G.R. No.

L-57883 March 12, 1982

DE LA LLANA vs. ALBA

Fernando, C.J.,

Facts: De la Llana, who is a presiding judge of the City Court of Olongapo,

together with other petitioners seek to enjoin respondent Minister of the Budget,
Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and respondent Minister of Justice from taking
any action implementing Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled, “An Act Reorganizing
Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes”. The assailed
legislation mandates that Justices and Judges of inferior courts from Court of Appeals to
municipal circuit courts would be considered separated from judiciary. It is the
termination of their incumbency that for petitioners justifies a suit of this character, it
being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been
ignored and disregarded. The Solicitor General pointed out 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.

Issue: Whether or not Batas Pambansa Blg 129 is unconstitutional for colliding
with the security of tenure enjoyed by judges and justices.

Ruling: No. The Court held that 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. It is a fundamental
proposition that the legislature may abolish courts inferior to the Supreme Court and
therefore may reorganize them territorially or otherwise thereby necessitating new
appointments and commissions. To be specific, the Batasang Pambansa is expressly
vested with the authority to reorganize inferior courts and in the process to abolish
existing ones. As in this case, the Court also held that no removal or separation of
petitioners from service is here involved, but the validity of the abolition of their offices. It
is well-known rule also that valid abolition of offices is neither removal nor separation of
the incumbents.

Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of valid 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.