You are on page 1of 80

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-57883 March 12, 1982 GUALBERTO J. E LA LLANA Pr!"#$#%& J'$&!, Bra%ch (( o) *h!

C#*+ Co'r* o) O,o%&a-o, ESTAN(SLAO L. CESA, JR., .( ELA /. 0ARGAS, BENJAM(N C. ESCOLANGO, JUAN(TO C. AT(EN1A, MANUEL RE/ES ROSAPAPAN, JR., 0(RG(L(O E. AC(ERTO, a%$ POR.(R(O AGU(LLON AGU(LA, petitioners, vs. MANUEL ALBA, M#%#"*!r o) B'$&!*, .RANC(SCO TANTU(CO, Cha#r2a%, Co22#""#o% o% A'$#*, a%$ R(CAR O PUNO, M#%#"*!r o) J'"*#c!, Respondents.

.ERNAN O, C.J.: This Court, pursuant to its grave responsibility of passing upon the validity of any e ecutive or legislative act in an appropriate cases, has to resolve the crucial issue of the constitutionality of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$, entitled %An act reorgani&ing the 'udiciary, Appropriating (unds Therefor and for )ther Purposes.% The tas* of +udicial revie,, aptly characteri&ed as e acting and delicate, is never !ore so than ,hen a conceded legislative po,er, that of +udicial reorgani&ation, 1 !ay possibly collide ,ith the ti!e-honored principle of the independence of the +udiciary 2 as protected and safeguarded by this constitutional provision. %The Me!bers of the /upre!e Court and +udges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. The /upre!e Court shall have the po,er to discipline +udges of inferior courts and, by a vote of at least eight Me!bers, order their dis!issal.% 3 (or the assailed legislation !andates that 'ustices and +udges of inferior courts fro! the Court of Appeals to !unicipal circuit courts, e cept the occupants of the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals, unless appointed to the inferior courts established by such Act, ,ould be considered separated fro! the +udiciary. 0t is the ter!ination of their incu!bency that for petitioners +ustifies a suit of this character, it being alleged that thereby the security of tenure provision of the Constitution has been ignored and disregarded, That is the funda!ental issue raised in this proceeding, erroneously entitled Petition for 1eclaratory Relief and2or for Prohibition 3 considered by this Court as an action for prohibited petition, see*ing to en+oin respondent Minister of the Budget, respondent Chair!an of the Co!!ission on Audit, and respondent Minister of 'ustice fro! ta*ing any action i!ple!enting Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$. Petitioners 5 sought to bolster their clai! by i!puting lac* of good faith in its enact!ent and characteri&ing as an undue delegation of legislative po,er to the President his authority to fi the co!pensation and allo,ances of the 'ustices and +udges thereafter appointed and the deter!ination of the date ,hen the reorgani&ation shall be dee!ed co!pleted. 0n the very co!prehensive and scholarly Ans,er of /olicitor 3eneral Estelito P. Mendo&a, 4 it ,as pointed out that there is no valid +ustification for the attac* on the constitutionality of this statute, it being a legiti!ate e ercise of the po,er vested in the Batasang Pa!bansa to reorgani&e the +udiciary, the allegations of absence of good faith as ,ell as the attac* on the independence of the +udiciary being un,arranted and devoid of any support in la,. A /upple!ental Ans,er ,as li*e,ise filed on )ctober 4, "$4", follo,ed by a Reply of petitioners on )ctober "5. After the hearing in the !orning and afternoon of )ctober "6, in ,hich not only petitioners and respondents ,ere heard through counsel but also the amici curiae, 7 and thereafter sub!ission of the !inutes of the proceeding on the debate on Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$, this petition ,as dee!ed sub!itted for decision.

The i!portance of the crucial 7uestion raised called for intensive and rigorous study of all the legal aspects of the case. After such e haustive deliberation in several sessions, the e change of vie,s being supple!ented by !e!oranda fro! the !e!bers of the Court, it is our opinion and so hold that Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$ is not unconstitutional. ". The argu!ent as to the lac* of standing of petitioners is easily resolved. As far as 'udge de la 8lana is concerned, he certainly falls ,ithin the principle set forth in 'ustice 8aurel9s opinion in People v. Vera. 8 Thus. %The unchallenged rule is that the person ,ho i!pugns the validity of a statute !ust have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he has sustained, or ,ill sustain, direct in+ury as a result of its enforce!ent.% 9 The other petitioners as !e!bers of the bar and officers of the court cannot be considered as devoid of %any personal and substantial interest% on the !atter. There is relevance to this e cerpt fro! a separate opinion in Aquino, Jr. v. Commission on Elections: 15 %Then there is the attac* on the standing of petitioners, as vindicating at !ost ,hat they consider a public right and not protecting their rights as individuals. This is to con+ure the specter of the public right dog!a as an inhibition to parties intent on *eeping public officials staying on the path of constitutionalis!. As ,as so ,ell put by 'affe. 9The protection of private rights is an essential constituent of public interest and, conversely, ,ithout a ,ell-ordered state there could be no enforce!ent of private rights. Private and public interests are, both in substantive and procedural sense, aspects of the totality of the legal order.9 Moreover, petitioners have convincingly sho,n that in their capacity as ta payers, their standing to sue has been a!ply de!onstrated. There ,ould be a retreat fro! the liberal approach follo,ed in Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works, foreshado,ed by the very decision of People v. Vera ,here the doctrine ,as first fully discussed, if ,e act differently no,. 0 do not thin* ,e are prepared to ta*e that step. Respondents, ho,ever, ,ould har* bac* to the A!erican /upre!e Court doctrine in ellon v. !rot"in#"am ,ith their clai! that ,hat petitioners possess 9is an interest ,hich is shared in co!!on by other people and is co!paratively so !inute and indeter!inate as to afford any basis and assurance that the +udicial process can act on it.9 That is to spea* in the language of a bygone era even in the :nited /tates. (or as Chief 'ustice ;arren clearly pointed out in the later case of !last v. Co"en, the barrier thus set up if not breached has definitely been lo,ered.% 11 #. The i!putation of arbitrariness to the legislative body in the enact!ent of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$ to de!onstrate lac* of good faith does !anifest violence to the facts. Petitioners should have e ercised greater care in infor!ing the!selves as to its antecedents. They had laid the!selves open to the accusation of rec*less disregard for the truth, )n August <, "$4=, a Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation ,as organi&ed. 12This E ecutive )rder ,as later a!ended by E ecutive )rder No. >"$-A., dated /epte!ber 6 of that year. 0t clearly specified the tas* assigned to it. %". The Co!!ittee shall for!ulate plans on the reorgani&ation of the 'udiciary ,hich shall be sub!itted ,ithin seventy ?<=@ days fro! August <, "$4= to provide the President sufficient options for the reorgani&ation of the entire 'udiciary ,hich shall e!brace all lo,er courts, including the Court of Appeals, the Courts of (irst 0nstance, the City and Municipal Courts, and all /pecial Courts, but e cluding the /andigan Bayan.% 13 )n )ctober "<, "$4=, a Report ,as sub!itted by such Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation. 0t began ,ith this paragraph. %The Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation has the honor to sub!it the follo,ing Report. 0t e presses at the outset its appreciation for the opportunity accorded it to study ,ays and !eans for ,hat today is a basic and urgent need, nothing less than the restructuring of the +udicial syste!. There are proble!s, both grave and pressing, that call for re!edial !easures. The felt necessities of the ti!e, to borro, a phrase fro! Aol!es, ad!it of no delay, for if no step be ta*en and at the earliest opportunity, it is not too !uch to say that the people9s faith in the ad!inistration of +ustice could be sha*en. 0t is i!perative that there be a greater efficiency in the disposition of cases and that litigants, especially those of !odest !eans B !uch !ore so, the poorest and the hu!blest B can vindicate their rights in an e peditious and ine pensive !anner. The rectitude and the fairness in the ,ay the courts operate !ust be !anifest to all !e!bers of the co!!unity and particularly to those ,hose interests are affected by the e ercise of their functions. 0t is to that tas* that the Co!!ittee addresses itself and hopes that the plans sub!itted could be a starting point for an institutional refor! in the Philippine +udiciary. The e perience of the /upre!e Court, ,hich since "$<5 has been e!po,ered to supervise inferior

courts, fro! the Court of Appeals to the !unicipal courts, has proven that reliance on i!proved court !anage!ent as ,ell as training of +udges for !ore efficient ad!inistration does not suffice. 0 hence, to repeat, there is need for a !a+or refor! in the +udicial so ste! it is ,orth noting that it ,ill be the first of its *ind since the 'udiciary Act beca!e effective on 'une ">, "$=".% 13 0 t ,ent to say. %0 t does not ad!it of doubt that the last t,o decades of this century are li*ely to be attended ,ith proble!s of even greater co!ple ity and delicacy. Ne, social interests are pressing for recognition in the courts. 3roups long inarticulate, pri!arily those econo!ically underprivileged, have found legal spo*es!en and are asserting grievances previously ignored. (ortunately, the +udicially has not proved inattentive. 0ts tas* has thus beco!e even !ore for!idable. (or so !uch grist is added to the !ills of +ustice. Moreover, they are li*e,ise to be 7uite novel. The need for an innovative approach is thus apparent. The national leadership, as is ,ell-*no,n, has been constantly on the search for solutions that ,ill prove to be both acceptable and satisfactory. )nly thus !ay there be continued national progress.% 15 After ,hich co!es. %To be less abstract, the thrust is on develop!ent. That has been repeatedly stressed B and rightly so. All efforts are geared to its reali&ation. Nor, unli*e in the past, ,as it to b %considered as si!ply the !ove!ent to,ards econo!ic progress and gro,th !easured in ter!s of sustained increases in per capita inco!e and 3ross National Product ?3NP@. 14 (or the Ne, /ociety, its i!plication goes further than econo!ic advance, e tending to %the sharing, or !ore appropriately, the de!ocrati&ation of social and econo!ic opportunities, the substantiation of the true !eaning of social +ustice.% 17 This process of !oderni&ation and change co!pels the govern!ent to e tend its field of activity and its scope of operations. The efforts to,ards reducing the gap bet,een the ,ealthy and the poor ele!ents in the nation call for !ore regulatory legislation. That ,ay the social +ustice and protection to labor !andates of the Constitution could be effectively i!ple!ented.% 18 There is li*elihood then %that so!e !easures dee!ed ini!ical by interests adversely affected ,ould be challenged in court on grounds of validity. Even if the 7uestion does not go that far, suits !ay be filed concerning their interpretation and application. ... There could be pleas for in+unction or restraining orders. 8ac* of success of such !oves ,ould not, even so, result in their pro!pt final disposition. Thus delay in the e ecution of the policies e!bodied in la, could thus be reasonably e pected. That is not conducive to progress in develop!ent.% 19 (or, as !entioned in such Report, e7ually of vital concern is the proble! of clogged doc*ets, ,hich %as is ,ell *no,n, is one of the ut!ost gravity. Not,ithstanding the !ost deter!ined efforts e erted by the /upre!e Court, through the leadership of both retired Chief 'ustice Cuerube Ma*alintal and the late Chief 'ustice (red Rui& Castro, fro! the ti!e supervision of the courts ,as vested in it under the "$<5 Constitution, the trend to,ards !ore and !ore cases has continued.% 25 0t is understandable ,hy. ;ith the accelerated econo!ic develop!ent, the gro,th of population, the increasing urbani&ation, and other si!ilar factors, the +udiciary is called upon !uch oftener to resolve controversies. Thus confronted ,ith ,hat appears to be a crisis situation that calls for a re!edy, the Batasang Pa!bansa had no choice. 0t had to act, before the ail!ent beca!e even ,orse. Ti!e ,as of the essence, and yet it did not hesitate to be duly !indful, as it ought to be, of the e tent of its coverage before enacting Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$. 5. There is no denying, therefore, the need for %institutional refor!s,% characteri&ed in the Report as %both pressing and urgent.% 21 0t is ,orth noting, li*e,ise, as therein pointed out, that a !a+or reorgani&ation of such scope, if it ,ere to ta*e place, ,ould be the !ost thorough after four generations. 22 The reference ,as to the basic 'udiciary Act generations . enacted in 'une of "$=", 23 a!ended in a significant ,ay, only t,ice previous to the Co!!on,ealth. There ,as, of course, the creation of the Court of Appeals in "$56, originally co!posed %of a Presiding 'udge and ten appellate 'udges, ,ho shall be appointed by the President of the Philippines, ,ith the consent of the Co!!ission on Appoint!ents of the National Asse!bly, 23 0t could $sit en banc, but it !ay sit in t,o divisions, one of si and another of five 'udges, to transact business, and the t,o divisions !ay sit at the sa!e ti!e.% 25 T,o years after the establish!ent of independence of the Republic of the Philippines, the 'udiciary Act of "$D4 24 ,as passed. 0t continued the e isting syste! of regular inferior courts, na!ely, the Court of Appeals, Courts of (irst 0nstance, 27 the Municipal Courts, at present the City Courts, and the 'ustice of the Peace Courts, no, the Municipal Circuit Courts and Municipal Courts. The !e!bership of the Court of Appeals has been continuously increased. 28 :nder a "$<4 Presidential 1ecree, there ,ould be

forty-five !e!bers, a Presiding 'ustice and forty-four Associate 'ustices, ,ith fifteen divisions. 29 /pecial courts ,ere li*e,ise created. The first ,as the Court of Ta Appeals in "$6D, 35 ne t ca!e the Court of Agrarian Relations in "$66, 31 and then in the sa!e year a Court of the 'uvenile and 1o!estic Relations for Manila in "$66, 32 subse7uently follo,ed by the creation of t,o other such courts for 0loilo and Cue&on City in "$>>. 33 0n "$><, Circuit Cri!inal Courts ,ere established, ,ith the 'udges having the sa!e 7ualifications, ran*, co!pensation, and privileges as +udges of Courts of (irst 0nstance. 33 D. After the sub!ission of such Report, Cabinet Bill No. D#, ,hich later beca!e the basis of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "#$, ,as introduced. After setting forth the bac*ground as above narrated, its E planatory Note continues. %Pursuant to the President9s instructions, this proposed legislation has been drafted in accordance ,ith the guidelines of that report ,ith particular attention to certain ob+ectives of the reorgani&ation, to ,it, the attain!ent of !ore efficiency in disposal of cases, a reallocation of +urisdiction, and a revision of procedures ,hich do not tend to the proper !eeting out of +ustice. 0n consultation ,ith, and upon a consensus of, the govern!ental and parlia!entary leadership, ho,ever, it ,as felt that so!e options set forth in the Report be not availed of. 0nstead of the proposal to confine the +urisdiction of the inter!ediate appellate court !erely to appellate ad+udication, the preference has been opted to increase rather than di!inish its +urisdiction in order to enable it to effectively assist the /upre!e Court. This preference has been translated into one of the innovations in the proposed Bill.% 35 0n accordance ,ith the parlia!entary procedure, the Bill ,as sponsored by the Chair!an of the Co!!ittee on 'ustice, Au!an Rights and 3ood 3overn!ent to ,hich it ,as referred. Thereafter, Co!!ittee Report No. ##6 ,as sub!itted by such Co!!ittee to the Batasang Pa!bansa reco!!ending the approval ,ith so!e a!end!ents. 0n the sponsorship speech of Minister Ricardo C. Puno, there ,as reference to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation. Thus. %)n )ctober "<, "$4=, the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation sub!itted its report to the President ,hich contained the 9Proposed 3uidelines for 'udicial Reorgani&ation.9 Cabinet Bill No. D# ,as drafted substantially in accordance ,ith the options presented by these guidelines. /o!e options set forth in the aforesaid report ,ere not availed of upon consultation ,ith and upon consensus of the govern!ent and parlia!entary leadership. Moreover, so!e a!end!ents to the bill ,ere adopted by the Co!!ittee on 'ustice, Au!an Rights and 3ood 3overn!ent, to ,hich The bill ,as referred, follo,ing the public hearings on the bill held in 1ece!ber of "$4=. The hearings consisted of dialogues ,ith the distinguished !e!bers of the bench and the bar ,ho had sub!itted ,ritten proposals, suggestions, and position papers on the bill upon the invitation of the Co!!ittee on 'ustice, Au!an Rights and 3ood 3overn!ent.% 34 /tress ,as laid by the sponsor that the enact!ent of such Cabinet Bill ,ould, firstly, result in the attain!ent of !ore efficiency in the disposal of cases. /econdly, the i!prove!ent in the 7uality of +ustice dispensed by the courts is e pected as a necessary conse7uence of the easing of the court9s doc*ets. Thirdly, the structural changes introduced in the bill, together ,ith the reallocation of +urisdiction and the revision of the rules of procedure, are designated to suit the court syste! to the e igencies of the present day Philippine society, and hopefully, of the foreseeable future.% 37 it !ay be observed that the volu!e containing the !inutes of the proceedings of the Batasang Pa!bansa sho, that 6$= pages ,ere devoted to its discussion. 0t is 7uite obvious that it too* considerable ti!e and effort as ,ell as e haustive study before the act ,as signed by the President on August "D, "$4". ;ith such a bac*ground, it beco!es 7uite !anifest ho, lac*ing in factual basis is the allegation that its enact!ent is tainted by the vice of arbitrariness. ;hat appears undoubted and undeniable is the good faith that characteri&ed its enact!ent fro! its inception to the affi ing of the Presidential signature. 6. Nothing is better settled in our la, than that the abolition of an office ,ithin the co!petence of a legiti!ate body if done in good faith suffers fro! no infir!ity. The ponencia of 'ustice '.B.8. Reyes in Cru% v. Primicias, Jr. 38reiterated such a doctrine. %;e find this point urged by respondents, to be ,ithout !erit. No re!oval or separation of petitioners fro! the service is here involved, but the validity of the abolition of their offices. This is a legal issue that is for the Courts to decide. 0t is ,ell-*no,n rule also that valid abolition of offices is neither re!oval nor separation of the incu!bents. ... And, of course, if the abolition is void, the incu!bent is dee!ed never to have ceased to hold office. The preli!inary 7uestion laid at rest, ,e pass to the !erits of the

