DE LA LLANA vs.

ALBA
(G.R. No. L-57883 March 12, 1982)

FACTS: In 1981, Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes, was passed. Gualberto De la Llana, a
judge in Olongapo, was assailing its validity because, first of all, he would be one of the judges that
would be removed because of the reorganization and second, he said such law would contravene
the constitutional provision which provides the security of tenure of judges of the courts. He averred
that only the Supreme Court can remove judges not the Congress.
BP Blg. 129 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. 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.
ISSUE: Whether or not BP Blg. 129 is unconstitutional.
HELD: Yes. It is constitutional. 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
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 Supreme 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.