Huwang from Wacoal informed Joy,
Cabiles three months process. Petitioner as well as the Solicitor General have failed to show any
without prior notice, that she was
violates due compelling change in the circumstances that would warrant us to revisit the
terminated. Joy claims that she was
process and the precedent. We reiterate our finding in Serrano v. Gallant Maritime that limiting
told that she only earned a total of
equal protection – wages that should be recovered by an illegally dismissed overseas worker to three
NT$9,000. Wacoal deducted
YES months is both a violation of due process and the equal protection clauses of the
NT$3,000 to cover her plane ticket to
Constitution. Equal protection of the law is a guarantee that persons under like
Manila.
circumstances and falling within the same class are treated alike, in terms of
“privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.” It is a guarantee against “undue
favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or the
oppression of inequality.”

• The 24 cityhood bills were not acted Whether the • To be sure, courts, regardless of doubts they might be entertaining, cannot
League of Cities vs
upon the 11th Congress cityhood laws question the wisdom of the congressional classification, if reasonable, or the
COMELEC
• By the 13th Congress, 16 violate (1) Sec. 10. motivation underpinning the classification. By the same token, they do not sit to
 determine the propriety or efficacy of the remedies Congress has specifically
municipalities filed, through their
chosen to extend. That is its prerogative. The power of the Legislature to make
respective sponsors, individual
Art. X of the distinctions and classifications among persons is, to reiterate, neither curtailed nor
cityhood bills. Common to all 16
Constitution and denied by the equal protection clause. A law can be violative of the constitutional
measures was a provision exempting
(2) the equal limitation only when the classification is without reasonable basis.
the municipality covered from the
protection clause – •And to stress the obvious, the cityhood laws are presumed constitutional. As we
P100M income requirement.
NO see it, petitioners have not overturned the presumptive constitutionality of the laws
•These are the left-over bills of the 11th
in question.
Congress
• COA Office of General
• One of the most important aspects of judicial independence is the constitutional
Counsel issued an opinion finding an
grant of fiscal autonomy. Just as the Executive may not prevent a judge from
underpayment of php221k from 5
discharging his or her judicial duty (for example, by physically preventing a court
retired SC justices purchasing the
from holding its hearings) and just as the Legislature may not enact laws removing
personal properties they used during
  all jurisdiction from courts, the courts may not be obstructed from their freedom to
their incumbency (consisting of cars
RE: COA Opinion on the use or dispose of their funds for purposes germane to judicial functions.
and appliances), which COA
computation of the Whether SC • By way of a long standing tradition, partly based on the intention to reward long
attributed to SC Property Division
appraised value of prop. computation and faithful service, the sale to the retired Justices of specifically designated
using the wrong formula for
Purchased by retired should be properties that they used during their incumbency has been recognized both as a
computation; SC made in-house
justices of the SC respected – YES privilege and a benefit.
computation applying the
• Under the guarantees of the Judiciary’s fiscal autonomy and its independence, the
Constitutional Fiscal Autonomy
Chief Justice and the Court En Banc determine and decide the who, what, where,
Group (CFAG) Joint Resolution
when and how of the privileges and benefits they extend to justices, judges, court
formula when it should have applied
officials and court personnel within the parameters of the Court’s granted power;
the one in COA Memorandum 98-
they determine the terms, conditions and restrictions of the grant as grantor.
569-A (issued 1998).
 • Section 6, Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution (Constitution)
 Whether the exclusively vests in the Court administrative supervision over all courts and court
requirement of personnel. As such, it oversees the court personnel’s compliance with all laws and
seeking a takes the proper administrative action against them for any violation thereof. As an
Clearance of adjunct thereto, it keeps in its custody records pertaining to the administrative
Re: Request for • Before the Court is a Memorandum Pendency/Non- cases of retiring court personnel.
Guidance/Clarification on from Atty. Eden T. Candelaria, Pendency of • To further clarify the matter, the same principles dictate that a prior clearance of
Section 7, Rule 111 of Deputy Clerk of Court and Chief Administrative pendency/non-pendency of administrative case/s from the Office of the President
Republic Act. No. 10154 Administrative Officer, Office of Case from the (albeit some court personnel are presidential appointees, e.g., Supreme Court
Requiring Retiring Administrative Services of the Civil Service Justices) or the Office of the Ombudsman should not equally apply to retiring court
Government Employees to Supreme Court, requesting Commission personnel. Verily, the administrative supervision of court personnel and all affairs
Secure a Clearance of guidance/clarification on the embodied in related thereto fall within the exclusive province of the Judiciary.
Pendency/Non-Pendency of applicability to the Judiciary of Section 7, Rule III • It must, however, be noted that since the Constitution only accords the Judiciary
Casels from the Civil Section 7, Rule III of the IRR of RA of the IRR of R.A. administrative supervision over its personnel, a different treatment of the clearance
Service Commission 101541 No. 10154 is requirement obtains with respect to criminal cases. As such, a clearance
INAPPLICABLE requirement which pertains to criminal cases may be imposed by the appropriate
to retiring government agency, i.e., the Office of the Ombudsman, on retiring court personnel
employees of the as it is a matter beyond the ambit of the Judiciary’s power of administrative
Judiciary – YES supervision.