in order to be valid. "D6 in so far as it reorgani&es. Thereafter. legislation.ith respondent being appointed in his place.case. #5D< 34 on the reorgani&ation of the Courts of (irst 0nstance and to Act No. As that ele!ent is conspicuously present in the enact!ent of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. that cases !ay arise .ith the offices in the other branches of the govern!ent. The principles e!bodied in these t.ith the +udiciary.er of the legislative depart!ent under the Constitution. as to the particular point here discussed. "$4 :. v. the separate concurrence of 'ustice 8aurel in the result reached.% 39 The above e cerpt .hereas in the case of Co!!on. to repeat. .as !ade to Act No. and although in the case of these t./. this ti!e to the (ourth 'udicial 1istrict.ell-settled as the rule that the abolition of an office does not a!ount to an illegal re!oval of its incu!bent is the principle that.as the incu!bent of such branch. . This is a 7uo .arranto proceeding filed by petitioner.here the violation of the constitutional provision regarding security of tenure is palpable and plain..as dis!issed on the ground of estoppel.as the fulfill!ent of .ise thereby necessitating ne.as a 'udicial Reorgani&ation Act in "$5>.hen a case of that *ind arises. !ore . .as greater necessity for reorgani&ation conse7uent upon the establish!ent of the ne. then the lac* of !erit of this petition beco!es even !ore apparent. he received an ad interi! appoint!ent. the purpose . the Ninth 'udicial 1istrict.er to define.atson and Bald. 0 a! for sustaining the po. :nfortunately for hi!. D6G D$ 8a. 31 As .er. the abolition !ust be !ade in good faith. a!ending the Ad!inistrative Code to organi&e courts of original +urisdiction *no. As . "D6 doubt is engendered by its silence. "D6 . D==<37 on the reorgani&ation of all branches of the govern!ent. Nonetheless.as considered a great public need by the legislative depart!ent and that Co!!on. govern!ent than at the ti!e Acts Nos.o sections of the sa!e article of the Constitution !ust be coordinated and har!oni&ed.ealth Act No. the Co!!ission on Appoint!ents of then National Asse!bly disapproved the sa!e. is valid and constitutional. ?'ustice Aol!es in 8ochner vs. #5D< and D==< . prescribe and apportion the +urisdiction of the various courts. a!ong other +udicial districts.o earlier cases enunciating a si!ilar doctrine having preceded it. Ae contested the validity of the Act insofar as it resulted in his being forced to vacate his position This Court did not rule s7uarely on the !atter.% 35 >. 0t is ad!itted that section $ of the sa!e article of the Constitution provides for the security of tenure of all the +udges.ever. Miller and Tuc*er on the one hand.ealth Act No. ho. A !ere enunciation of a principle . 0 do say. there . To be sure.ith approval in&en'anillo.hether the abolition is in good faith. "#$. sub+ect to certain li!itations in the case of the /upre!e Court. There . and establishes an entirely ne. . A fe. to reali&e that the application of a legal or constitutional principle is necessarily factual and circu!stantial and that fi ity of principle is the rigidity of the dead and the unprogressive. Ais petition . appoint!ents and co!!issions. Thus. of /tory. *e la Costa 32 cannot be any clearer. 35 t. This conclusion flo. %0 a! not insensible to the argu!ent that the National Asse!bly !ay abuse its po.ealth.as 7uoted . and that legislative po.ill be the ti!e to !a*e the ha!!er fall and heavily. /ection #.ere approved by the defunct Philippine 8egislature. 33 a year after the inauguration of the Co!!on.ill not decide actual cases and controversies of every sort. and not respondent.as not enacted purposely to affect adversely the tenure of +udges or of any particular +udge. so it is . Ne.ith due recognition of the security of tenure guarantee. or the opinion of Cooley. Article E000 of the Constitution vests in the National Asse!bly the po.ealth Act No. and e!phatically. this doubt should be resolved in favor of the valid e ercise of the legislative po. 0 a! satisfied that.er and !ove deliberately to defeat the constitutional provision guaranteeing security of tenure to all +udges. But not until then. % 0 a! of the opinion that Co!!on. is this the caseH )ne need not share the vie. 0n the above-cited opinion of 'ustice 8aurel in Iandueta. reaffir!s in no uncertain ter!s the standard of good faith to preclude any doubt as to the abolition of an inferior court. For*. .er of reorgani&ation !ay be sought to cloa* an unconstitutional and evil purpose. including . under the ne. it .as an e press provision providing for the vacation by the +udges of their offices . Provincial (overnor. :nder these circu!stances. edG $5<@% 33 +ustice 8aurel continued. reference .as entitled to he office of +udge of the (ifth Branch of the Court of (irst 0nstance of Manila.in on the other.n as the Courts of (irst 0nstance Prior to such statute. petitioner .. Sr. The concurring opinion of 'ustice 8aurel in)an'ueta v.o Acts there . clai!ing that he.hat .an.s fro! the funda!ental proposition that the legislature !ay abolish courts inferior to the /upre!e Court and therefore !ay reorgani&e the! territorially or other. But.ords on the 7uestion of abolition. district co!prising Manila and the provinces of Ri&al and Pala. The test re!ains .

is thereby reduced to a barren for! of .ith the sa!e appellation.ith an E ecutive )rder to be issued by the President.ith a fir! and steady hand. This opinion then could very .ill actually govern. "D6. the Circuit Cri!inal Courts. 0n both of the!.ill not only *no. 53 and !unicipal circuit trial courts.% 43 The president. the said courts shall be dee!ed auto!atically abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold the office. an assurance of a +udiciary free fro! e traneous influences. "#$. /olo se le ha ca!biado el no!bre con el ca!bio de for!a del gobierno local. ho. such . The first paragraph of the section on the transitory provision reads.ell-established principle . the City Courts.as not held applicable to the situation there obtaining.er .hich deals only .ere abolished. in stressing such a concept.ers. there . . to govern.ith the e ception solely of the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals 59 gave rise. <. %Pero en el caso de autos el 'u&gado de Tacloban no ha sido abolido.% 57 Nonetheless. ruled.here also the syste! of the courts of first instance .ith the 7uestion of po. the 'uvenile and 1o!estic Relations Courts. the Charter of Tacloban City creating a city court in place of the for!er +ustice of the peace court. 42 Moreover. 0t bears !entioning that in &rillo v. it !ay be affir!ed that once again the principle of separation of po. or by unholy alliances .ords. in an unani!ous opinion penned by the late 'ustice 1io*no. %The provisions of this Act shall be i!!ediately carried out in accordance .ing %fro! the funda!ental proposition that the legislature !ay abolish courts inferior to the /upre!e Court and therefore !ay reorgani&e the! territorially or other.as cited . sub+ect to the fiscali&ation of the Asse!bly. the Courts of Agrarian Relations. The a!ended Constitution adheres even !ore clearly to the longestablished tradition of a strong e ecutive that antedated the "$56 Charter. The i!ple!entation of Batas Pa!bansa Blg.% 41 The above e cerpt . Thus.or* of for!er Eice-3overnor Aayden. 52!unicipal trial courts in cities.hy this Court has no choice but to in7uire further into the allegation by petitioners that the security of tenure provision. not for this Court. (or the Batasang Pa!bansa.hich. the then Courts of (irst 0nstance . .er. El derecho de un +ue& de dese!penarlo hasta los <= aJos de edad o se incapacite no priva al Congreso de su facultad de abolir. 39 regional trial courts. E+a#e 54 this Court. entonces ha 7uedado e tinguido el derecho de recurente a ocuparlo y a cobrar el salario correspodiente. As noted in the . categorically spo*e of providing %an e ecutive po. to 7uestions affecting a +udiciary that should be *ept independent. The all-e!bracing scope of the assailed legislation as far as all inferior courts fro! the Courts of Appeals to !unicipal courts are concerned. such conclusion flo.as no 7uestion as to the fact of abolition.ithin the bounds of legislative authority. ElectoralCo!!ission. (il. The choice. !ay give rise. *e la Costa. Recto of the "$5D Convention. but .as not . concededly a tas* incu!bent on the E ecutive.% 45 There is all the !ore reason then .% 38 The challenged statute creates an inter!ediate appellate court.ell stop at this point. D> 8RA. 55 !etropolitan trial courts of the national capital region.the courts of first instance. 43 %obtains not through e press provision but by actual division. Ae . . appoint!ents and co!!issions. President Claro M.ith this and that social group. :pon such declaration.ise thereby necessitating ne. district of the sa!e court is valid and constitutional. une!barrassed by ve atious interferences by other depart!ents.ever. %8a segunda 7uestion 7ue el recurrrido plantea es 7ue la Carta de Tacloban ha abolido el puesto. the Municipal Courts. Certainly. and of public opinion. to !isgivings as to its effect on such cherished 0deal.% 58 The present case is anything but that.as pointed out by 'ustice 8aurel that the !ere creation of an entirely ne. citing )an'ueta v. fusionar o reorgani&ar +u&gados no constitucionales. 55 There is even less reason then to doubt the fact that e isting inferior courts . courts . a noted political scientist. 51 and other !etropolitan trial courts. 6><. ho. the Courts of (irst 0nstance. 53 as .ealth Act No. the establish!ent of such ne. .as for the Batasan to !a*e. . Petitioners did not and could not prove that the challenged statute . . in his closing address. and the Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and organi&ed.ever.ere replaced by ne. there could be differences of opinion as to the appropriate re!edy. /i efectiva!ente ha sido abolido el cargo. and understandably so. The Court of Appeals. shall be the head of state and chief e ecutive of the Republic of the .as the appropriate response to the grave and urgent proble!s that pressed for solution. c Culley vs. ho. State. under the "$4" A!end!ents.as e7ually categorical as to Co!!on.as provided for e pressly. 0t .ith approval by 'ustice 8aurel in Planas v. to 7uote fro! the sa!e +urist as ponente in An#ara v. until the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation provided in this Act as declared by the President. inferior courts .ell as in !unicipalities. under Article E00. As 'ustice 8aurel pointed out.

by a vote of at least eight !e!bers.as a provision for a Pri!e Minister as the head of govern!ent e ercising the e ecutive po.% 44 Article E00 of the "$56 Constitution spea*s categorically. ho. to be distinguished fro! ter!ination by virtue of the abolition of the office.er. 0n the light of the "$4" a!end!ents though. it . %The E ecutive po.hich shall co!e fro! the regional representatives of the Batasang Pa!bansa and the creation of an E ecutive Co!!ittee co!posed of the Pri!e Minister as Chair!an and not !ore than fourteen other !e!bers at least half of .een one . Neither is there any intrusion into . . go as far as conferring on this Tribunal the po.ould be in accordance .er to supervise ad!inistratively inferior courts.ho! shall be !e!bers of the Batasang Pa!bansa.ho . there . this Court be consulted and that its vie. There .ever.ould save and another . inister of .here the !atter has been put in issue.er shall be vested in a President of the Philippines.ith the assistance of the Cabinet 49 Clearly. There can be no tenure to a non-e istent office. the 7uestion of any i!pair!ent of security of tenure does not arise.% 74 Thus it possesses the co!petence to re!ove +udges. order their dis!issal.ith the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives bet.ers he possessed under the "$56 Constitution are once again vested in hi! unless the Batasang Pa!bansa provides other.as the President .ho shall be appointed to the vacant positions created by the reorgani&ation. especially so at present.here to all intents and purposes. Nonetheless.hy in !ortun v.as stressed that .ays of +udicial po. No fear need be entertained that there is a failure to accord respect to the basic principle that this Court does not render advisory opinions.ith distrust. To be !ore specific.% 47 As originally fra!ed. Even then. operative.een the e ecutive and the legislative branches. Ae ceases to be a !e!ber of the +udiciary.ith the security of tenure en+oyed by incu!bent 'ustices and +udges under Article K. no occupant. 72 . even one not readily discernidble e cept to those predisposed to vie. for the incu!bents of inferior courts abolished.ho . After the abolition. of course. there is a greater need %to preserve uni!paired the independence of the +udiciary.hich . .% 73 4. no distinction e ists bet. this Court is e! po. a !a+ority of the !e!bers of . clearly indicate the evolving nature of the syste! of govern!ent that is no. 77 Re!oval is. 75 Moreover.% 45 Moreover. ho. That re!ains in the hands of the E ecutive to .as established.ay of deciding a case . The principle that the Constitution enters into and for!s part of every act to avoid any constitutional taint !ust be applied /u+e% v.ith the provision transferring to the /upre!e Court ad!inistrative supervision over the 'udiciary. it is devoid of significance.ould invalidate a statute. Realistically.ould thereby lose his position.o depart!ents.hich . /ection < of the Constitution.hatever legislation !ay be necessary to carry out national policy as usually for!ulated in a caucus of the !a+ority party.abor 75 could state. 0t did not.ould thus be free fro! any unconstitutional taint. 0f such . 0t is li*e. Rather .ith such po.as vested . 0n the i!ple!entation of the assailed legislation.ise undeniable that the Batasang Pa!bansa retains its full authority to enact .er .ith accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incu!bent +ustices and +udges are concerned. it .ay to do so. 0t is understandable then .% 71 The retention. such a construction . the effect is one of separation.ho! it properly belongs.ith an occupant . there is an office . 78 There is an obvious . No 7uestion of la.% 48 0n addition. the for!er is to be preferred. of the position of the Pri!e Minister .er.aban# 73 it .ever. .hat is e7ually apparent is that the strongest ties bind the e ecutive and legislative depart!ents.ere the case.hat is sought to be achieved by this liberal interpretation is to preclude any plausibility to the charge that in the e ercise of the conceded po. it . 0t is in that sense that fro! the standpoint of strict la. be accorded the fullest consideration. certainly this Court could not have its say prior to the action ta*en by either of the t. the "$<5 Constitution created the position of President as the %sy!bolic head of state. %The adoption of certain aspects of a parlia!entary syste! in the a!ended Constitution does not alter its essentially presidential character. it could do so but only by . there is a fusion bet..ered %to discipline +udges of inferior courts and. Moreover.as a si!ilar provision in the "$56 Constitution. it is e7ually therein e pressly provided that all the po.ith the Cabinet. :nder the 'udiciary Act.ould be in accordance . the po.Philippines. As to its effect. There is no departure therefore fro! the tried and tested .een re!oval and the abolition of the office. a !odified parlia!entary syste! . petitioners contend that the abolition of the e isting inferior courts collides .ise. 0n case of re!oval. this Court in !ree . therefore. The challenged Act .er of re!oval of the present incu!bents vested in this Tribunal is ignored or disregarded.elep"one Workers -nion v.er of reorgani&ing tulle inferior courts. there is in la. is involved.

