DE LA LLANA V ALBA
FERNANDO; March 12, 1982
FACTS
- The National Assembly enacted the Batas Pambansa
Blg. 129, entitled "An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,
Appropriating Funds Therefor and for other Purposes".
BP 129 mandates that Justices and Judges of inferior
courts from the Court of Appeals to municipal courts,
except the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the
Court of Tax Appeals, unless appointed to the inferior
courts established by such Act, would be considered
separated from the Judiciary. The intent of this Act is to
attain (1) more efficiency in the disposal of cases, (2)
improvement in the quality of justice dispensed
by the court, (3) democratization of social and economic
opportunities and the substantiation of the true meaning
of social justice.
- Procedure De La Llana,a judge, together with other
petitioners filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or
Prohibition, seeking to enjoin respondent Minister of the
Budget, respondent Chairman of the Commission on
Audit, and respondent Minister of Justice from taking any
action implementing BP 129.
ISSUES
1.WON the petitioners have legal standing.
2.On Constitutionality of BP 129
a. WON there was lack of good faith on the part of
Legislature in its enactment.
b. WON the abolition of an office by the Legislature is
valid.
c. WON the provision of BP 129 (regarding fixing of
compensation and allowances of members of Judiciary
by the Executive) constitutes an undue delegation of
legislative power.
d. WON BP 129 is violative of the security of tenure
(Art. X Sec 7 of 1973 Constitution) enjoyed by
incumbent justices and judges and the Supreme
Court's power to discipline and remove judges.
HELD
1.YES. The petitioners, being members of the bar and
officers of the court and taxpayers, have a personal and
substantial interest in the case such that he has
sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its
enforcement.
2.a. NO. The Legislature, after careful study and
evaluation of the judicial system in the country, found
out that institutional reforms is both pressing and
urgent.
b. YES. The abolition of an office,if within the
competence of a legitimate body and if done in good
faith suffers from no infirmity.
Reasoning
0 adherence to precedent (in Bendanillo Sr. v. Provincial
Gov and in Zandueta v. De La Costa, the Court also held
that the abolition of an
office is valid)
- Interpretation of the Consti provision - Article VII Sec 2
of 1973 Consti "vests in the NA the power to define,
prescribe and apportion the jurisdiction of the various
courts, subject to certain limitation in the case of SC." In
short, the NA has the power to abolish an office that it
created.
c. NO. There is no undue delegation of legislative power
if the law is complete and provides for a standard.
Reasoning
- In this case, the Act provides a clear standard. The
President may be authorized to fix the allowances and
compensation but guided by the
Letter of Implementation No. 93 and pursuant to PD 985.
d. NO. Removal from office is different from termination
by virtue of the abolition of the office. In case of
removal, there is an office with an occupant who would
thereby lose his position. In the case of abolition, there is
in law no occupant. There can be no tenure to a nonexistent
office.
Reasoning
- Conflicting constitutional provisions, the power of the
NA to abolish an office on one hand and the security of
tenure, on the other, must be reconciled and
harmonized. Reconciliation and balancing is well high
unavoidable under the fundamental principle of
separation of powers.
- Political theory (Holmes and Tuazon): There is more
truism and actuality of interdependence among different
branches of government
than in independence and separation of powers.
Decision: Dismissed. The unconstitutionality of BP 129
has not been shown.
SEPARATE OPINION
TEEHANKEE [dissent]
The express constitutional guaranty of security of tenure
of judges must prevail over the implied constitutional
authority to abolish courts and to oust judges. Such
subjection of a judge to public "harassment and
humiliation ....can diminish public confidence in the
courts." The ills the judiciary suffers from were caused
by impairing its independence: they will not be cured by
totally destroying their independence. It would be
ironical if Judges who are called upon to give due
process cannot count it on themselves.
BARREDO [concur]
Inferior courts are mere creatures of law (of the
Legislature) . It follows that it is within the legislature' s
power to abolish or reorganize them no matter what the
cost is. He personally believes that the present situation
in the judiciary calls for its reorganization. He believes
that the Constitution is a living instrument which
translates and adapts itself to the demands of obtaining
circumstances (realist approach in interpreting the
Consti)
AQUINO [concur in the result]
For him the suit is premature, but affirming expressly
that the abolition was in good faith. CONCEPCION
(concurs in the result)
GUERRERO [concur]
Social justification and the functional utility of the law to
uphold its constitutionality is the ratio decidendi of this
case. For him, inquiring into the wisdom of the law is a
political question. Public office is a privilege in the gift of
the State and not a right. Dura lex sed lex, even though
it is harsh.
ABAD SANTOS [concur and dissent]
Concurs but dissented on the ground that the statute
being free from any constitutional infirmity, the
"Executive is entitled to exercise its constitutional power
to fill the newly created judicial positions without any
obligation to consult with the Supreme Court and to
accord its views the fullest consideration.
DE CASTRO [concur except as qualified]
The power of the Legislature to create courts also
includes the power to abolish them. When there is a
conflict between public welfare(the duty of the
legislature to provide a society with a fair and effective
judicial system) and personal benefit (security of
tenure), the latter must of necessity to yield to the
former. The abolition of the courts is a matter of
legislative intent into which no judicial inquiry is proper.
Petition is premature. No actual controversy yet. Not
until the abolition of courts is not done, can there be
possibly a violation of the security of tenure. "Salus
populi est suprema lex" - The welfare of the people is the
supreme law.
MELENCIO-HERRERA [concur]
Tenure of Judges is different from tenure of Courts. A
legislature is not bound to give security of tenure to
courts. The constitutional guarantee of tenure of Judges
applies only as their Courts exist.
ERICTA [concur]
No law is irrepealable. The power to create an office
includes the power to abolish them. "Salus populi est
suprema lex" - The welfare of the people is the supreme
law.
PLANA [concurs and dissent]
Actual and not merely presumptive good faith attended
its enactment. His qualification being that the "President
is under no obligation to consult with the SC and the SC
as such is not called upon to give legal advice to the
President."