Jardeleza vs. Sereno • Associate Justice Roberto Abad  Whether court can • Section 8, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides for the creation of the
retired. JBC announced the opening assume jurisdiction JBC. The Court was given supervisory authority over it. Section 8 reads: Section 8.
for application or recommendation for and give due A Judicial and Bar Council is hereby created under the supervision of the Supreme
the said vacated position. course to the Court composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of
• JBC received a letter from Dean subject petition for Justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a
Danilo Concepcion of UP nominating certiorari and representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the
petitioner Francis H. Jardeleza, mandamus (with Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
incumbent SolGen, for the said application for a • Supervision is the power of oversight, or the authority to see that subordinate
position. Upon acceptance of the temporary officers perform their duties.
nomination, Jardeleza was included in restraining order) – It has been judicially settled that a petition for certiorari is a proper remedy to
the names of candidates, as well as in YES question the act of any branch or instrumentality of the government on the ground
the schedule of public interviews. On of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction by any
May 29, 2014, Jardeleza was branch or instrumentality of the government, even if the latter does not exercise
interviewed by the JBC. judicial, quasi-judicial or ministerial functions.
 2. Whether • A lawyer has complete discretion on what legal strategy to employ in a case
the issues raised entrusted to him provided that he lives up to his duty to serve his client with
against Jardeleza competence and diligence, and that he exert his best efforts to protect the interests
befit “questions or of his client within the bounds of the law.
challenges on • To fall under Section 2, Rule 10 of Judicial and Bar Council (JBC)-009, there
integrity” as must be a showing that the act complained of is, at the least, linked to the moral
contemplated character of the person and not to his judgment as a professional.
under Sec. 2, Rule • A lawyer who engages in extra-marital affairs is deemed to have failed to adhere
10 of JBC-009 – to the exacting standards of morality and decency which every member of the
NO (handling the Judiciary is expected to observe. In fact, even relationships which have never gone
arbitration case) physical or intimate could still be subject to charges of immorality, when a lawyer,
and YES (affair who is married, admits to having a relationship which was more than professional,
• Jardeleza was informed that during and insider trading more than acquaintanceship, more than friendly.
the meetings held, Chief Justice and – but was denied • Insider trading involves the trading of securities based on knowledge of material
JBC ex officio Chairperson, Chief due process) information not disclosed to the public at the time.
Justice Sereno, manifested that she
would be invoking Section 2, Rule 10
of JBC-0094 against him.

• It is well-established in jurisprudence that disciplinary proceedings against

Whether the right
lawyers are sui generis in that they are neither purely civil nor purely criminal;
to due process is
they involve investigations by the Supreme Court (SC) into the conduct of one of
available in the
its officers, not the trial of an action or a suit.
course of JBC
• The Supreme Court (SC) subscribes to the view that in cases where an objection
proceedings in
to an applicant’s qualifications is raised, the observance of due process neither
cases where an
negates nor renders illusory the fulfillment of the duty of Judicial and Bar Council
objection or
(JBC) to recommend.
opposition to an
• The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has the discretion to hold or not to hold a
application is
hearing when an objection to an applicant’s integrity is raised and that it may resort
raised – YES
to other means to accomplish its objective.
 • The conclusion of the Court is hinged on the following pivotal points:
a. There was a misapplication of the “unanimity rule” under Section 2, Rule
10 of JBC-009 as to Jardeleza’s legal strategy in handling a case for the
government.
4. Whether
b. While Jardeleza’s alleged extra-marital affair and acts of insider trading
Jardeleza may be
fall within the contemplation of a “question on integrity” and would have
included in the
warranted the application of the “unanimity rule,” he was not afforded due process
short list of
in its application.
nominees
c. The JBC, as the sole body empowered to evaluate applications for judicial
submitted to the
posts, exercises full discretion on its power to recommend nominees to the
president – YES
President. The sui generis character of JBC proceedings, however, is not a blanket
authority to disregard the due process under JBC-010.
d. Jardeleza was deprived of his right to due process when, contrary to the
JBC rules, he was neither formally informed of the questions on his integrity nor
was provided a reasonable opportunity to prepare his defense.