ell in the previously cited Angara decision. .ell-settled under the constitutional syste! . "#$ ought to have cautioned the! against raising such an issue. 83 $.ould such a step be unprecedented.here. they !ust be construed in such a .as so fa!ous %The classical separation of govern!ent po.9% 85This too fro! 'ustice Tua&on..hy the need for reconciliation or balancing is .ers.ay as to preclude any possible erosion on the po. Metropolitan Trial 'udges. so!eti!es !a*es it hard to say +ust .ever. %the Constitution has bloc*ed out . even !ore e!phatic in its affir!ation of such a vie.ell to recall another classic utterance fro! the sa!e +urist. .ith the co!petence to !a*e la.ell-nigh unavodiable under the funda!ental principle of separation of po.s and to alter and repeal the!. 8oc*e. but the spirit that infor!s it should not be ignored in the E ecutive )rder conte!plated under its /ection DD.% 85 Nor . and this is one of the!.% 87 The e istence of a standard is thus clear.hite but also because 9even the !ore specific of the! are found to ter!inate in a penu!bra shading gradually fro! one e tre!e to the other. unavoidable.hether vie. As of no. %0t is true that other /ections of the 1ecree could have been so .n 9. .henever appropriate. for as observed by 'ustice Aol!es in a case of Philippine origin.ater-tight co!part!ents9 not only because 9the great ordinances of the Constitution do not establish and divide fields of blac* and . li*e. there could be a case of po. the Batasang Pa!bansa is e pressly vested . allot!ent of po.ith !athe!atical precision and divide the branches into . As noted in the preceding paragraph. There are other ob+ections raised but they pose no difficulty.e cannot lay do.er to the e ecutive. as a necessary conse7uence of such abolition. or Motes7uieu or of the postulations of Mabini. $46.er. and inherent necessities of govern!ental coordination. That . the overlapping and interlacing of functions and duties bet. Regional Trial 'udges.ever. on a province-to-province basis.hile in the !ain. "6$<.% 83 0t is . %0nter!ediate Appellate 'ustices.hy it has long been . 82 Thus Batas Pa!bansa Blg. Madison. the test .e should avoid. There is !ore truis! and actuality in interdependence than in independence and separation of po. As 'ustice 8aurel put it so . 0t co!!ends itself for approval.ithin the boundaries of its conceded co!petence. $5 pursuant to Presidential 1ecree No. That is .. Petitioners .% 84 0n the sa!e .er against po.hich Aol!es . avoid the tas* of reconciliation. vested in this Tribunal. .s. %The constitutional structure is a co!plicated syste!.e have adopted that this Court cannot.ith deft stro*es and in bold lines. A !ore careful reading of the challenged Batas Pa!bansa Blg.orded as to avoid any constitutional ob+ection. The Presidential 1ecree constituting Municipal Courts into Municipal Circuit Courts. or 'efferson. The language of the statute is 7uite clear. is given e pression in the concurring and dissenting opinion of 'ustice Ma*asiar that in such a case to save the 1ecree fro! the direct fate of invalidity.ithout this atte!pt at har!oni&ing the provisions in 7uestion.ith the authority to reorgani&e inferior courts and in the process to abolish e isting ones.ers. and overlappings of govern!ental functions are recogni&ed.ed in the light of the political philosophy of Aristotle. as a!ended by Presidential 1ecree No. !oreover buttressed by one of those insights for . ho. the ter!ination of office of their occupants. has this relevant e cerpt.ith force and clarity . the legislative and the +udicial depart!ents of the govern!ent. %The /upre!e Court shall carry out the provisions of this 1ecree through i!ple!enting orders. . is hardly distinguishable fro! the practical standpoint fro! re!oval. 0t is of the essence of constitutionalis! to assure that neither agency is precluded fro! acting .ers.ances as !ay be authori&ed by the President along the guidelines set forth in 8etter of 0!ple!entation No. is a relative theory of govern!ent. 79 pro!ulgated last 'anuary.here the one leaves off and the other begins. !unicipal Trial 'udges. The 7uestioned provisions reads as follo.er that is no.hich is entrusted . . "#$ could stand the !ost rigorous test of constitutionality.een the several depart!ents. there are instances.ances of the 'ustices and +udges thereafter appointed.ay that the acade!e has noted the e istence in constitutional litigation of right versus right.ise e pressing . Nor is there anything novel in the concept that this Court is called upon to reconcile or har!oni&e constitutional provisions. no ruling is called for. To be specific.San'i#anbayan. and Municipal Circuit Trial 'udges shall receive such receive such co!pensation and allo. a po.er to the President the grant of authority to fi the co!pensation and the allo.ould characteri&e as an undue delegation of legislative po. The basic postulate that underlies the doctrine of non-delegation is that it is the legislative body .ers vested in this Court by the Constitution. specifically provides.% 81 0t is true there is no such provision in this Act. "=. That is a proposition too plain to be co!!itted. The vie. ho.

hich could be %a deterrent factor to !uch-needed legislation. as early as "$D<. !aps out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it.o. as set forth in the E ecutive )rder. Rather. !ar*s its li!its. That the undertoo*.% No fear need be entertained by incu!bents .s be faithfully e ecuted. :pon such declaration. it .% 89 The undeniably strong lin*s that bind the e ecutive and legislative depart!ents under the a!ended Constitution assure that the fra!ing of policies as . 0t .ful delegation.ith the i!!ediately succeeding section.. 155 Their . %The /upre!e Court shall sub!it to the President. to this observation in the (ree Telephone . 0t is .orth noting that a highly-respected legal scholar. )ther.ith an E ecutive )rder to be issued by the President.hose length of service. Thereafter. 0t is the criterion by . the !otion . a generali&ation 7ualified as earlier sho. either in the govern!ent service.ith unity.or*ers :nion decision. Professor 'affe. %there is no canon against using co!!on sense in construing la.ould be a reaffir!ation of the good faith that .% 93 Certainly petitioners cannot be heard to argue that the President is insensible to his constitutional duty to ta*e care that the la.hich shall be the basis of the i!ple!enting order to be issued by the President in accordance . 0f the for!er.as !ade clear then and there that not one of the three !e!bers of the Court had any hand in the fra!ing or in the discussion of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. As pointed out in E'u v.n funda!ental policy.hich legislative purpose !ay be carried out. 0t indicates the circu!stances under . the said courts shall be dee!ed auto!atically abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office. 7uality of perfor!ance. %The provisions of this Act shall be i!!ediately carried out in accordance . party caucuses. appointees. "". petitioners sought to have the .hat petitioners refer to as a %definite ti!e fra!e li!itation% is e7ually bereft of !erit. A7uino and A!eurfina Melencio-Aerrera dis7ualified because the first-na!ed .ere not consulted. pro!ptitude.ill characteri&e its i!ple!entation by the E ecutive.s as saying .or* . At the hearing.n by the principle that to save a statute that could be done.here then is the unconstitutional fla.hich the legislative co!!and is to be effected. therefore.% 93 The first sentence of the ne t section is even !ore categorical. There is accuracy.arned against a %restrictive approach% . They . The challenged legislation is entirely the product of the efforts of the legislative body. the e isting inferior courts affected continue functioning as before.% 94 There is no a!biguity. the non-delegation ob+ection is easily !et. private practice. cabinet sessions or legislative cha!bers. it is not fro! their standpoint undesirable.s leaving to ad!inistrative and e ecutive agencies the adoption of such !eans as !ay be necessary to effectuate a valid legislative purpose. 97 in legal conte!plation . a staffing pattern for all courts constituted pursuant to this Act .as denied. There is pertinence to this observation of 'ustice Aol!es that even acceptance of the generali&ation that courts ordinarily should not supply o!issions in a la. "$4". The standard though does not have to be spelled out specifically.yers. !e!bers of the Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation. the charge of co!plete abdication !ay be hard to repel.ithout any interruption in the continuity of their service. 98 0t is e7ually reasonable to assu!e that fro! the ran*s of la. There could be no possible . therefore. They did not testify. A standard thus defines legislative policy. "#$. The incu!bents of the courts thus auto!atically abolished %shall cease to hold office.riter of this opinion and 'ustices Ra!on C.hile.hich i!plies at the very least that the legislature itself deter!ines !atters of principle and lays do. there !ust be a standard. 0t could be i!plied fro! the policy and purpose of the act considered as a . could spea* of delegation as the 9dyna!o of !odern govern!ent.hen enacted.as the chair!an and the other t. Ericta: 88 %To avoid the taint of unla..% 99 . .hole.% 91 (urther on this point fro! the sa!e opinion% %The spectre of the non-delegation concept need not haunt.% 92 Another ob+ection based on the absence in the statue of . and clean record +ustify their being na!ed ane. 95 0n the !ean. to sub!itting alternative plan for reorgani&ation.9% 95 Ae . %until the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation provided in this Act as declared by the President. %There is accordingly !ore receptivity to la.ill co!e the ne.as li!ited. and efficiency.ell as their i!ple!entation can be acco!plished .being the co!pleteness of the statue in all its ter!s and provisions .ithin thirty ?5=@ days fro! the date of the effectivity of this act. The standard !ay be either e press or i!plied. professors .hether or not certain incu!bents deserve reappoint!ent. .ise. That is !ore in the nature of scholarly studies. 0n the event that in certain cases a little !ore ti!e is necessary in the appraisal of . They ignore the categorical language of this provision. the e ecutive or ad!inistrative office designated !ay in pursuance of the above guidelines pro!ulgate supple!ental rules and regulations.hat they obviously !ean. or la. )n the !orning of the hearing of this petition on /epte!ber 4.

ho at the cost of his office !ade clear that he .hich they are assured is i!pressed .. 0t does not follo.e do not say unli!ited but as herein e ercised B to reorgani&e inferior courts.ould not +ust blindly obey the Ling9s order but %.ill attend the e ercise be of the appointing po. .ob+ection to such activity. it !ay be i!proved. 157 The ponencia of 'ustice Malcol! 0dentified good +udges .ed .ell.illing to discharge . 159 a decision .ho have a !astery of the principles of la. +urists. can be of the type of 8ord Co*e.er vested in the E ecutive. 155 there is no surer guarantee of +udicial independence than the 3od-given character and fitness of those appointed to the Bench.as pointed out in the first leading case stressing the independence of the +udiciary.ransportation Company . A variety of conditions have been responsible for the develop!ent of this role.ho discharge their duties in accordance . . it is the recollection of the .ho are per!itted to perfor! the duties of the office undeterred by outside influence. As thus vie. The Constitution does not spea* in the language of a!biguity. that the three depart!ents are as one in their deter!ination to pursue the 0deals and aspirations and to fulfilling the hopes of the sovereign people as e pressed in the Constitution.ill result in a +udiciary unable or un. it allo.. %Thus the Chief 'ustice cannot avoid e posure to and direct involve!ent in +udicial refor! at the federal level and. . regardless or in spite of the po.ith la.% 158 There is no reason to assu!e that the failure of this suit to annul Batas Pa!bansa Blg. !ay vest in a public official certain rights. but if they are of such stuff as allo. Pasay .ill be nothing !ore than a !yth or an e!pty 0deal. ones . or to cater to the .ith independence its sole!n duty or one recreant to the trust reposed in it.ishes of one litigant after another.entieth century the Chief 'ustice of the :nited /tates has played a leading part in +udicial refor!.isdo! as . to the e tent issues of +udicial federalis! arise. Secretary of Justice. . "#$ .ho are endo.ard conse7uence. 0t does so to enable the! to perfor! his functions and fulfill his responsibilities !ore efficiently.% /o it .elfare. at the state level as .ed.hich a govern!ent is instituted.ith %!en .% 152 Also.. ariano.ould be attended . There is . it is not solely for their . independence in thought and action necessarily is rooted in one9s !ind and heart. As e!phasi&ed by for!er Chief 'ustice Paras in 0campo v. %0n the t. Ever since "$<5. Nor should there be any fear that less than good faith . that the abolition in good faith of the e isting inferior courts e cept the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals and the creation of ne.% 153 That is !ore than a !oral ad+uration 0t is a legal i!perative.o depart!ents of govern!ent.orthy !otives. The challenged legislation Thus sub+ect d to the !ost rigorous scrutiny by this Tribunal.ho are independent and self-respecting hu!an units in a +udicial syste! e7ual and coordinate to the other t. %A public office is a public trust.n benefit but for the body politic. Those they e ercise not for their o. The +udges !ay be guaranteed a fi ed tenure of office during good behavior.% 154 That is to recall one of the greatest Co!!on 8a. 0t is a cardinal article of faith of our constitutional regi!e that it is the people . and the dictates of their conscience. Acting as it does through public officials. v. it has to grant the! either e pressly or i!pliedly certain po. )ur +udges. and +ustifiably so. this Tribunal has had ad!inistrative supervision over interior courts. and fore!ost a!ong the! has been the creation of e plicit institutional structures designed to facilitate refor!.ill do . to secure . the erosion of that 0deal so fir!ly e!bedded in the national consciousness There is this farther thought to consider.er of Congress B . lest by lac* of due care and circu!spection. free fro! the corrupting influence of base or un.ell and truly has it been said that the funda!ental principle of separation of po.% 153 "#. The independence of .ers assu!es.e are confident. Even prior to the "$<5 Constitution.riter of this opinion that either the then Chair!an or !e!bers of the Co!!ittee on 'ustice of the then /enate of the Philippines 151 consulted !e!bers of the Court in drafting proposed legislation affecting the +udiciary. the independence of the +udiciary . 0t is not inappropriate to cite this e cerpt fro! an article in the "$<6 /upre!e Court Revie.ed.s the! to be subservient to one ad!inistration after another. The la. 0t has had the opportunity to infor! itself as to the .ell as validity to this pronounce!ent of 'ustice Malcol! in anila Electric Co.ith a significance transcending that of a purely personal right. 0t is an added guarantee that +ustices and +udges can ad!inister +ustice undeterred by any fear of reprisal or unto.ith deleterious conse7uences to the ad!inistration of +ustice.hat beco!es Mhi!N as a +udge.ith rights. Their +udg!ents then are even !ore li*ely to be inspired solely by their *no.ay +udicial business is conducted and ho. &orromeo v.ledge of the la. . 0t cannot be denied that an independent and efficient +udiciary is so!ething to the credit of any ad!inistration. and .ers. 0t is fro! that standpoint that the security of tenure provision to assure +udicial independence is to be vie.

the Courts of (irst 0nstance. Jr.n sphere of influence to the po. Batas Pa!bansa Blg.hich !andates that %upon the declaration upon the President that the reorgani&ation conte!plated in the Act has been co!pleted@. records.ith an E ecutive )rder to be issued by the President. %'ust as the /upre!e Court.s.pro!ulgated al!ost half a century ago. the unconstitutionality of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. S!-ara*! O-#%#o%" BARRE O. The Court of Appeals. this petition is dis!issed. JJ. "#$. 0 +oin the !a+ority of !y brethren in voting that the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=.ers e pressly or by i!plication conferred on it by the )rganic Act.ransitory provisions. the said courts shall be dee!ed auto!atically abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office. No costs. e cept the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals@ shall be dee!ed abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office% trenches on all the constitutional safeguards and guarantees of the independence of the +udiciary. the Municipal Courts. as the guardian of constitutional rights. 1 The provisions of this Act shall be i!!ediately carried out in accordance .. the Courts of Agrarian Relations. to be aug!ented as !ay be necessary fro! the funds for organi&ational changes as provided in Batas Pa!bansa Blg. property and the necessary personnel. e7uip!ent. such as the security of tenure of its !e!bers ?/ection <. DD. The cases pending in the old Courts shall e transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act.AERE()RE.hole nor in any of its parts. the prerogatives of the /upre!e Court to . akasiar an' Escolin.er courts. 4=. :pon such declaration. J.hich reads as follo.% 115 To that basic postulate underlying our constitutional syste!. /aid funding shall thereafter be included in the annual 3eneral Appropriations Act. concur. Article K of the Philippine Constitution of "$<5@. until the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation provided in this Act as declared by the President. concurring. the City Courts. should not sanction usurpations by any other depart!ent or the govern!ent. . together . this Court re!ains co!!itted. the Circuit Cri!inal Courts. so should it as strictly confine its o. The issue of unconstitutionality raised by petitioners relates particularly to /ection DD of the Act .ise be transferred to the appropriate courts constituted pursuant to this Act. 0t is contended by petitioners that the provision in the above section . and the Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and organi&ed. the said courts ?!eaning the Court of Appeals and all other lo. the 'uvenile and 1o!estic Relations Courts. /EC. concur in t"e result... "#$ not having been sho.ith the pertinent functions. is not unconstitutional as a . . Concepcion.n. The applicable appropriations shall li*e..

ould appear that our tas* is either ?"@ to reconcile. respondents !aintain that thru the above-7uoted /ection DD.hy do . (or ho. be have no alternative than to hold that petitioners9 invocation of the independence of the +udiciary principle of the Constitution is unavailing ill the cases at bar. the parlia!ent9s po.ishful thin*ing. !ore on this point later . 2'.n choices and . as 0 see it. that the solution is for the court he is sitting in not to be dee!ed abolished or that he should in so!e . since all inferior courts are. 0t is as si!ple as that.ing the proble! before :s fro! the above perspectives.$ 0n other .orse. e isting are actually being abolished.@ and principally. court is even . not only a rearrange!ent or re!odelling of the old structure but a total de!olition thereof . . that %the incu!bents thereat shall cease to hold office. further!ore.er of the /upre!e Court %to discipline +udges of inferior courts and.er of the /upre!e Court or of the Batasan is !ore para!ount than that of the other.ever.er. on the one hand. that of the Batasang Pa!bansa or that of this Court. . As a !atter of fact. No. 0 believe.hy don9t 0 insist on cha!pioning the cause of the independence of the +udiciary by !aintaining that the constitutional safeguards thereof 0 have already enu!erated earlier !ust be respected in any reorgani&ation ordained by the parlia!ent My ans.ith old and ne. .er to !a*e his o. by a vote of at least eight Me!bers.hich provides that The 'udicial po.ould. if only because . se' les.ould deprive the appointing authority.er to create or establish carries .er of abolition and reorgani&ation .hat Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is doing is +ust a rena!ing and not a substantial and actual !odification or alteration of the present +udicial structure or syste! assu!ing a close scrutiny !ight so!eho.hich is a Constitutional anachronis!. constitutionally spea*ing. on the other.. hence the courts no.hen the position occupied by hi! no longer e istsH To suggest. it !ight result in the cessation fro! office of the incu!bents thereof before the e piration of their respective constitutionally fi ed tenures. ?of the legislature it follo. the structure of +udicial syste! created by Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is substantially different fro! that under the 'udiciary Act of "$D4. or at least a prag!atic reality that the tenure of the holder of an office !ust of necessity end .er to abolish or reorgani&e the! even if in so doing. 2'. that such a !anner of loo*ing at the issue that confronts :s only confuses and co!pounds the tas* . Eie. as so!e do.er shall be rested in one /upre!e Court and in suc" inferior courts as may be establis"e' by la3. such as a district court continuing as such in a region . is pure . 0nas!uch as pursuant to the analysis of the !a+ority of the Me!bers of this Court. The other suggestion that the incu!bent of the abolished court should be dee!ed appointed to the corresponding ne. that to insist that . order their dis!issal.ith it the po. the president.hich is offensive to the Constitution.e are called upon to perfor!.here the other +udges are regional +udges or of +udges e ercising po. since it . !ere creatures of the la.ith. should be considered !ore i!periousH 0t being conceded that the po. Respondents e!phasi&e that the legislative po. 0 !ight hasten to add.hy a! 0 yielding to the above reasoning and conclusionH .e have to indulge in any reconciliation or feel bound to deter!ine . courts functioning under distinct set-ups. the security of tenure of !e!bers of the +udiciary and the /upre!e Court9s authority to discipline and re!ove +udges or ?#@ to declare that either the po. 0 cannot conceive of a !ore e!phatic .hen his office no longer e ists.@ )n the other hand. support such a conclusion. in this connection.er to abolish.hat is conte!plated is not only general reorgani&ation but abolition B in other .e . as a!ended. as if to !a*e it !ost un!ista*ably e!phatic.ay be allo.er in this respect is broad and indeed plenary. the Batasan did nothing !ore than to e ercise the authority conferred upon it be /ection 0 of the sa!e Article of the Constitution .ould then have the absurd spectacle of a +udiciary . of the po.er is si!ple.ords.ay of !anifesting and conveying the deter!ined legislative intent about it.hose po.ords.ed to continue to function as +udge until his constitutional tenure e pires is obviously i!practical. % ?/ection <.ers not purely +udicial . the po.ad!inistratively supervise all courts and the personnel thereof ?/ection >.s that it is . can there be a satisfactory and rational reconciliation of the pretended right of a +udge to continue as such. a!ount to an appoint!ent by legislation .. it . it being e plicitly and une7uivocally provided in the section in 7uestion that said courts are dee!ed abolished% and further.% *ura les.ithin the legislature9s po. ho. and it is a legal a io!. in fact and in la. Practically all the Me!bers of the Court concede that .

3 Brillo. created the i!pression that 0 .ho signed and.ith the thousands of other cases it has to attend to and the rather cu!berso!e strict re7uire!ents of procedural due process it has to observe in each and every such ad!inistrative case all of . !uch less unsha*eable and indubitably definite either . 0 should not be. if all these intolerable instances should actually be for!ally brought to the /upre!e Court.. has declined at a 7uite discernible degree.ith the ineptness and2or corruption a!ong and corruptibility of the !en sitting in the courts in so!e parts of the country And .hich 0 a! not certain of. Eerily. if only to try ho. .e are one . 0 a! practically alone in conte!plating a different vie. can. 3 Iandueta.ould still !a*e !yself a hero in the eyes of !an +ustices and +udges.ith the /upre!e Court. and dragging pace of pending +udicial proceedings. this is. !e!bers of the bar and concerned discerning citi&ens. /trictly spea*ing.ith. really serve as reliable pole stars that could lead !e to certainty of correctness. But. unconstitutional. to !y !ind. if any individuals or even associations and organi&ed groups.isdo! of !y learned colleagues . all lovers of the +udicial independence. but understandably. not yet returned to co!plete nor!alcy The i!proved national discipline so evident during the earlier days of !artial la. . under the foregoing circu!stances. 0 i!agine.ed by the building of a ne. before :s cannot be said to be clear and consistent.n but nevertheless +ust as deleterious.ithal.hen it beco!es evident that a good nu!ber of those occupying positions in the +udiciary. !y initial reactions. have the courage and possess the re7uisite legal evidence to co!e out and file the corresponding charges . True. !ust have. None of the local cases 1 relied upon and discussed by the parties and by the Me!bers of the Court during the deliberations. not to spea* of its dangerously i!pairing the independence of the +udiciary. 5 etc.hat . !a*e a !oc*ery of +ustice and ta*e advantage of their office for selfish personal ends and yet. as 0 a! not. touching on the 7uestion no. 2)ca!po. it . 0 have co!e to the conviction that at least on this day and hour there are +ustifiable grounds to uphold the Act.ith the situation under e isting la. here and abroad..ay. 1ifferent sectors of society are de!anding urgent refor!s in their respective field And about the !ost vehe!ent and persistent. the Philippines has so!eho.as so!ething 0 could not discount or +ust brush aside. . therefore.hat is . To start .orse. the +urisprudence. as already e plained.n to factually e ist and is actually graver and . so!ething that !ay not necessarily be related to lac* of independence of the +udiciary.hich as a !atter of fact is co!!on to all of the! is that about the deterioration in the 7uality of perfor!ance of the +udges !anning our courts and the slo.ith the President and the Batasan in ta*ing . it .ould vote to declare the la. even if 0 should appear as shouting in the . And 0 a! not vet referring to si!ilar situations that are not 7uite openly *no. unless 0 a! absolutely sure that !y position is for!idable.ill operate so that thereby the people !ay see that . but also . !y instinct and passion for an independent +udiciary are unco!pro!ising and beyond di!inution. unassailable and beyond all possible contrary ratiocination. the President .hile in the co!!unities concerned the !alady is *no. such as Borro!eo. !ost of all.ith desirable dispatch.idespread. to be sure. )f course. and. )n the other hand. a!ong their gripes.s and rules. 0 .. during the deliberations of the Court.hich are ti!e consulting. truly incensed and an ious to be of help. disposed to play such a role virtually at the e pense not only of !y distinguished colleagues but of the Batasang Pa!bansa that fra!ed the la. sanctioned the Act as it is. about Batas Pa!bansa "#$ e plaining acade!ically its apparent tendency to invade the areas of authority of the /upre!e Court. very fe.ould be hu!anly i!possible for the Court to dispose of the! . loud and clear. Pondering and thin*ing deeper about all relevant factors. 0t has !ore to do .to be follo.ilderness.e !ust bear in !ind that +udicial reorgani&ation beco!es urgent and inevitable not alone because of structural inade7uacies of the syste! or of the cu!berso!eness and technicality-peppered and dragging procedural rules in force. it !ay be said that there is +ustification for the patience of the people about the possibility of early eradication of this disease or evil in our +udiciary pictured above to be nearing the brea*ing point. 0t is !y . as 0 shall de!onstrate anon. . those in authority cannot e peditiously cope . and different one. publicly *no.n. the co!bined . . . Besides.hat appear to be i!!ediate steps needed to relieve the people fro! a fast spreading cancer in the +udiciary of our country. 0ndeed.

co!petence and sense of loyalty that can guarantee their devotion to duty and absolute i!partiality.ith the foundation of the principle of independence of the +udiciary. .ever.ithout the . that he had gone beyond the traditional and universally recogni&ed intent of said clause by utili&ing his !artial la.ed to each of :s.hen !artial la. Eerily. it is para!ount and supre!e in peace and in . #ran'es reme'ios $.ith a situation. . . . protection of individual liberties and providing security and pro!otion of the general .ithin the spirit at least of the Constitution. but even in peace grave critical situations arise de!anding recourse to e traordinary solutions.re7uired factual bases conte!plated in the Co!!ander-in-Chief clause of the "$56 Constitution. /ociety. !ost of all by the /upre!e Court. there . 0 a! certain that the (ilipino people feel happy that Batas Pa!bansa "#$ enco!passes both of these ob+ectives.ar. My concept of the Constitution is that it is not +ust a cluster of high sounding verbiages spelling purely 0dealis! and nobility in the recognition of hu!an dignity.ith the !ost perfect procedural rules cannot satisfy the people and the interests of +ustice unless the !en . not for the i!position of national discipline under a Ne.here +udges can decide cases and do +ustice to everyone before the! ruat caelum. . And so. e cept for very unusual instances that hu!an ratiocination cannot +ustify to be conte!plated by its language even if read in its broadest sense and in the !ost liberal . history records that in the face of grave crises and e!ergencies. peace.ers not only to !aintain peace and tran7uility and preserve and defend the integrity and security of the state but to establish a Ne.ritten for all seasons. Paraphrasing the /panish adage. in our +udiciary . accepted such a construction because 0 fir!ly believe that to i!pose !artial la. of the essence in any %de!ocracy under a regi!e of +ustice.s. nay. 0t is . Ao.hat is re7uired of an independent +udiciary .hich as 0 have said is .ay. i!pregnability to an te!ptations of graft and corruption. against i!pair!ent of the independence of the +udiciary. $(ran'es males. 0 say that the funda!ental la.ere those .hich translates and adapts itself to the de!ands of obtaining circu!stances. are priceless and should be defended.e have to !a*e a choice bet. liberty and e7uality ?Prea!ble of the "$<5 Constitution@. that the sa!e had been transgressed. . and the broader and !ore practical approach. /ociety The critics contended that !artial la. the !ost constitutionally 0dealistic countries have. 1ue to its relevancy to )ur present discussion. to the e tent of creating i!pressions. The above pre!ises considered. of course erroneous. the Me!bers of the Court. The Philippines has but recently had its o.ith all e!phasis and vehe!ence. . therefore. it is . those guarantees should be enforced under such a circu!stance see! to be difficult. on the one hand. under the pressure of prag!atic considerations. .ho hold positions therein possess the character. . but !ore.e are all conscious of the fact that those safeguards have never been intended to place the person of the +udge in a singular position of privilege and untouchability. as 0 have +ust indicated. .ell for everyone to bear in !ind that in this +urisdiction.ers that be.point of the unusual situation in .ith all the . . . po.hich is one of the bedroc*9s and. the constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and re!oval only by the /upre!e Court. 0 have decided to tac*le our proble! fro! the vie. including the usual i!portunings and the fearso!e albeit i!proper pressures of the po. for the sole . ".hich is of e!ergency proportions and to insist on rationali&ing ho.hich indeed are aligned . for one. to all of us.e find )urselves face to face .hich our +udiciary is presently perilously situated.een adhering to the strictly legalistic reasoning pursued by petitioners. And so. aside fro! being controversial.isdo! and courage 3od has individually endo. that they are essentially part and parcel of . at one ti!e or another. for the !ost 0deal +udicial syste! . adopted corresponding realistic !easures.elfare under a govern!ent of la. a!ong others. Needless to say. this concept of !artial la.hich perilously tether along the periphery of their Charters.as proclai!ed here in "$<#. is only for national security. has already been upheld several ti!es by this Court.n e perience of such constitutional approach.personal assess!ent of the present situation in our +udiciary that its reorgani&ation has to be of necessity t.ithal. but rather.ho vociferously shouted not only that the President had acted arbitrarily and . such in ordinary proble!s +ustify e ceptional re!edies. in a real sense.o-pronged. of the land is a living instru!ent . although in truth their integrity and i!periousness re!ained undi!inished and uni!paired.

0 have !ade the foregoing discourse. as 0 have stated that 0 prefer to base this concurrence. ho.ays of disposing of ad!inistrative co!plaints against erring and !isconducting +udges.ould +ust li*e to say that the Court should not decry this develop!ent too !uch.. Article K of the Constitution of "$<5@ so !uch so. "#$. 0 a! convinced that the critical situation of our +udiciary today calls for solutions that !ay not in the eyes of so!e confor! strictly .e overloaded .ith in* of deeper hue and .er the cla!or of the people for an upright +udiciary and overco!e constitutional roadbloc*s !ore apparent than real. To put it differently. also pree!pts.ith the letter of the Constitution but indubitably +ustified by its spirit and intent. the legislature is e pressly e!po. despite doubts and !isgivings.e !ust feel hidebound .hile. After all. Batas Pa!bansa "#$ has precisely opened our eyes to ho.hose literal ironclad !eanings . aside fro! . .e.ith substantial +ustice.ith .ant all the sundry to *no. the Constitution can be so construed as to !a*e it possible for those in authority to ans. 0 feel 0 !ust say all of these.end of suppressing an insurrection or rebellion . if indeed there could be so!e doubt as to the correctness of this Court9s +udg!ent that Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is not unconstitutional. Before closing.hat has been discussed about its effect on the guarantees of +udicial independence.or* beyond hu!an capability of its being perfor!ed e peditiously.ould still continue to lay open to its recurrence. Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is one such adaptation that co!es handy for the attain!ent of the transcendental ob+ectives it see*s to pursue . perhaps the Court could loo* . the independence of the +udiciary in the Philippines is far fro! being insubstantial. for one reason or another. because if the above-discussed circu!stances have not co!bined to create a very critical situation in our +udiciary that is !a*ing the people lose its faith and confidence in the ad!inistration of +ustice by the e isting courts.ith the pardon of !y colleagues. !uch less !eaningless and dead. is constitutionally per!issible. 0 . principally the lac* of a clear consensus as to . ?/ection 6?6@. !e!bers of the bar and concerned citi&ens . the Charter is not +ust a construction of .ords . as Chair!an of the Co!!ittee on the Revision of the Rules of Court.ithout regard to every Constitution9s desirable inherent nature of ad+ustability and adaptability to prevailing situations so that the spirit and funda!ental intent and ob+ectives of the fra!ers !ay re!ain alive.ever. for the country .ith the e planation that not only are .ithout coincidentally ta*ing corresponding !easures to eradicate the root causes of the uprising is utter folly. 0 . 1ivine Providence !ay dictate to another constitutional convention to .e can e cuse )urselves . particularly its /ection DD.ered by the Charter to do so.ithstanding this decision.ith !ore sy!pathy at the stand of petitioners. that 0 doubt if the Court has any authority to alter or !odify any rule the Batasang Pa!bansa enunciates. it has the effect of factually easing out so!e +ustices and +udges before the end of their respective constitutional tenure sans the usual ad!inistrative investigation.e have regrettably procrastinated long enough in !a*ing our procedural rules !ore practical and !ore conducive to speedier disposal and ter!ination of controversies by dealing !ore . for it is funda!entally in the fight of this Court9s doctrines about the i!position of !artial la..hat so!e of !y colleagues consider very radical proposals voiced by !e or !y co!!ittee. practice and evidence. hopefully in the near future.rite the guarantees of +udicial independence . but that the strict re7uisites of due process . the pri!ary rule-!a*ing po. in so!e of its provisions.er of the /upre!e Court in respect to procedure. failed to co!e up to e pectations of the fra!ers of the Constitution in our . it !ay not be a!iss for !e to point out that Batas Pa!bansa Blg. !ay 0 try to assuage the! by +oining their fervent prayers that so!e other day. .ith tears of disappoint!ent and disenchant!ent because of the stand 0 have chosen to adopt in these cases. Truth to tell. /o also have . +udges. that not. )f course.hich are ti!e consu!ing have precluded :s fro! being !ore e peditious and speedy. the desirable end is achieved thru !eans that. to be sure. it !ust be confessed. To those +ustices. As " have earlier indicated. in the light of the prevailing conditions.hose eyes !ay be di!!ing .ords to . .

