G.R. No. L-57883, March 12, 1982
GUALBERTO J. DE LA LLANA, et al., petitioners, vs. MANUEL ALBA, Minister of Budget, FRANCISCO TANTUICO, Chairman, Commission on Audit, and RICARDO PUNO, Minister of Justice, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, judges of various lower courts, assailed the constitutionality of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, the Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980. Their challenge focused on Section 44, which provided that upon the President’s declaration of completed reorganization, the existing inferior courts (except the Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax Appeals) “shall be deemed automatically abolished and the incumbents thereof shall cease to hold office.” Petitioners argued this provision violated constitutional guarantees of judicial independence, specifically the security of tenure for members of the judiciary under the 1973 Constitution and the Supreme Court’s exclusive power to discipline and dismiss judges.
Respondents, represented by government officials, defended the law as a valid exercise of legislative power. They contended that since the Constitution vests judicial power in the Supreme Court and “in such inferior courts as may be established by law,” the Batasang Pambansa possesses the plenary authority to abolish and reorganize the courts it created. This power, they argued, inherently includes the ability to terminate the offices of incumbents when their courts are abolished.

ISSUE

Whether Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, particularly Section 44, is unconstitutional for violating the security of tenure of judges and impairing judicial independence.

RULING

The Court upheld the constitutionality of BP 129. The legal logic centers on the distinction between removing a judge from an existing office and abolishing the office itself. The constitutional guarantee of security of tenure protects a judge from being removed from office without cause prior to the expiration of their term. However, this guarantee does not extend to a right to continue holding a position when the office itself has been legitimately abolished by law.
The legislative power to create courts necessarily includes the power to reorganize and abolish them. BP 129 effected a substantial restructuring of the judicial system, creating an entirely new framework with Regional Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts, among others, replacing the old hierarchy. This was not a mere renaming but a genuine abolition of the old courts. Consequently, when the office is validly abolished, the tenure of the incumbent rightfully ends. The power of abolition is legislative, while the power of removal for cause is judicial. They operate in distinct spheres. The law did not remove judges for cause; it eliminated their positions as part of a comprehensive reorganization. Therefore, Section 44 does not constitute an unconstitutional infringement of judicial tenure or an encroachment on the Supreme Court’s disciplinary authority.