• In 1994, the composition of the JBC

was substantially altered. Instead of • Doubtless, the Framers of our Constitution intended to create a Judicial and Bar
having only seven (7) members, an Council (JBC) as an innovative solution in response to the public clamor in favor
eighth (8th) member was added to the Whether the first of eliminating politics in the appointment of members of the Judiciary. • To ensure
JBC as two (2) representatives from paragraph of judicial independence, they adopted a holistic approach and hoped that, in creating
Congress began sitting in the JBC— Section 8, Article a JBC, the private sector and the three branches of government would have an
one from the House of Representatives VIII of the 1987 active role and equal voice in the selection of the members of the Judiciary.
Chavez vs JBC and one from the Senate, with each Constitution allow Therefore, to allow the Legislature to have more quantitative influence in the JBC
having onehalf (1/2) of a vote. • Then, more than one (1) by having more than one voice speak, whether with one full vote or onehalf (1/2) a
the JBC En Banc, in separate meetings member of vote each, would, as one former congressman and member of the JBC put it,
held in 2000 and 2001, decided to Congress to sit in “negate the principle of equality among the three branches of government which is
allow the representatives from the the JBC? – NO enshrined in the Constitution.” • In the interest of fair play under the doctrine of
Senate and the House of operative facts, actions previous to the declaration of unconstitutionality are legally
Representatives one full vote each. recognized.
Petitioner question this composition.
 • 1. that allowing only one
representative from Congress in the • A reading of the 1987 Constitution would reveal that several provisions were
JBC would lead to absurdity indeed adjusted as to be in tune with the shift to bicameralism; The bicameral
considering its bicameral nature; nature of Congress was recognized and, clearly, the corresponding adjustments
2. that the failure of the Framers to were made as to how a matter would be handled and voted upon by its two Houses.
make the proper adjustment when One example is Section 4, Article VII, which provides that a tie in the presidential
there was a shift from unilateralism to election shall be broken “by a majority of all the Members of both Houses of the
bicameralism was a plain oversight; Congress, voting separately.” Another is Section 8 thereof which requires the
Chavez vs JBC  
3. that two representatives from nominee to replace the VicePresident to be confirmed “by a majority of all the
Congress would not subvert the Members of both Houses of the Congress, voting separately.”
intention of the Framers to insulate the • The lone representative of Congress is entitled to one full vote. This
JBC from political partisanship; and pronouncement effectively disallows the scheme of splitting the said vote into half
4. that the rationale of the Court in (1/ 2), between two representatives of Congress. Not only can this unsanctioned
declaring a sevenmember composition practice cause disorder in the voting process, it is clearly against the essence of
would provide a solution should there what the Constitution authorized.
be a stalemate is not exactly correct.