the la.ith the character and sterling 7ualities of President (erdinand E. J.er to control. 4= /CRA 6#6@.ith the best light that 3od . 1e la 8lana his Co!elec. 0 cannot close this concurrence .. 0 a! constrained fro! going along .er of re!oval of +udges. "##$.ith +ustice to all.hen lie ulti!ately acts.that are definite.ithin the scope of its constitutional po.ho! he !ay see fit to occupy the ne.ill deal . 0 dare say this is the faith of the nation in a !an .!a*ing body acted . the President .. No +urisdictional 7uestion is involved. Ao.een the Parlia!ent and the 'udiciary in the !anner that in Ais 0nfinite .ho in "$<< filed a petition for declaratory relief assailing Presidential 1ecree No. corruption. and !ore specifically to the President. .ards none. This is not only !y individual faith founded on !y personal ac7uaintance .s abolition of e isting courts even if the effect has to be the eli!ination of any incu!bent +udge and the conse7uent cutting of his constitutional tenure of office. free. The petition should have been dis!issed outright because this Court has no +urisdiction to grant declaratory relief and prohibition is not the proper re!edy to test the constitutionality of the la. the Court has in factual effect albeit not in constitutional conception yielded generally to the Batasang Pa!bansa.ithout referring to the apprehensions in so!e 7uarters about the choice that . lie . has no cause of action for prohibition. 0 a! certain.ill e7uip hi!self first .ho has led it successfully through crises and e!ergencies. . those . 0 concur in the result. Marcos.ill be eased out of the +udiciary in the course of the i!ple!entation of Batas Pa!bansa "#$.as enacted in ut!ost good faith and not %to cloa* an unconstitutional and evil purpose As ably e pounded by the Chief 'ustice.hich called for a referendu!. a city +udge ?. its o.ers and prerogatives.ould say they .ith the fullest reliable infor!ation before acts.ing the line of de!arcation bet. even as ta payers. Presently.ill ulti!ately be !ade of those . in enacting the said la. There is no +usticiable controversy . in dra. concurring. 3ualberto '.ith !alice to. the President . .ill give hi! every !o!ent he acts in each individual case as it co!es for his decision A6U(NO. courts.ill not be appointed can be considered as %ceasing to hold their respective offices%. The la. 0t is presu!ed to be constitutional. Ae is not being re!oved fro! his position. The petitioners filed this petition for declaratory relief and prohibition %to declare the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= ?Batas Pa!bansa Blg. !uch less being given the opportunity to be heard the past actuations of the President on all !atters of deep public interest shouted serve as sufficient assurance that . ineptness and inco!petence but even fro! the tentacles of interference and insiduous influence of the political po. .n constitutionally conferred po. The eighth petitioner.ill !a*e his choices is beyond )ur po.ithout being duly infor!ed of the reason therefor. "#$@ unconstitutional%.ith any other vie. By this decision. as others . But even if so!e !ay be eased out even . They have no personality to assail the constitutionality of the said la. . /even of the eight petitioners are practising la.ill faithfully adhere to his sole!n oath %to do +ustice to every !an hence. or.!a*ing body before enacting it loo*ed into the constitutional angle.yers.. than that the Constitution allo. de la 8lana. he .herein the constitutionality of the said la. is in issue.ho . The 'udiciary Reorgani&ation 8a.ers that be. not only fro! graft.ould be in fact re!oved.isdo! . Thus. clear. una!biguous and une7uivocal. leaving it to the President to appoint those . /ection DD of the Batasan9s Act declares that all of the! shall be dee!ed to have ceased to hold office.ith each and every individual to be affected by this reorgani&ation . the petition is pre!ature.ho .ould !ost pro!ote genuine and i!partial +ustice for our people.

fro! the standpoint of The general utility and functional value of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act. but follo. of decongesting +udicial doc*ets. 0ndeed. said that %the !ost significant advance in the !odern science of la. ho. the total nu!ber of 'ustices and 'udges against .D$< pending cases in "$<>G 56".hich create and produce such ano!aly. !isconduct. the situation as it e isted. a veritable land!ar* case.orth. there should be no difficulty. But greater than the need to dispense +ustice speedily and pro!ptly is the necessity to have 'ustices and 'udges . venalities and other irregularities reaches 455. According to the co!piled data. as approved by the Congress of the Philippines 3 are undoubtedly intended to i!prove the regi!e of +ustice and thereby enhance public good and order. 3 Aence.ith the ai! of i!proving the ad!inistration of +ustice. ""$ C(0 . 55# in "$4=G and D6=. The notorious and scandalous congestion of court doc*ets as too .n to be ignored as are the causes . the purpose of the Act as further stated in the E planatory Note.elfare of society. concurring. ?b@ A reappoint!ent of +urisdiction geared to. That there are ills and evils plaguing the +udicial syste! is undeniable.as pressed upon the attention of the legislative body. $"" in "$<$G DD". a highly-respected e pert and authority on constitutional la. $D5 in "$<<G D=D.ould be an e ercise in duplication to reiterate the sa!e cases and precedents. and as it . >4> in "$<4G D#>. 6 are 'ustices of the Court of Appeals. and coping .% 1 And in pursuing this direct ion. and for this the court properly loo*s at conte!poraneous events.ould li*e to state !y personal convictions and observations on this case. The ob+ectives of the legislation na!ely. (or the record. since that is the final cause of la.ith and rely on the ruling that %another guide to the !eaning of a statute is found in the evil .est ebb in public esti!ation is not .n +urist. . Evident is the need to loo* for devices and !easures that are !ore practical. ..ing . . not through the classic !ethods of philosophy.ell-*no.ith the !ore co!ple proble!s on the present and forseeable future cannot but %pro!ote the .GUERRERO.hatever they !ay be . doubt or disbelief in its legality and constitutionality.ards greater efficiency. thirteen ?0 5@ Regional Trial Courts.ever.ith !y distinguished and learned colleagues in upholding the constitutionality of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=.. organi&ation and co!position of the 'udiciary.ho! ad!inistrative charges have been filed for various offenses. 0 . Records in the /upre!e Court attest to the unfitness and inco!petence. co!petent and efficient. it . The legal basis of the Court9s opinion rendered by our estee!ed Chief 'ustice having been e haustively discussed and decisively +ustified by hi!.ho are fair and i!partial. ?c@ A si!plification of procedures and ?d@ The abolition of the inferior courts created by the 'udiciary Act of "$D4 and other statutes. "$4#@ 4 the congested character of court doc*ets rising year after year is staggering and enor!ous. loo!ing li*e a legal !onster. Metropolitan Trial Courts.ithout factual basis.hich is %to e!body refor!s in the structure. corruption and i!!orality of !any dispensers of +ustice. =>5 as of (ebruary 5. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. is the change fro! the analytical to the functional attitude. 5 (ro! the figures alone ?5=". honest and incorruptible. 1ean Pound. J.hat the . history and tradition. 0 a! then constrained to approach the proble! 7uite differently. are clearly conducive to the pro!otion of national interests. ?a@ An institutional restructuring by the creation of an 0nter!ediate Appellate Court.or*able and econo!ical. 0 !ust also rec*on .. )f this total.ell-*no. The general cla!or that the prestige of the 'udiciary today has deteriorated and degenerated to the lo. for .% 2 0 have no doubt in !y !ind that the institutional refor!s and changes envisioned by the la. 0 concur .hich it is designed to re!edy.

46 City 'udges. Truth . . Candidly.ho have been castigated and censured in final +udg!ents of the /upre!e Court upon appeal or revie. /eventeen ?"<@ 'udges have been ordered dis!issed and separated fro! the service. for instead of a fair and i!partial trial. (or pere!ptorily dis!issing the third party co!plaint on the ground that the !otion to dis!iss . 0n one case.hat is so clearly provided in the Rules of Court% 9G %0t is unfortunate that respondent 'udge failed to ac7uaint hi!self . %deplorable.as an 0dle for!.ho have been punished and dis!issed fro! the service. 5 Cri!inal Circuit 'udges. the proceedings . repri!and or fine. 7 CCC 'udge. those controlling provisions and doctrines% 15G %The failure of the respondent Municipal 'udge to yield obedience to authoritative decisions of the /upre!e Court and of respondent Court of (irst 0nstance 'udge and his deplorable insistence on procedural technicalities .ill tell as an increasing nu!ber of ad!inistrative cases are being filed by victi!s of +udicial !isconduct..hose actuations have been found to be patiently . cases. and to acts of legislative bodies.een the accused and the 'udge to flaunt the la. "$4". a useless cere!ony.'udges. there . orders and other acts of the respondent courts. ="9 !isinterpreted.ould be li*e .rong and !anifestly in-defeasible. the Court re!ar*ed. there are !any . .ere ter!inated after seven years. Ao. 0t is to be deplored that the /upre!e Court has not found ti!e to e ercise its po. 7 '1RC 'udge. E cepting those . 0n the light of these *no. ad!onition. To cite a fe. long the pending ad!inistrative cases . only ti!e .riting this concurring opinion is to call attention to these evils.ith legiti!ate ends.% 12 0t is dishonorable enough to be publicly and officially rebu*ed but to allo. The /upre!e Court has found 7:5 of the! guilty and punished the! . giving no credit to the 'udiciary% 7G applicable rules. such as ad!inistrative board or bodies.ays to be presu!ed in the absence of proof to the contrary. /o!e !e!bers of the Court felt that these revelations .as a deliberate failure of respondent 'udge to respect .ith either suspension.. And these are 4 C(0.hole proceedings loo*ed no !ore than a pre-arranged co!pro!ise bet.. 13 The presu!ption of regularity is not confined to the acts of the individual officers but also applies to the acts of boards.ill co!e out. The nu!ber includes 7 CA 'ustice. 4 CAR 'udges.n evils and infir!ities of the +udiciary syste!.as called do. for no charges or proceedings have been instituted against the!. %May his tribe vanish. but far fro! palliating the gravity of the error incurred.e have a list of these croo*ed 'udges . 'uly #6. 0f they are not booted out no. of the decisions. )ur decisions have categorically pronounced respondents9 actuations. 3oing over these ad!inistrative proceedings. The . 7 City 'udge and 75 Municipal 'udges. 13 3ood faith is al. . 'ustices and 'udges. 7CAR.ill ta*e fro! here to eternity to clean this Augean stable.ill be disposed of.o-year period fro! the filing of the charge to the dis!issal of the respondent. < City 'udges and . But these facts are of public and official record nay court cases.e noted %There is here so so!ething unusual. it too* an average of t.ith.er and authority in the pre!ises.hich are surreptitiously but surely destroying the trust and faith of the people in the integrity of the entire 'udiciary. There ought to be no ob+ection or co!punction in . these 'udges and their il* to re!ain and continue to preside in their courtroo!s is a disgrace to the 'udiciary. it did render the due process re7uire!ent nugatory.eeding the! out fro! the service.n in 8-D$4#4. and sooner or later.as 9. and every nor! of propriety and procedure% 8G %there .ashing dirty linen in public. 4.% 11 0n one case. one reason for . and 789 Municipal 'udges. C(0 'udges. it . abuse and arbitrariness. it !erely e acerbated it. abuses and .ell-ta*en9 and respondent 'udge did not elaborate. thus. 0t is presu!ed that official duty has been regularly perfor!ed.ould be absurd and unreasonable to clai! that the legislators did not act upon the! in good faith and honesty of purpose and . it . 7 'uvenile O 1o!estic Relations Court 'udge. 6CAR 'udges. .rongs .4 Municipal 'udges.

0n our for! of govern!ent.% 23 %The 'udge9s right to his full ter! and his full salary are not dependent alone upon his good conduct.hile %?i@t is thus settled.hy legislate out the +udges . 21 0n the last analysis. in ordaining and establishing the courts.eed out corrupt and !isfits in our 'udiciaryH B !ay not be in7uired into by :s.rites that . never in7uire into the . being la. 0t could not be other.hy not a!end the Rules of Court only 0s abolition of all courts the proper re!edy to . The 7uestions raised by petitioners and amicus curiae for their cause. fa!ily or class of !en. There is no factual foundation of bad faith on record. The good and the straight. and not the profit.hich provide for special i!!unity as regards salary and tenure.elfare.. 0t is created for the purpose of effecting the ends for . but that is the la.hether it is ter!ed abolition of office or re!oval fro! office.of .e !ust.ho penned the orfe decision.. Puno that the Bill . a public office is a privilege in the gift of the /tate. And 0 do not consider the state!ent in the sponsorship speech for Cabinet Bill No.hen the court is abolished. !ay be the basis for declaring a statute invalid.hich are for the co!!on good.isdo! of the action ta*en.hich there is none in the case at bar. The 'udge of such a court ta*es office .er courts. it . 0t is conceded that the abolition of an office is legal if attendant .ledge. should *no. it !ay be abolished by statute and the incu!bent deprived of his office. no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.hy abolish all the courts .% 18 he adds that it is %useful to recall . to paraphrase Chief 'ustice Concepcion in (on%ales v.hen created by the /tate under the authority of the Constitution.hich govern!ent has been instituted. it is funda!ental that public offices are public trust. 0 a! certain.ill result in the actual re!oval of the 'ustices of the Court of Appeals and 'udges of the lo. the la. %0t is not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and *eep it .!a*ers9 deep sense of public service and the +udicious e ercise of their high office as the duly-elected representatives of the people.isdo! of the la. vi%: ..isdo! of the !easure. .hen an office is created by the Constitution. E cepting constitutional offices . and that the person to be appointed should be selected solely . !ay be harsh.isdo! and +ustice of the people as e pressed through their representatives in the e ecutive and legislative depart!ents of the govern!ent. The bad and the croo*ed 'udges !ust be re!oved. the end-result is the sa!e B ter!ination of the services of these incu!bents. 23 Acceptance of a +udicial appoint!ent !ust be dee!ed as adherence to the rule that %.ise if .ith good faith.% 14 The Courts %are not supposed to override legiti!ate policy and .as so clearly stated by 8aurel that 9the 'udiciary in the deter!ination of actual cases and controversies !ust reflect the . petitioners have not sho. 0t is also true that . 3ood faith in the enact!ent of the la. 25 0t !ay be true that . or to its e pediency.yers. any une pired ter! is abolished also. 0ndeed. Commission on Elections.. 15 The 7uestion of good faith then is the cru of the conflict at bar.ith a vie. the propriety of the Act.9% 19 0n any case.ho.ill eradicate hopefully or at least !ini!i&e the evils and ills that infect and pester the +udicial body. but also upon the contingency that the legislature !ay for the public good.ould be a !ore efficient vehicle of %eli!inating inco!petent and unfit 'udges as indicative of i!per!issible legislative !otive.ith that encu!brance and *no. or are e pected to *no. . That is pri!arily and e clusively a legislative concern. D# of Minister of 'ustice Ricardo '. it cannot be abolished by the legislature.ithin the bounds of propriety and co!!on sense.hat . not the . .% 25 The re!oval fro! office of the incu!bent then is !erely incidental to the valid act of abolition of the office as de!anded by the superior and para!ount interest of the people.er and prerogative of the President ..hile the re!edy or solution for!ulated by the legislation .% 17 Chief 'ustice (ernando . sober 'udges should be reappointed but that is the sole po.er or co!petence. to the public . that only congressional po.e are to accord as . The 'ustices and 'udges directly affected by the la. the nature and concept of a public office. *ura le= se' le=.n an iota of proof of bad faith. . full faith and credit to the la. honor or private interest of any one !an. but . fro! ti!e to ti!e consider his office unnecessary and abolish it. does not refer to the . or even an absolute right to hold office. 22 There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office.ill act .

is necessary to +ustify as the ratio 'eci'en'i of )ur +udg!ent.er.th and develop!ent.ith this Court and to accord its vie.G on reorgani&ation of the courts. 0 agree .ill not set aside a la. The i!plicit suggestion that there could be an unconstitutional i!ple!entation of the 7uestioned legislation is not congruent . e ecute its la.hen he says. To re7uire consultation . . .. and govern!ent.er to fill the ne.ould be no plausibility then to the allegation that there is an unconstitutional taint to the challenged Act.ould be in accordance . 0n the light of conte!poraneous events fro! .castle.ilde. the force and brilliance of their advocacies based on logic. 0 cannot agree . a *ind or for! of +udicial activis!. and on delegation of legislative po.ell.hich the Ne.ith his sole!n oath of office %to preserve and defend its Constitution.hether abolition of office or re!oval therefro!. perhaps si!ilar to it. 0t has already been ruled that the statute does not suffer fro! any constitutional infir!ity because the abolition of certain +udicial offices . 0 .ithout any obligation to consult .ould save and another . . to uphold its constitutionality..ith the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives bet.ith accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incu!bent +ustices and +udges are concerned. hopefully an act of proper +udicial states!anship.ithout detracting fro! the !erits.as done in good faith.hich can be resented and even repelled. to the .hich . 0 choose not to yield to te!ptation by e!bellishing !y concurrence lest 0 be accrued of bringing coal to Ne. concurring.een one . 0 vie.ith the Chief 'ustice .ell-settled principle that %all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute% for . the controversy presented to :s as a conflict of opinions B on +udicial independence. ABA SANTOS. J. . "#$ is not unconstitutional. be accorded the fullest consideration.% 28 The responsibility of upholding the Constitution rests not on the courts alone but on the legislatures as . such a construction .% 29 (inally. This being the case. ho.hich reason it . therefore. Accordingly. therefore it should be in accordance . This is the ti!e and the !o!ent to perfor! a constitutional duty to affi !y i!pri!atur and affir!ance to the la.ever.ly created +udicial positions .. 0 choose to stand on the social +ustification and the functional utility of the la.ill si!ply vote to dis!iss the petition Ao.ould invalidate a statute. 0n the i!ple!entation of the assailed legislation.ever.hether authori&ed or unauthori&ed. 0t !ay be the last bul.ar* of constitutional govern!ent. 24 The /upre!e Court has been called the conscience of the Constitution.ith the learned Chief 'ustice of the Philippines that Batas Pa!bansa Blg. .ill constitute an invasion of e ecutive territory .. % There and then the proper balance bet. Moreover.een the desire to preserve private interest and the desideratu! of pro!oting the public good shall have been struc*. .. as violative of the Constitution %e cept in a clear case.s the fullest consideration.according to the best interest of the nation and in accordance . do +ustice to everyone . this Court be consulted and that its vie. :nli*e )scar . There .s. 0 believe that the E ecutive is entitled to e ercise its constitutional po..ith the basic conclusion that it is not unconstitutional. 0t adheres. 27 0t Must. history and precedents. Republic e!erged and evolved ne.hether i!paired or strengthened by the la. 0deals of national gro.hich . particularly in la. the for!er is to be preferred. be re!e!bered %that legislatures are ulti!ate guardians of the liberties and .elfare of the people in 7uite as great a degree as courts.

the e ercise of the po.ho are not yea there.er of +udicial in7uiry B the po. !uch less interfere .n la. cannot in7uire..er to declare a la. violating a funda!ental precept of constitutional and representative govern!ent that no irrepealable la. abolish the! to give . the legislature can repeal its o.hen that sa!e po.ritten by )ur learned Chief 'ustice in his usual scholarly fashion. . and in doing so. ho. is not unconstitutional.ith.hich. includes the po. 0 The creation and organi&ation of courts inferior to the /upre!e Court is a constitutional prerogative of the legislature. May 0. by necessary i!plication. therefore. 0f the legislature. that .hen the legislature creates the courts.er of creating the courts to provide for a fair and strong +udicial syste!.er to reorgani&e said courts.E CASTRO.ever.orn duties to see that the la. the !atter involved is one of policy and . This pri!ary legislative po.hich only goes to sho. it suffers fro! no li!itation arising fro! the necessity or respecting the security of tenure of +udges . an act of legislation .er of the legislature to create courts.hen done in good faith and !otivated solely by the good and the .er is not !eant to be restricted.e should trust in ho. than by . This inherent character of fullness and plenitude of the po. for in that area. . in the natural order of things. and that po.ould thereafter arise the security of tenure of those appointed to perfor! the functions of said courts. that no irrepealable la.hose . it !ay be i!ple!ented in order that it could stand the !ost rigid test of constitutionality. .er is once !ore e ercised thereafter.ould conduce !ore to its ob+ective of i!proving the +udiciary and raising its standard.er. li!it !yself to a discussion that the assailed statue is not unconstitutional .s are faithfully e ecuted and to do +ustice to every !an. since the occasion to spea* of security of tenure of +udges arises only after the courts have first been brought into being. therefore. :n7uestionably. as a conse7uence.hich is raised as the !ain argu!ent against the constitutionality of the la.ay of giving added force or support to the !ain opinion so .ise and urgent to provide for a ne. Moreover.isdo! into . patriotis! and sense of +ustice . 0f the creation of courts is a legislative prerogative their abolition is.hich the courts. set of courts. 0 concur in the declaration that the la. or substantially different ones.s shall be passed. 0. J. it involves the e ercise of legislative po.ithout. To contend other. 0 do so on the additional ground that petitioners have not fulfilled all the re7uisites for the e ercise by this Court of its po.hich the courts have no say 0nitially. sub!it this separate opinion !ore to avoid being !isunderstood by !y brethren in the +udiciary as not feeling for the! as !uch concern as 0 should for their security of tenure . 1 The po.er is a continuing one.isdo!.er to create courts and organi&e the! is necessarily the pri!ary authority fro! . in the e ercise of its authority.er.hich . he . curtailed.ay to ne. a !atter of legislative intent.hat is involved is purely an e ecutive act of the President in . This prerogative is plenary and necessarily i!plies the po.s.. it feels the abolition of the old courts . as the need therefor is felt.er to create and abolish courts does not change .er to abolish the! in order to create ne. the security of tenure given to the incu!bents should not be a legal i!pedi!ent to the e ercise of that basic po. and the resultant right of security of tenure of those appointed to said courts could not bring about the e haustion of that po.ell-being of the people.ell-. and in the process. the right to security of tenure ta*es a secondary position to the basic and pri!ary po. ones.hile 0 also concur in the dis!issal of the petition. concurring.er of creating the statutory courts . .ould fulfill his s. By this secondary position it has to the pri!ary po.s shall be passed. .ise .ithout having to suggest ho. dee!s it . not even the /upre!e Court.er can never be e hausted . unconstitutional.ould be to forget a basic doctrine of constitutional la.hich generally concerns policy in the for!ation of . !uch less e hausted by the socalled +udicial security of tenure. therefore.

the legislature is presu!ed to have been !otivated by no other ob+ective than to provide the people the *ind of +udicial !achinery that .elfare. therefore.hich.hat had given rise to the present controversy the duty of the legislature to provide society .s or rules that govern the . particularly as to . on the other. 0n enacting the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=.ould disappear upon a reconciliation of the t. No officer or e!ployees in the civil service shall be suspended or dis!issed e cept for cause as provided by la. is no !ore than as provided for all other officials and e!ployees in the civil service of the govern!ent in /ection 5. as is the *eenly perceptible feeling of the people in general. as indeed only the +udge affected could see* +udicial redress of . /ection "= of the Constitution gives to +udicial officials no !ore than a guarantee that their retire!ent age as fi ed in the Constitution shall not be alterable at !ere . faith and confidence of the public.The passage of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= is no !ore than the e ercise of the po. Responsibility for this !ore or less e tensive slo. a condition .riter fails to see. if a conflict bet.hich underlies even the Constitution. .ed. efficient and effective +udicial syste!.hich the security of tenure.o interests conflict as .n of the delivery of +udicial service can be laid on no other than either of the t. That is. Eie. The provision of Article KE00. the general reva!p of the +udiciary involving both its co!ponents B the court as an office or institution. if this concept .o apparently conflicting interests .ith the !ost effective and efficient syste! of ad!inistration of +ustice. a good.een the pri!ary po.er of legislative investigation.er vested by the Constitution on the legislative body of the Republic as described above. after all.hich provides.hich is.hich.hen t.ith a fair. the rights and freedo!s enu!erated in the Bill of Rights en+oyable by The entire people. fro! the above dis7uisition is not hard to find.hether they continue to en+oy the trust. This is de!onstrated in ho. in the essence of the e ercise of police po.ith it the duty and responsibility of providing the people . be presu!ed that it has been led to this lo. at least. That po.er that a right assertable by individuals !ay be infringed in the greater interest of the public good and general ..or*ings of the courts.ithout doubt. . fro! the above-!entioned perspective. not a +udiciary in .hat he conceives to be its violation. Article K00-B of the Constitution . ad!ittedly.elfare of the people . li*e. and . the latter !ust of necessity yield to the for!er. in so!e instances. . This is by far of !ore i!perative and transcedental i!portance than the security of tenure of +udges .o co!ponents of a court B the procedural la. as is easily discernible. and the right of +udges to security of tenure. efficient and effective +udiciary. 0t should.er of the /tate.do.er% of the /tate. !ay even be contributory.hich is the !ost pri!ordial and para!ount consideration. 0t is. or the persons e ecuting or applying the! B or both. or.ise.anting in these basic 7ualities does not deserve the independence that is !eant only for a +udiciary that can serve best the interest and .ould conduce to independence of the +udiciary B but first of all. )ne involves public . !ore of a personal benefit to +ust a fe. such as the po.hat the cause or causes are of their erosion.hich the .hich the people9s faith has been eroded. of the actual condition of the courts. if not loss.ith the facilities at its co!!and. on one hand. . not +ust by a handful in co!parison. and !ere conse7uential benefit accorded to +udges and +ustices after the creation of the courts is indeed perceivable. and the +udges and +ustices that !an the! B should not find any legal obstacle in the security of tenure of +udges.. in its belief that the present !achinery is falling short of that !easure of public service.er of the legislature to create courts. are !ade sub+ect to the la. is one of the factors that .elfare and interest !ore directly and on a greater !agnitude than the right of security of tenure of the +udges . esti!ate of the utility and effectiveness of the present set-up of the +udiciary after infor!ing itself. Aerein lies the propriety of the e ercise of %police po. has to be invo*ed as a constitutional +ustification of the passage of the Act in 7uestion.ould best serve their interest and . . This security. A +udiciary .er carries .elfare.ful e ercise of the police po.

hat the Act ai! to achieve in the na!e of good and clean govern!ent. the '1RC9s be in the +udicial structure as envisioned by the la.ay.ould be to allo.ithout the ne. as has been held. Fet in the course of ti!e. in a speech before the Philippine Bar Association. 2 The abolition of the courts as declared in the Act as a result of a reorgani&ation of the +udiciary. for re!oval i!plies the e istence of the office. is given effect.here in the +udicial !achinery .er for :s to say that the changes the la. tarnished the good i!age that the +udiciary should have.hich. The e7uivalent provision in the "$56 Constitution . This .ould necessarily affect the entire syste!. the !atter is one for the sole and e clusive deter!ination of the legislature. does not !ean that the changes . these courts . distribution and +urisdiction. 0t rests entirely on its discretion .hich no +udicial in7uiry is proper. therefore. not .ould result in the abolition of the courts other than the /upre!e Court and the Court of Ta Appeals. fro! any vie. abolition of office for no reason related to public .ays should be a !ost desirable goal and ob+ective of govern!ent. . changes so!e. the circuit cri!inal courts.H Are they not abolished by !erger .ith the regional trial courts.hen the reorgani&ation of the +udiciary .point. Ad!ittedly. or to declare the! so abolished. . it !ight be to arrogate po. The . the provision of the Constitution giving to the /upre!e Court po.er to deter!ine the e tent or nature of the changes as to their structure.hen done in good faith.. e cept perhaps if they intent is so palpably tainted . it has done enough to consider the! abolished.er to dis!iss a +udge by a vote of eight +ustices does not co!e into the vorte of the instant controversy. Aence.here . undue interference in the function of legislation.hat gives the! constitutional protection is the afore7uoted provision . therefore. (ro! the above observation.as inserted for the first ti!e because the retire!ent age before then . if !a i!u! benefit at the least e pense is to be achieved. the present . do not suffice for this Court to give effect to the clear intent of the legislative body.ould be dee!ed abolished.ill re!ain fi ed and per!anent . la. . not constitute an argu!ent against the constitutionality of the la.elfare or for the good of the service. a!ounts to an unla.ould not effectively be abolished by the Act in 7uestion. .legislative pleasure. the need for their independent e istence !ay disappear. as the la. e presses such an un!ista*able intent. curtly but announces. and by the other changes introduced by the la.hether by the nature and e tent of the changes it has introduced.. or as !y be discovered therefro!.hich is not so in the instant case. or that by changed conditions. To give the /upre!e Court the po.here else in later years. before the clear intent to abolish the!.ho have not in any .ould !a*e said courts different fro! the present Courts of (irst 0nstance .hen done in bad faith.ith constitutional repugnancy. be so branded.ay of security of tenure . .ould the agrarian courts.hat they are entitled to under the Constitution by .hen he enu!erated the 7ualities of a good +udge that the appointing po.ful re!oval.ould be contrary to the pri!ary duty of courts precisely to give effect to the legislative intent as e pressed in the la. it . . by their acts and behavior . The present +udicial incu!bents. appoint!ents to the +udiciary upon its reorgani&ation pursuant to the 7uestioned Act.here they are needed at present at a certain place. brings to the present +udicial syste!. The fact that the /upre!e Court !ay specially assign courts to function as the special courts +ust !entioned. 0f it co!es to their re!oval or suspension. . as the Title of the la.hether by said reorgani&ation. to spea* of re!oval of +udges .er should consider in !a*ing ne. . . as a conse7uence. the abolition of the courts is a !atter of legislative intent into .ould be futile to insist that the present courts .hich does not conte!plate abolition of office . (or!er 'ustice Barrera.ell reflect the favorable reaction of the public in general to . And . therefore. can by no !eans.hile in office.rought are only superficial or %cos!etic% as this ter! has been used so often in the oral argu!ent.hich by such !erger. no occasion. .e have..as provided !erely by statute not by the Constitution.hen it is abolished.here they are at present. as earlier inti!ated. 1e!onstrably then.ords of the e!inent +urist !ay . 0ts possible violation by the assailed statute cannot happen. let alone . !ay then be considered abolished 0ntegrated as the present courts are supposed to be. have no cause for apprehension that . and !ay. the need for the! !ay be so!e. as al. 3 i!pliedly indorsed the +udicial reva!p .

hen he created the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Co!!ittee to reco!!end needed and appropriate +udicial refor!s. for it can be e ercised only .ould beco!e apparent that only in the i!ple!entation of the la. therefore. 6>@.er . in a real sense. Nor is his separation already a certainty. . >6 Phil. any one.hatever rights they !ay rightfully clai! to !aintain their official standing and integrity.ing facts to consider.hich the constitutionality of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= is assailed is that it is violative of the security of tenure of +ustices and +udges. specially as cherished . if he can !a*e out a case of violation of his right of security of tenure .it. is unpardonable.n ai! and purpose of the !assive +udicial reva!p. as is the stand of 'ustice A7uino. )nly .ig be denied the!.er to declare a la. to .orth in the . the po. and he should feel concerned !ore than anyone else to protect . As to the rest of the incu!bents.ho initiated the !ove . the actual incu!bents of the courts . !uch less for !ere spirit of vindictiveness or lac* of nobility of heart. industry and co!petence is separated. 0 a! of the opinion that the petition does not present an actual controversy nor . This po. the la. is its possible effect of i!pairing the security of tenure of the incu!bents. ". Ao.hen it has beco!e certain that his tenure has been ter!inated . the result of serious and concerned study by a highly co!petent co!!ittee. for he !ay be appointed to the court e7uivalent to his present court. 0f in its i!ple!entation. is not by itself or per se unconstitutional.. has not been separated fro! the service. are.ith uncontrovertible clarity. as .. it .ith ad!irable restraint should serve as the strongest guarantee of ho.hich is.as it filed by the proper parties. no security of tenure.hen a +udge of ac*no. Eera.ould be violated. ?People vs.ho could raise the 7uestion of constitutionality of the la. They need have no fear of being ignored for no reason at all. This petition should also be dis!issed for being pre!ature. for an act of arbitrariness. )longapo City 'udge de la 8lana. the President has e ercised this i!!ense po.ould thereby be co!!itted. #.ledged honesty. and ?D@ The deter!ination of the constitutionality of the statute !ust be necessary to a final deter!ination of the case. the only +udge a!ong the petitioners..er has . . The petition as*s this Court to e ercise its po. in the traditional concept.. :nder the "$<5 Constitution all incu!bent +udges and +ustices !ay continue in office until replaced or reappointed by the President. ?"@ There !ust be an actual case or controversyG ?#@ The 7uestion of constitutionality !ust be raised by the proper partyG ?5@ Ae should do so at the earliest opportunity.ill an actual controversy arise on his allegation of a fact that has beco!e actual.e !ay have the follo.hen the follo.hen the separation is very arbitrary in the peculiar circu!stances of his case.ho .hen it conflicts . !ay there possibly be a taint of constitutional repugnancy as .ays see* +udicial redress. As to those +udicial officials.ould be separated fro! the service upon the abolition of the courts affected by the la. or even pro!oted to a higher court. he can al.er of +udicial in7uiry.ith the funda!ental la. +ustice and fairness . under any constitution. if at all.ay of i!proving the +udiciary. 0f the only obstacle to a verdict in favor of constitutionality of the la. only a holdover tenure. unconstitutional . Conse7uently. feels aggrieved. because an act of arbitrariness .ing re7uisites are present. deserves to be given a chance to prove its . on the theory as advanced by petitioners that their +udicial security of tenure . considering the publicly *no. (ro! the foregoing. they are all appointees of )ur present President.ith deep concern by the President .ell-defined li!its.ill be his sole guide in i!ple!enting the la. The !ain ground for . The only persons . attaches to their incu!bency . not !erely probable or hypothetical. but the abolition of the courts as decreed by the la.

