Title
De la Llana vs. Alba
Case
G.R. No. 57883
Decision Date
Mar 12, 1982
Judges challenged Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, alleging it violated constitutional security of tenure. The Supreme Court upheld the act, ruling it a valid exercise of legislative power for judicial reform.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 57883)

Petitioner

A group of incumbent judges and lawyers alleged that the Act’s automatic abolition of all inferior courts (except Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals) and the simultaneous termination of sitting judges’ tenure violated the constitutional guarantee of independence and security of tenure.

Respondent

The government defended the statute as a valid exercise of the Batasang Pambansa’s power to reorganize the judiciary, asserting good faith, necessity, and conformity with constitutional principles.

Key Dates

• August 7, 1980: Presidential Committee on Judicial Reorganization constituted.
• October 17, 1980: Committee report submitted.
• August 14, 1981: Batas Pambansa 129 enacted.
• October 1981: Supplemental pleadings and hearings.
• March 12, 1982: Supreme Court decision rendered.

Applicable Law

Constitution of the Philippines (1973, as amended 1981)
– Art X, Sec 1: Judicial power vested in Supreme Court and inferior courts “as may be established by law.”
– Art X, Sec 6: Administrative supervision of all courts by the Supreme Court.
– Art X, Sec 7: Members of the Supreme Court and inferior-court judges “shall hold office during good behavior until … seventy years” and defines the Supreme Court’s removal power.

Issue Presented

Whether Batas Pambansa Blg. 129’s sweeping abolition of existing inferior courts and termination of their judges en masse, replaced by new courts, contravened the 1973 Constitution’s guarantees of judicial independence and security of tenure.

Standing of Petitioners

The Court found petitioners had personal and substantial interest: Judge de la Llana faced direct injury from abolition of his court; other lawyer-petitioners claimed injury as court officers and taxpayers. The challenge was properly before the Supreme Court as an action for prohibition (judicial review of a statute).

Allegations of Arbitrariness and Bad Faith

Petitioners asserted the Act was tainted by lack of good faith—citing undue legislative delegation, arbitrary abolition of judicial offices, erosion of independence, and a disguised purge of “misfits.” They urged that judges could only be removed individually by the Supreme Court after discipline proceedings.

Legislative History and Purpose

A Presidential Committee (including three Supreme Court Justices) studied chronic docket congestion, case delays, and demands for modernization. Its October 1980 report warned the judiciary faced a crisis in efficiency and public faith. Cabinet Bill No. 42, largely following the Committee’s guidelines, underwent extensive public hearings and 590 pages of parliamentary debate before enactment as B.P. 129. The primary objectives were:

  1. Institutional restructuring (creation of intermediate appellate, regional, metropolitan, municipal, and circuit trial courts).
  2. Reallocation of jurisdiction to eliminate overlaps.
  3. Procedural reforms to expedite case disposition.

Power to Abolish Courts Versus Security of Tenure

– Precedent affirms that a legislature’s power to create courts “carries with it the power to abolish” them, provided the abolition is done in good faith and for public welfare. (Cruz v. Primicias, Jr.; Zandueta v. De la Costa.)
– Abolition of an office is distinguishable from removal for cause; abolition terminates the office itself, so no incumbent may remain.
– The test is whether abolition is bona fide and not a sham to oust particular judges.

Good Faith Found

The Court unanimously held that B.P. 129 arose from compelling public need, underwent rigorous study, full legislative process, and was not a disguise for arbitrary removal. The comprehensive background negated any plausible claim of bad faith.

Reconciling Overlapping Constitutional Provisions

– Art X, Sec 1 grants the legislature authority to reorganize inferior courts.
– Art X, Sec 7 secures judges’ tenure and vests removal power in the Supreme Court.
The Court harmonized these by recognizing abolition as an act of court creation/reorganization—distinct from disciplinary removal—and free from impairment of the Supreme Court’s statutory removal function


...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms