Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 195 views

    De La Llana vs. Alba

    Uploaded by

    michael jan de celis
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no lack of good faith in the reorganization of the judiciary through Batasang Pambansa Blg. 129. While it is possible the legislature could abuse its power, the Court found no evidence that was the case here. The law's purpose was to fulfill a public need, not negatively target any particular judge's tenure. As long as an office abolition is made in good faith, it does not violate judges' security of tenure under the Constitution. The petitioners' offices were validly abolished by the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    De La Llana vs. Alba

    Uploaded by

    michael jan de celis
    195 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no lack of good faith in the reorganization of the judiciary through Batasang Pambansa Blg. 129. While it is possible the legislature could abuse its power, the Court found no evidence that was the case here. The law's purpose was to fulfill a public need, not negatively target any particular judge's tenure. As long as an office abolition is made in good faith, it does not violate judges' security of tenure under the Constitution. The petitioners' offices were validly abolished by the law.

    Original Title

    De la Llana vs. Alba

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no lack of good faith in the reorganization of the judiciary through Batasang Pambansa Blg. 129. While it is possible the legislature could abuse its power, the Court found no evidence that was the case here. The law's purpose was to fulfill a public need, not negatively target any particular judge's tenure. As long as an office abolition is made in good faith, it does not violate judges' security of tenure under the Constitution. The petitioners' offices were validly abolished by the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    195 views2 pages

    De La Llana vs. Alba

    Uploaded by

    michael jan de celis
    The Supreme Court ruled that there was no lack of good faith in the reorganization of the judiciary through Batasang Pambansa Blg. 129. While it is possible the legislature could abuse its power, the Court found no evidence that was the case here. The law's purpose was to fulfill a public need, not negatively target any particular judge's tenure. As long as an office abolition is made in good faith, it does not violate judges' security of tenure under the Constitution. The petitioners' offices were validly abolished by the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    De La Llana v.

    Alba
    March 12, 1982 |G.R. No. L-57883

    FACTS:
    Batasang Pambansa Blg. 129 entitled, “An act reorganizing the Judiciary,
    Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other Purposes” was passed, providing for
    the separation of 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). The honorable petitioner sought to prohibit the respondents from
    implementing BP 129, alleging that the security of tenure provision of the
    Constitution has been ignored and disregarded. Furthermore, they assert that the
    reorganization was done in lack of good faith. However, the Solicitor General denies
    his claim and maintains that the allegation of lack of good faith is unwarranted and
    devoid of any support in law, and that BP 129 was a legitimate exercise of the power
    vested in the Batasang Pambansa to reorganize the judiciary.

    ISSUE:
    Was there lack of good faith in reorganizing the judiciary?

    HELD:
    No. The Court held that there was good faith in reorganizing the judiciary. Citing the
    separate opinion of Justice Laurel in the case of Zandueta v. De La Costa, the Court
    similarly maintains that the passage of BP 129 was in good faith seeing as its
    purpose was for the fulfillment of what was considered a great public need by the
    legislative department, not intended to adversely affect the tenure of judges or any
    particular judge. While it is possible that the legislature could deliberately abuse the
    power to reorganize the judiciary, thus lacking good faith, the Court is unconvinced
    that such was the case in this situation. Thus, where the Court holds that the
    reorganization of the judiciary by virtue of BP 129 was done in good faith, the
    “separation” of the petitioner due to the abolition of his office is valid and
    constitutional.

    DE LA LLANA VS ALBA
    Posted by kaye lee on 12:18 PM
    GR No. L-57883 March 12 1982 

    FACTS:

    De La Llana, et. al. filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief and/or for Prohibition, seeking to enjoin the Minister
    of the Budget, the Chairman of the Commission on Audit, and the Minister of Justice from taking any action
    implementing BP 129 which mandates that Justices and judges of inferior courts from the CA to MTCs, except
    the occupants of the Sandiganbayan and the CTA, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such act,
    would be considered separated from the judiciary.  It is the termination of their incumbency that for petitioners
    justify a suit of this character, it being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the Constitution
    has been ignored and disregarded.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the reorganization violate the security of tenure of justices and judges as provided for under the
    Constitution.

    RULING:
    What is involved in this case is not the removal or separation of the judges and justices from their services.
    What is important is the validity of the abolition of their offices.

    Well-settled is the rule that the abolition of an office does not amount to an illegal removal of its incumbent is
    the principle that, in order to be valid, the abolition must be made in good faith.

    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

    You might also like