hich the > i!proper party% can be no other than the +udges . that . should. But surely.ould be.ho could assail its constitutionality . before it has even been given a chance to prove its . and before any of the proper parties . so that the status of each and everyone of the! has thereby been !ade certain. together .n . is susceptible to t.The present petition !ay neither be allo.ould.ith the constitutional prescription of a co!paratively higher vote to declare a la.o interpretations.ith ne. void at this stage. as it . . shall have been i!ple!ented has ade7uate re!edy in la. for the clai! . one !ore personali&ed. in the discharge of one of the basic duties of govern!ent to the people B the ad!inistration of +ustice B should not be sacrificed.hether an actual controversy .n.ould the present courts be declared abolished. does not !ean one having no better right. at best of doubtful character. that .er of +udicial in7uiry.hich . a chance to be put into application so as not to douse great popular e pectations for the courts to regain their highest level of efficiency had reputation for probity. as contented. fro! the right to bring the suit. is. that interpretation should be adopted that . . this is to be so since only . appoint!ents. the Court of Ta Appeals and the /andigan. (or the la. not !erely probable or hypothetical. not be proper to declare the la.ould locali&e the actual in+ury to his person. a categorical ruling hereon not being necessary or desirable at the !o!ent.ould suffer direct and actual in+ury.hich they !ay lay clai! to the right to continue therein. undoubtedly to avoid an interregnu! . .er of +udicial in7uiry . .. of being allegedly denied a right.ill not *ill the la.er. they should e clude !ere ta payers . itself is definitely not unconstitutional. . not by a la. 0t is to adhere to the above principles that the sub!ission is !ade herein. on the clai! of a fe.hich by their stringent character.hile in the i!ple!entation of the la.appoint!ent to the ne.ithout any court. !ay there possibly be a violation of the security of tenure.hen the country is .ould then be also a proper party to assail the constitutionality of the la.ould see! to rest on an unsupportable theory that they have a vested right to a public office. for a fact. and to no other. as one of the re7uisites in the e ercise of such po.ould be proper. by all reasonable intend!ent and feasible !eans. and. 0t .e consider that only after the fate of the present incu!bents is *no..ould arise because any of the incu!bents have been left out in the restructured +udiciary.ould give rise to an %actual controversy% in .hen . upon the actual abolition of the courts. therefore.orth. felt it to be an urgent necessity. courts have been filled up . 0 a!.ho feel in+ured after the la.ill all the courts affected be declared abolished. A ta payer !ay bring an action to raise the 7uestion of constitutionality of a statute only .hat he has as a !e!ber of the public in general. .hen no one else can !ore appropriately bring the suit to defend a right e clusively belonging to hi!. one of . confor!ably to the conditions re7uisite for the e ercise of the po. e cept the /upre!e Court.ould be e7ual to the nu!ber of actual incu!bents.. . that is unconstitutional unto itself.hat they could possibly contend to be an unconstitutional enforce!ent of the la.hen the la.ith the incu!bent +udges undoubtedly being the ones under petitioners9 theory. )nly then ..ho feel aggrieved by their non. than . 0nevitably. The validity of the foregoing observation beco!es !ore evident .ed as a ta payer suit.hether they have been actually separated or not. constitutional repugnancy !ay not entirely be ruled out. courts. for giving the la. declared void right no.. therefore. if the la. There . is fully i!ple!ented . the benefits envisioned by the la.ho . certain and actual. 3 Any of the incu!bent +udges . or at least such nu!ber as .ho cannot be said to suffer as %direct% and %actual% an in+ury as the +udges and +ustices by the enforce!ent of the assailed statute.ould *no. as sought in the present petition. as the legislature itself and an those . reveal a salutary principle of govern!ent that a la.ould !a*e it constitutional.ho helped by their e haustive and scholarly study.ith full relief as .. the la. unconstitutional. the rule corollary thereto being that if a la. (or a %proper party% to invo*e the po. that they have a right violated by .ill it be *no. clearly continues their e istence until all the ne. and they are the very courts to . )nly then. therefore. be saved fro! the doo! of unconstitutionality.

auto!atically ceased as such. . !ay be declared unconstitutional. under consideration.hat distinguishes the Act in 7uestion fro! R. R.o interpretations one that . !ore fir! and enduring than any of the postulates spread in our .er of +udicial in7uiry as already adverted to. 0t is in ho. 0dentified .ise provision on ho. the la.hose positions .riting this separate concurrence. The Me!bers of the /upre!e Court and +udges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. therefore. The controversy in this case involves t.s 0 entertain in regards to the constitutionality of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. by a vote of at least eight Me!bers order their dis!issal. fro! the dire fate of unconstitutionality.ell-*no..o constitutional provisions. The la. The /upre!e Court shall have the po. on the ground that so!e +udges or +ustices !ay be re!oved or separated in violation of their security of tenure.e do so at this stage.een protecting so!e +udges fro! possible separation.hen its constitutionality is attac*edG first the presu!ption that a la. "#$.ere abolished. No. does not directly operate . ""4> involved in the )ca!po case. is constitutionalG secon' . To the .er to discipline +udges of inferior courts and.A. the Constitution itself . This . the 7uestion before this Court is a si!ple !atter of choosing bet. 5 . efficient and effective +udiciary. <. !ore than .ith public interest and general .elfare.. through a !ore efficient and effective +udicial syste! as the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= see*s to establish.ould be an in+udicious act done in rec*less disregard of the safeguards built around a la. to defend it . concurring. it is unthin*able that . certain +udges and +ustices cease to be so by direct action of the la. The Act in 7uestion. Fet by the operation of the Constitution . 0 !ight say.ith its .een the t.hen a la.ould !a*e it constitutional. The greatest good for the greatest nu!ber is an un.hat is for the good of the people as a . ""4> stood the test for it to be enforced to the fullness of its intent. This is not to !ention the stringent re7uisites for the e ercise of the po. is susceptible to t.riter.ould then be *illing the la.hich ordains that a la. Both should be har!oni&ed.ith Chat effect.A. No. Aence.ise e pressed in the . as in the la.% MELENC(O-7ERRERA. /ection < of the sa!e Article reads..ritten Constitution. J. unconstitutional. This. . There is un7ualified adherence on !y part to the dis!issal of the Petition filed in this case. of the )rganic la. other. and the la. Article K.ould be i!ple!ented that this feared eventuality !ay or !ay not occur. /EC. is not as e posed to the sa!e vulnerability to constitutional attac* as R. all designed to save the la. the other. . a la.er to establish inferior Courts by la. is the !ain the!e of this separate opinion.o provisions.n and ti!ehonored !a i! %/alus populi establish supre!a le .as.'ust one !ore point. . as the i!ple!entation of the la.as.hole could have been !eant by the Constitution to be sacrificed for the sa*e of only the fe.e . /ection ".. the constitutionality of the la. all the +udges . should not be assailed. stri*en do. No. provides that the legislative has the po. 0f 0 a! . There should be no conflict Bet. it is !erely to state certain vie.hich by its direct action. itself.n. (or.A. or serving the interest of the entire society through an honest. ""4> . on a !ere speculation if . in 7uestion is not self-e ecuting in the sense that upon its effectivity.hat is re7uired for an ordinary decision of the Court en banc.hich . the for!er should be adoptedG and t"ir'.ritten rule. The la. !ay not be declared unconstitutional e cept on the vote of at least ten ?"=@ !e!bers of the /upre!e Court. no act of i!ple!entation being necessary. to achieve its pri!ary purpose of i!proving the +udiciary !ay have to result in. This is .

er to abolish Courts is generally coe tensive .. To hold that tenure of 'udges is superior to the legislative po. . fro! . Pub. a@ 0t is a funda!ental proposition that the legislative po. the entire +udicial syste! can be changed.er of the legislative to establish inferior Courts presupposes the po. The po. Courts can be abolished. 0t !ay even be stated that.oe to the . > A!.hen the court is abolished any une pired ter! is abolished also. :nder /ection ". <5#. .th in the develop!ent of the 'udiciary. >"6G D# A!. $=D-6@. there are no offices for . :pon declaration of the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation as provided for in the Reorgani&ation Act. (unter. /ection " heretofore !entioned refers to the %'udiciary% as a funda!ental depart!ent of 3overn!ent. 'ur.ith it the po. it is not the security of tenure per se that is the only safeguard to the independence of the 'udiciary. Perkins v. $D Phil. "5DG Aalsey vs. supra. 0 a! satisfied that the challenged la. The legislative po.er to create the!. the 'udge presiding that Court .ho sit on the Bench.ho have abused the prerogatives of their +udicial position *no. de la Costa.% The i!portance and the i!perative of !aintaining the independence of the 'udiciary is undisputed. or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. 'udges of those Courts ta*e office .ing that they are untouchables by virtue of the per!anence of their tenure b@ A distinction should be !ade bet. At the sa!e ti!e.er to create Courts ordinarily includes the po.ledge. in the last analysis. does not deprive Congress of its po. the 'udges cannot be ousted . citing Iandueta vs.er to abolish. Courts are not entailed to their 'udges. ">6. /tate.er to reorgani&e is to render i!potent the e ercise of that po.er to organi&e and to reorgani&e the!. .3. The right of 'udges to hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of <= years. "D< M"$66N. As long as those Courts e ist. (or. 'udges are entailed to their Courts.ledge.ith that encu!brance and *no.ill necessarily have to lose his position because the abolished Court is not entailed to hi!. <56. . 0f an inferior Court is abolished.ith that encu!brance and *no. $D Phil. Cuitoriano. Corbin.hich they cannot be separated before retire!ent age e cept as a disciplinary action for bad behavior.ith the po. This %individuality% character of /ection < is supported by the clause that the /upre!e Court has the po. 65 /.er to create a court carries . Enage. 6" ). 0f that syste! can no longer ad!it of change.as enacted by the Batasang Pa!bansa in response to an urgent and pressing public need and not for the purpose of affecting adversely the security of tenure of all 'udges or legislating the! out to the detri!ent of +udicial independence. c@ The constitutional guarantee of tenure of 'udges applies only as their Courts e ist."omas v. $=5 M"$6DN@. Aas not the i!pression been created in the public and that there are those . /ection < 7uoted above refers to the tenure of office of %individual% 'udges ?inclusive of 'ustices of inferior Courts that is to say. By the abolition of those offices. A legislature is not bound to give security of tenure to Courts. e rel. )fficer.as not intended to be 7ualified by the per!anence of tenure ?)pinion of Chief 'ustice Ricardo Paras in )ca!po vs. 0t is the character and the !ettle of the 'udges . under /ection <. 0n fact. Rep. organi&e or reorgani&e inferior Courts ?Brillo vs.heels of progress and the i!peratives of gro. /ecretary of 'ustice. The +udge of such court ta*es office . and that the po. the po. the rights to the! are necessarily e tinguished ?Manalang vs. tenure of office is a !atter concerning the individual 'udge.er to discipline in'ivi'ual +udges of inferior Courts.ithout +ust causeG that is the e tent of the constitutional provision relative to security of tenure of 'udges. because the po.er of Congress under the Constitution cannot be abridged.er. the affected Courts %shall be dee!ed auto!atically abolished There being no Courts. >$4G /tate.er to abolish it. citing McCulley vs.hich tenure of 'udges !ay be clai!ed. 3aines # 8ea 5">@. D6 Ala "=5. 6D /o #45.een tenure of 'udges and tenure of Courts. >> Phil. #.er to abolish those Courts.er to abolish . et al.". "<= Ala. 0t should .

% 0t is %the first !a+or reorgani&ation after four generations.R..er of re!oval basically e ecutive in nature. D5 NE "==6.% 0t does not provide for a piece!eal change.eightier. Nor does a conflict e ist .ever. A public office is a public trust ?/ection ". 0t goes to the roots and does not +ust scratch the surface of our +udicial syste!.er to discipline.er to dis!iss . D= Mont. cited in Martin. . the %attain!ent of !ore efficiency in the disposal of cases. 8a. the po.illed that the Courts be abolished.ould be no deprivation either of due process of la. Besides. #. Being circu!scribed in scope. .ith the po.er of discipline vested in the /upre!e Court by the present Constitution reading.hich is an individual right. and a revision of procedures . /ection 6 ?>@. it bears stressing that there is no re!oval fro! office but abolition of the office itself. There is no sho.% These ai!s are policy !atters of necessity in the pursuit of develop!ental goals .hich do not tend to the proper !eting out of +ustice. The po. Public interest and public good. "$<= ed.8. Reverting to /ection " and /ection <. 5<4-5<$. it !ay . The reorgani&ation of the +udicial syste! .er %to discipline 'udges of inferior Courts. 5# 8RA. The abolition . .ith !a+or refor!s in other depart!ents of govern!ent. the /upre!e Court shall have the po.ith the bona fi'e rule in the abolition of public office. ">> Mass. supre!e .ithin the li!its of its o. 0ts !ain ob+ectives are an i!proved ad!inistration of +ustice.er of appoint!ent of the e ecutive . #5>G 8lanto vs.riot be said of the Batasang Pa!bansa that its po.ing that the Reorgani&ation Act . p. "#< A.ell. of the Philippines.er to discipline can co!e into play only .er to dis!issal vested in the /upre!e Court by the "$<5 Constitution is deli!ited by its po. 0t is a privilege in the gift of the /tate ?Bro.elfare of the country than the tenure of office of an individual 'udge. D>4G /tate vs.er to discipline cannot pose an obstacle to the abolition. as the legislative body vie./.ithout cause there can be da!age to the public .er of appoint!ent.er to discipline. 0t is of significance to note that the po.ers in our govern!ent to state that the /upre!e Court shares its po. Eduards.ith the po. on Public )fficers and Election 8a. Article K000. D.er of re!ovalH 0s it not !ore in *eeping . because the %'udiciary% is of !ore i!portance to the . but !aintenance of a Court that does not !eet the re7uire!ents of progressive 3overn!ent.C. Besides.ould be futile to spea* of the /upre!e Court9s po. until that presu!ption is clearly overco!e. 0f a 'udge is re!oved .s it.ithin the 'udiciary.n sphere. 65<@.as !otivated for personal or political reasons as to +ustify the interference by the Court ?3arvey vs. can cause incalculable pre+udice to the people. 46 N. by a vote of at least 4 !e!bers. 5. "> /CRA 6$$ M"$>>N@. Noel. order their dis!issal Absent the Court. %The thrust is on develop!ent. #4<G "=> Pac. a reallocation of +urisdiction. as an incident to the po. p. A public office is not a contract ?/egovia vs. The 7uestioned statute is in *eeping . "4#. The officers are the servants of the people and not their rulers ?## R.ell be as*ed. "$<5 Constitution@. Absent any need for discipline and the po. every presu!ption of good faith in its actuations !ust be accorded a coordinate and coe7ual branch of govern!ent. it .ho appoints so!e of the Court officials These 7uestions could lend the!selves to an in-depth study in the proper case.hen there is re!oval fro! an e isting +udicial office but not .ith tenure of 'udges. !ust be balanced .er of abolition of Courts has been used to disguise an unconstitutional and evil purpose to defeat the security of tenure of 'udges. Ao. 6D5 M"$#6N@.E. Thus. Article K of the Constitution provides that the /upre!e Court shall appoint its officials and e!ployees. "D. . as clearly e plained in the !ain opinion.. 8o. 1i!aporo..C.er of discipline and dis!issal in the /upre!e Court deprive the e ecutive of the po. A public office cannot be regarded as the %property % of the incu!bent.er to discipline the 'udges of the abolished Courts.er to dis!iss does not e ist. supra.ith the abolition of certain Courts is not an e ercise of the po. D<. is not this po. Ad!inistrative 8a.er of re!ovalH (or is not the po.hich is the prerogative of the Chief E ecutive alone As in the case of appoint!ents. Eol. Russell. 6.n vs. D< Phil.hen that it office is abolished. #65 cited also in TaJada O Carreon. . and.ith the e ecutive po. The 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4" sufficiently co!plies .here the legislature has . "$ R.8.hich could be ineffective.ith the allocation of po. ""#. "$$ Mass.elfare to so!e e tent.er shared . does the grant of the po. the for!er is the .@. Political 8a. >$6.