Whether the • The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) does not fall within the scope of a tribunal,
Congress should board, or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions.• To add another
have two seats – member in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) or to increase the representative of
• Rep. Reynaldo V. Umali, current NO Congress to the JBC, the remedy is not judicial but constitutional amendment.
Chair of the House of Representatives
Committee on Justice, impugns the
present-day practice of six-month
rotational representation of Congress • In the case at bench, the counting of votes in the selection of the nominees to the
Umali vs JBC in the JBC for it unfairly deprives both judiciary may only be considered a ministerial duty of the JBC if such votes were
Houses of Congress of their full cast by its rightful members and not by someone, like the petitioner, who is not
Whether JBC was
participation in the said body. The considered a member during the En Banc deliberations last December 2 and 9,
incorrect when it
aforementioned practice was adopted 2016. For during the questioned period, the lawful representative of Congress to
didn’t count the
by the JBC in light of the ruling in the JBC is a member of the Senate and not of the House of Representatives as per
vote of Umali –
Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council. their agreed rotational scheme. Considering that a member of the Senate already
NO
cast his vote therein, the JBC has the full discretion not to count the votes of the
petitioner for it is mandated by both the Constitution and jurisprudence to maintain
that Congress will only have one representative in the JBC.
 • As an offspring of the 1987 Constitution, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is
mandated to recommend appointees to the judiciary and only those nominated by
the JBC in a list officially transmitted to the President may be appointed by the
• Villanueva was appointed as the Whether the policy latter as justice or judge in the judiciary.
Presiding Judge of the Municipal of JBC requiring • Substantial distinctions do exist between lower court judges with five (5)-year
Circuit Trial Court. five years of experience and those with less than five years of experience, like the petitioner,
• One year later he applied for a RTC service as judges and the classification enshrined in the assailed policy is reasonable and relevant to
Judge position. JBC did not include of first-level courts its legitimate purpose.
Villanueva vs JBC him because of a long-standing policy before they can • The petitioner has no legal right to be included in the list of nominees for judicial
of opening the chance for promotion qualify as vacancies since the possession of the constitutional and statutory qualifications for
to second-level courts to, among applicant to appointment to the Judiciary may not be used to legally demand that one’s name be
others, incumbent judges who have second-level courts included in the list of candidates for a judicial vacancy. One’s inclusion in the
served in their current position for at is constitutional – shortlist is strictly within the discretion of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC).
least five years YES • The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has the power to determine who shall be
recommended to the judicial post. To be included in the list of applicants is a
privilege as one can only be chosen under existing criteria imposed by the JBC
itself.

• Congress could not have carved out an exemption for the GSIS from the payment
of legal fees without transgressing another equally important institutional
safeguard of the Court’s independence—fiscal autonomy. Fiscal autonomy
recognizes the power and authority of the Court to levy, assess and collect fees,
including legal fees. Moreover, legal fees under Rule 141 have two basic
Whether the
components, the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and the Special Allowance for
legislature may
Re Petition for Recognition the Judiciary Fund (SAJF). The laws which established the JDF and the SAJF
• GSIS seeks exemptio from the exempt the GSIS
of the Exemption of the expressly declare the identical purpose of these funds to “guarantee the
payment of legal fees imposed on from legal fees
GSIS from Payment of independence of the Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy.”
GOCC's imposed by the
Legal Fees Legal fees therefore do not only constitute a vital source of the Court’s financial
Court on GOCCs
resources but also comprise an essential element of the Court’s fiscal
and LGUs – NO
independence. Any exemption from the payment of legal fees granted by Congress
to government-owned or controlled corporations and local government units will
necessarily reduce the JDF and the SAJF. Undoubtedly, such situation is
constitutionally infirm for it impairs the Court’s guaranteed fiscal autonomy and
erodes its independence.
 • In this jurisdiction, plea bargaining has been defined as “a process whereby the
accused and the prosecution work out a mutually satisfactory disposition of the
case subject to court approval.”
• Salvador Estipona Jr. was the • Under the present Rules, the acceptance of an offer to plead guilty is not a
accused in a crim case for possession demandable right but depends on the consent of the offended party and the
of shabu. Estipona filed a Motion to prosecutor, which is a condition precedent to a valid plea of guilty to a lesser
Allow the Accused to Enter into a Plea offense that is necessarily included in the offense charged.
Bargaining Agreement, arguing that • In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice
Sec. 23 of RA 9165 (no plea Whether Sec. 23 of and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive
bargaining) violates the intent of the RA 9165 is right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial
Estipona v Lobrigo
law, the rule-making authority of the Unconstitutional – process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly
SC, Art. VIII, and separation of YES administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule
powers. takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the
• Judge Lobrigo denied the motion, right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a
ruling that SC admonished lower means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals merely with procedure.
courts into being more modest in • Considering the mutuality of advantage in plea bargaining--both prosecution and
facing Constitutional questions. defense making concessions to avoid potential losses, and to decide with finality in
a speedy manner--plea bargaining neither creates nor takes away a vested right. It
only implements an existing right by regulating the judicial process for enforcing
rights and duties recognized by law.