Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 72 views

    43 de Llana vs. Alba

    Uploaded by

    Demi Pig
    The Supreme Court ruled that the abolition of judicial offices through BP 129 did not violate the security of tenure provision in the Constitution. While judges have security of tenure, this only applies to existing offices. If an office is validly abolished, then in the eyes of the law the office ceases to exist and there is no longer an occupant. As long as the abolition was done in good faith, it is a legitimate act that does not constitute illegal removal from office. The reorganization law was therefore constitutional as it validly abolished existing judicial offices rather than unconstitutionally removing the judges occupying them.

    Copyright:

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

    43 de Llana vs. Alba

    Uploaded by

    Demi Pig
    72 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the abolition of judicial offices through BP 129 did not violate the security of tenure provision in the Constitution. While judges have security of tenure, this only applies to existing offices. If an office is validly abolished, then in the eyes of the law the office ceases to exist and there is no longer an occupant. As long as the abolition was done in good faith, it is a legitimate act that does not constitute illegal removal from office. The reorganization law was therefore constitutional as it validly abolished existing judicial offices rather than unconstitutionally removing the judges occupying them.

    Original Description:

    consti law

    Original Title

    43 De 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 the abolition of judicial offices through BP 129 did not violate the security of tenure provision in the Constitution. While judges have security of tenure, this only applies to existing offices. If an office is validly abolished, then in the eyes of the law the office ceases to exist and there is no longer an occupant. As long as the abolition was done in good faith, it is a legitimate act that does not constitute illegal removal from office. The reorganization law was therefore constitutional as it validly abolished existing judicial offices rather than unconstitutionally removing the judges occupying them.

    Copyright:

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

    43 de Llana vs. Alba

    Uploaded by

    Demi Pig
    The Supreme Court ruled that the abolition of judicial offices through BP 129 did not violate the security of tenure provision in the Constitution. While judges have security of tenure, this only applies to existing offices. If an office is validly abolished, then in the eyes of the law the office ceases to exist and there is no longer an occupant. As long as the abolition was done in good faith, it is a legitimate act that does not constitute illegal removal from office. The reorganization law was therefore constitutional as it validly abolished existing judicial offices rather than unconstitutionally removing the judges occupying them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Topic

    :
    Security of Tenure
    Title:
    De Llana vs. Alba
    Citation: 112 SCRA 29
    Facts:

    In 1981, BP 129, entitled An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary,


    Appropriating Funds therefore and for Other Purposes, was
    passed. De la Llana 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
    SC can remove judges NOT Congress.

    Issue:
    whether or not B.P. 129, An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, is
    unconstitutional, considering that in the time-honored principle
    protected and safeguarded by the constitution the judiciary is
    supposed to be independent from legislative will. Does the
    reorganization violate the security of tenure of justices and judges
    as provided for under the Constitution?
    Ruling:

    Nothing is better settled in our law than that the abolition of


    an office within the competence of a legitimate body if done in
    good faith suffers from no infirmity. What is really 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.

    It is a well-known rule that valid abolition of offices is neither


    removal nor separation of the incumbents. Of course, if the
    abolition is void, the incumbent is deemed never to have ceased
    to hold office. As well-settled as 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

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy