Anda di halaman 1dari 2

CASE: de la llana v alba AUTHOR: Pulhin

GR NO: G.R. No. 57883. DATE: March 12, 1982. NOTES:


TOPIC: The Constitutional Commissions # of pages : 77

PONENTE:

FACTS: Petitioners assailed the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 entitled "An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
Appropriating Funds Therefore and for other Purposes," the same being contrary to the security of tenure provision of
the Constitution as it separates from the judiciary Justices and judges of inferior courts from the Court of Appeals to
municipal circuit courts except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the Court of Tax Appeals, unless appointed to
the inferior courts established by such Act. They likewise impute lack of good faith in its enactment and characterize as
undue delegation of legislative power to the President his authority to fix the compensation and allowances of the
Justices and judges thereafter appointed and the determination of the date when the reorganization shall be deemed
completed. The Solicitor General maintains that there is no valid justification for the attack on the constitutionality of the
statute, it being a legitimate exercise of the power vested in the Batasang Pambansa to reorganize the judiciary, the
allegations of absence of good faith as well as the attack on the independence of the judiciary being unwarranted and
devoid of any support in law.

After an intensive and rigorous study of all the legal aspects of the case, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, the
unconstitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 not having been shown. It held that the enactment thereof was in answer
to a pressing and urgent need for a major reorganization of the judiciary; that the attendant abolition of the inferior
courts which shall cause their incumbents to cease from holding office does not impair the independence of the judiciary
and the security of tenure guarantee as incumbent justices and judges with good performance and clean records can be
named anew in legal contemplation without interruption in the continuity of their service; that the provision granting the
President authority to fix the compensation and allowances of the Justices and judges survives the test of undue
delegation of legislative power, a standard having been clearly adopted therefor; that the reorganization provided by the
challenged Act will be carried out in accordance with the President's constitutional duty to take care that the laws be
faithfully executed, and the judiciary's commitment to guard constitutional rights.

The petition was dismissed. Associate Justice Claudio Teehankee dissented in a separate opinion; Justices Felix V.
Makasiar and Venicio Escolin concurred with the main opinion; Justice Hermogenes Concepcion concurred in the result;
Justices Antonio P. Barredo, Ramon C. Aquino, Ramon C. Fernandez, Juvenal K Guerrero, Ameur>na Melencio-Herrera
and Vicente G. Ericta concurred in separate opinions; Justices Vicente Abad-Santos and Efren I. Plana submitted separate
concurring and dissenting opinions.

ISSUE(S): Whether or not a judge like Judge De La Llana can be validly removed by the legislature by such statute (BP 129)
HELD: Yes
DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the unconstitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 not having been shown, this
petition is dismissed. No costs. cd

RATIO: The SC ruled the following way: Moreover, this Court is empowered to discipline judges of inferior courts and, by
a vote of at least eight members, order their dismissal. Thus it possesses the competence to remove judges. Under the
Judiciary Act, it was the President who was vested with such power. Removal is, of course, to be distinguished from
termination by virtue of the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-existent office. After the abolition,
there is in law no occupant. In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who would thereby lose his position.
It is in that sense that from the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment of security of tenure does not
arise. Nonetheless, for the incumbents of inferior courts abolished, the effect is one of separation. As to its effect, no
distinction exists between removal and the abolition of the office. Realistically, it is devoid of significance. He ceases to be
a member of the judiciary. In the implementation of the assailed legislation, therefore, it would be in accordance with
accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incumbent justices and judges are concerned, this Court
be consulted and that its view be accorded the fullest consideration. No fear need be entertained that there is a failure to
accord respect to the basic principle that this Court does not render advisory opinions. No question of law is involved. If
such were the case, certainly this Court could not have its say prior to the action taken by either of the two departments.
Even then, it could do so but only by way of deciding a case where the matter has been put in issue. Neither is there any
intrusion into who shall be appointed to the vacant positions created by the reorganization. That remains in the hands of
the Executive to whom it properly belongs. There is no departure therefore from the tried and tested ways of judicial
power. Rather what is sought to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to the charge that
in the exercise of the conceded power of reorganizing the inferior courts, the power of removal of the present incumbents
vested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded. The challenged Act would thus be free from any unconstitutional taint,
even one not readily discernible except to those predisposed to view it with distrust. Moreover, such a construction would
be in accordance with the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives between one which would save and another
which would invalidate a statute, the former is to be preferred.
CASE LAW/ DOCTRINE:

DISSENTING/CONCURRING OPINION(S):