hich is the only constitutional Court. 0t also allo.ould try all cases . This does a. thirteen ?"5@ 'udicial Regions. certiorari.ith its o. five !e!bers co!posing each division.rial Courts There is one Metropolitan Trial Court . Thus. can pro!ulgate a decision. in case of dissent. Ena#e ?$D Phil. orders or a.o ?#@ Cri!inal Cases 1ivisions and four ?D@ /pecial Cases 1ivisions. . This ensures !obility since a 'udge !ay be assigned any.rial Courts There are no.ithin its original and appellate +urisdiction.rits or processes . <5# M"$6DN@ .ith several Branches for large urban areas. The Court has been given original +urisdiction to issue .ill continue to re!ain applicable in Branches assigned those special cases. /peciali&ed Courts are integrated into the Regional Trial Courts. .o other !e!bers to co!pose a %division of five%.ith the Constitution.>.er to grant and conduct ne.ithout applying the constitutional li!itation of si !onths. The Reorgani&ation Act reorgani&ing the entire +udicial syste! e cluding the /upre!e Court. and the /andiganbayan.ould undoubtedly ease the burden of the /upre!e Court . resolutions. and a !a+ority vote of three !e!bers being needed for a decision.here .as !erely changed to Municipal 'udge after the !unicipality of Tacloban . of assigning t. This obviates the cu!berso!e procedure. /pecial procedures and technical rules governing special Courts . . 7uo . 0t envisages institutional refor!s in the Philippine +udiciary.ithin its +urisdiction unless special cases are assigned to the!.ith the delays attendant to the re!and of cases to the lo. constituted into ten ?"=@ divisions instead of fifteen ?"6@. 0t has e clusive appellate +urisdiction over all final +udg!ents."e 2nterme'iate Appellate Court This Court is no. This .here nu!erous such cases are filed daily. decisions.ithin the e clusive appellate +urisdiction of the /upre!e Court in accordance . . instead of si teen ?">@ 'udicial 1istricts.n charter. Additionally.ould be to a Metropolitan Trial Court although a 'udge !ay be assigned by the /upre!e Court to any Branch of the Metropolitan Trial Court as de!anded by the e igencies of the service. habeas corpus. the sa!e as the present ad!inistrative and Batasang Pa!bansa Regions.er to try cases and conduct hearings. provided for is speciali&ation into four ?D@ Civil Cases 1ivisions. The facts herein are dissi!ilar fro! those in &rillo vs. receive evidence and perfor! any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling .arranto and au iliary . boards or co!!issions. arriving at unani!ity.ithin the Region .ards of 7uasi-+udicial agencies. Regional Trial Courts . No. including the po.here the position of 'ustice of the Peace. >e#ional . 0t does not si!ply change the na!es of the Courts. The appoint!ent of 'udges . . have the po. A 'udge is appointed to a region.ay .ould no.hether or not in aid of its appellate +urisdiction. The 0nter!ediate Appellate Court .s fle ibility in that any three !e!bers of a division. trials or further proceedings ?/ec. although ostensibly abolished. prohibition.hich case.hich is his official station. The speciali&ation is e pected to contribute to the e peditious disposal of cases. /ignificant a!ong the institutional changes and procedural refor!s are. -it can re!edy te!porary ine7ualities of caseloads in trial Courts.rits of !anda!us. they re!ain as Branches of Regional Trial Courts. t. etropolitan . instru!entalities. $@. e cept those falling .as converted into a city .er trial Courts. in .

. efficient. order. in no case shall the total salary of each 'ustice or 'udge concerned.een the old and the ne. b@ Appoint!ents and their effectivity should be si!ultaneous . a.% Thus. This . 4. set up is that 'udges of these Courts . 5> /ct #=D@. there is a unifor! period for appeal of fifteen ?"6@ days counted fro! the notice of the final order. resolution. c@ The services of those not separated should be dee!ed uninterrupted. c@ :nder /ection D=. To obviate the possibility of an unconstitutional e ercise of po.here the incu!bent 'udges are !erely designated by the /upre!e Court in an Ad!inistrative )rder to sit in e isting Municipal Courts and Municipal Circuit Courts. thereby resulting in overall fle ibility. But . is also provided for. <.ith those in cities not for!ing part of !etropolitan areas.ill no.hile the la. 5$#. unli*e the present set-up .ho !ay not reach the top. a@ The President can be e pected to indicate a reasonable ti!e fra!e for the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation provided for in the Act and the issuance of the corresponding i!ple!enting )rder. after this longevity pay is added. 'ustices and 'udges . adoption by reference of findings of fact and conclusions of la. Ed. . to the declaration by the President of the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation under /ection DD to avoid any detri!ent to the s!ooth and continuous functioning of the +udicial !achinery.ing safeguards are reco!!ended and2or e pected to be underta*en. the !anner in . be Presidential appointees unli*e presently . or resolution appealed fro!.ritten is constitutional.een trial Courts have been entirely eli!inated. They can also be circuiti&ed . d@ /ection D# provides for %a !onthly longevity pay e7uivalent to 6P of the !onthly basic pay for 'ustices and 'udges of the courts herein created for each five years of continuous.here special +urisdiction applies only to cases of traffic violations. There are innovative features in the Act that co!!end the!selves.ith.. The entire original record is no. >= 8.er the follo. to be trans!itted. A record on appeal is no longer re7uired to ta*e an appeal.rial Courts Municipal Trial Courts !ay no. b@ :nder /ection 5$.here unfortunately there is not enough roo! for all. Provided that.ill be ad!inistered should not be tainted .ill e pedite the rendition of decisions in appealed cases. in deciding appealed cases. itself as .ith unconstitutionality ?Myles /alt Co. !ay have the satisfaction of at least appro i!ating the salary scale of those above hi! depending on his length of service. #5$ :/ D<4. or as close as possible.rial Courts? unicipal Circuit . vs. or decision appealed fro!. a@ The confusing and illogical areas of concurrent +urisdiction bet. as set forth in the decision. and !eritorious service rendered in the 'udiciary. e ceed the salary of the 'ustice or 'udge ne t in ran*. unicipal . )ne notable change bet. Board of Co!!rs. +udg!ent.The /upre!e Court !ay designate certain Branches of said Courts to e ercise special +urisdiction over certain cases.ard. as reco!!ended by the Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation ?Article K0 of its Report@.hich it . be designated by the /upre!e Court to e ercise special +urisdiction over certain cases.

n that said . )ffice of the President. 0t is also constitutionally ob+ectionable in that it . so!e of its reco!!endations li*e the circuiti&ation or regionali&ation of the 0nter!ediate Appellate Court.as privileged to be a !e!ber. /pringer. the appellation of !e!bers of the 'udiciary.or* to the reco!!endation of options and guidelines in the tas* of reorgani&ation. ?)ca!po vs.ealth countries of having a Court of general +urisdiction . 6" ).ord of e planation. /ecretary of 'ustice.as because the Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation. J. length of service and other relevant factors shall be appointed to a strengthened and revitali&ed +udicial syste! in the interest of public serviceG that appoint!ents . concurring. to include the superior positions of 'udges . <4 /CRA 56D.ho . that the 'udiciary reorgani&ation la.ith the prerogative of appoint!ent intrinsically e ecutive in nature ?3uevara vs.ere created by la. )chave. .o!en . .ith trial and appellate divisions. confined its . "=. The Constitution grants to the Batasang Pa!bansa the po. Nothing should so trench upon e ecutive choice as to be.ould depart fro! the traditional concept of a staffing pattern.hile.er to abolish the sa!e. 0 a! constrained to disagree . .hich 0 . (urther!ore..een re!oval fro! office and abolition of an office. 5" /CRA #<4@ The po. The President !ay not be deprived of. Re!oval i!plies that the office subsists after ouster. (or the speedy i!ple!entation of the la. 0n fact. Pri!icias. The Co!!ittee had no part .hatsoever in the drafting of the bill nor in the public hearings conducted.ere not availed of in the final Act. ?Manalang vs. "". the full use of his discretion in the appoint!ent of persons to any public office.ill not be unduly delayedG and that appointees . is irrepealable. 0f 0 had resolved not to inhibit !yself in this case upon !otion filed by petitioners. is not unconstitutional. )s!eJa $ /CRA 5"<G Ma&a vs. Ra!iro. ER(CTA. upon considerations of %efficiency.er of the legislative branch of the govern!ent to abolish courts inferior to the /upre!e Court has long been established. . "> /CRA 5<$ M"$>>NG 3overn!ent of the Philippines vs. #5 /CRA $$4G Baldo& vs. 6= Phil. $=5G Cru& vs. it . 8astly. itself .hich enu!erates the various 'udges and 'ustices in their hierarchical order. $D Phil. nor be li!ited in. but by no !eans the least. No la.ould interfere . The po. Cuitoriano. The staffing pattern for 'udges is already clearly and e plicitly provided in the la.3. "D<@.ill be evaluated thoroughly to ensure 7uality and i!partiality in the !en and . 0t does not violate the principle of security of tenure of +udges.ithin thirty ?5=@ days fro! the date of finality of its 1ecision the staffing pattern for all Courts re7uired by /ection D5.er to create an office includes the po.hich refers !ore to personnel organi&ation and corresponding salaries of inferior e!ployees. in effect.ill *eep vigil over our +udicial ra!parts. ?Canonigo vs. 5>#@ A distinction should be !ade bet.ith the suggestion of one of the amici curiae that the staffing pattern be !ade to include the na!es of 'udges. #6$ M"$#<N@.hen there is no re!oval of a public officer or e!ployee but an abolition of his office. it need only be sho. 0 concur in the vie. 0 entertain no doubt that reliance can be placed on the good faith of the President that all the deserving.$.. in abolition.hat is only needed is that the abolition passes the test of good faith. All e isting inferior courts . of . the office no longer e ists thereby ter!inating the right of the incu!bent to e ercise the rights and duties of the office. the confine!ent of the +urisdiction of the 0nter!ediate Appellate Court !erely to appellate +urisdiction. integrity. #= /CRA "D#@ /ecurity of tenure cannot be invo*ed . /ection "@. +udicial designation. the /upre!e Court can be e pected to sub!it to the President . the adoption of the syste! found in the :nited Lingdo! and in Co!!on.. 0nocentes. A . ?:rgelio vs.er to create courts inferior to the /upre!e Court ?Article K.

so it has the po. ho. 0n the drafting of the present Constitution. But in a conflict bet.isdo!. signed into la. as the /upre!e Court itself has said. The fra!ers of the Constitution.een public interest and the individual interest of so!e 'udges and 'ustices.ing observations.er of appoint!ent is the e clusive prerogative of the President.eal !ust prevail. did not see fit to adopt the proposal.!a*ing body has the po.ith the function of giving advisory opinions. )s!eJa supra. The . Court of 0ndustrial Relations. Ad!ittedly.ould be upheld in one case or stric*en do. the Minister of 'ustice and the 1eputy Minister of 'ustice.ing. "#$.er to abolish or replace the! . The i!ple!entation of the la. not !erely presu!ed good faith attended its enact!ent. ". -n'ue 'ele#ation of le#islative po3ers . ?"@ the attain!ent of !ore efficiency in the disposal of casesG ?#@ the i!prove!ent in the 7uality of decisions by the courts that . #.as an atte!pt to vest the /upre!e Court .hose co!bined efforts after a careful study and deliberation resulted to the enact!ent of a bill no. $= /CRA >#$@ even to the President. B .ever.. or disregard the adviceG but. 'ustice Ricardo C./A vs.ould be free to follo. Bacolod B Murcia !illing Co. 5= /CRA ><G N. as has been done in the !ain opinion. The i!ple!entation of the la. as Batasang Pa!bansa Blg. As the la. J.ill result fro! the easing of court doc*etsG and ?5@ structural changes to !eet the e igencies of present day Philippine /ociety and of the foreseeable future. ?:rgelio vs.ith other courts as long as the act is done in good faith and not for the purpose of attaining an unconstitutional end. so!e 'udges and 'ustices !ay be adversely affected.ith the /upre!e CourtG and the /upre!e Court as such is not called upon to give legal advice to the President. and to the !e!bers of the Batasang Pa!bansa . Puno declared the ob+ectives of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation 8a. prescribe and apportion their +urisdiction. to be the follo. concurring.. 0ndeed. in the i!ple!entation of the la. 0 believe the President . :pon an e a!ination of the legislative history of Batas Pa!bansa "#$. there . there . 1 0 believe the President is under no obligation to consult . )n this basis.n in the other. 0n his sponsorship speech. 0 concur in the opinion penned by the learned Chief 'ustice. it cannot give advisory opinions ?Bacolod Murcia Planters9 Asso.. courts. PLANA.. . it is !anifest that actual.abolition of the courts is !erely incidental to a bona fide reorgani&ation. in either case. should be left e clusively to the . The po.@ 0t is unthin*able to i!pute bad faith to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation co!posed of four ?D@ distinguished !e!bers of the /upre!e Court. 0f the President should consult the /upre!e Court on the i!ple!entation of Batas Pa!bansa "#$ and the /upre!e Court should give its advice ?leaving aside the 7uestion of procedure@.elfare of the people is the supre!e la. E=ecutive consultation 3it" t"e Supreme Court. 0nc.er to create inferior courts and define. vs. the public .ould be no guarantee that the i!ple!enting action . 3ood faith has thus beco!e the crucial issue in the case at bar..ill entail appoint!ents to the ne. patriotis! and states!anship of the President. 7ualified only by the follo.

for the follo. J.ould effect an increase of #5= +udicial positions raising the total of +udicial positions to be filled by ne. and !e!bers of the Batasan actively discharge e ecutive functions. dissenting.er.!e!ber Court of Ta Appeals@ and upon declaration by the President of the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation . such po. :nless sooner .ers could be negated via unbridled 'ele#ation of legislative po.n by resolution of the Batasang Pa!bansa.@ in the leading "$66 case of 0campo 3 .ers shall cease upon its ne t ad+ourn!ent.ould unprecedentedly dee! all the said courts %auto!atically abolished en !asse and %the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office. i!port and e port 7uotas. the Batasang Pa!bansa !ay by la. Cesar Beng&on.The petitioners have also assailed the constitutionality of Batas Pa!bansa "#$ on the ground that a provision thereof ?regarding fi ing of co!pensation and allo.er. The Pri!e Minister indeed !ust co!e fro! its ran*s.er.ers. at least vis-avis the E ecutive 1epart!ent. authori&e the President to fi . Cabinet !e!bers play a leading role in the legislative process. tonnage and .er.>>5 +udicial positions .ever so!e observations on the doctrine of undue delegation of legislative po.er. "<?#@. 0 regretably find !yself unable to +oin the ran*s of !y estee!ed colleagues in the !a+ority .ances for !e!bers of the 'udiciary@ constitutes an undue delegation unto the President of legislative po."4= incu!bent +udges and D45 vacancies@ as of 'anuary #>.N TEE7AN8EE.er. 0 . /ec. and other duties or i!posts.ise.as good reason to !aintain the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative po.. tariff rates. Bautista. E000.ithdra. )ther. authori&e the President for a li!ited period and sub+ect to such restrictions as it !ay prescribe. Not. the legislature has provided a!ple standards or guidelines for the i!ple!entation of the delegated po.ith ". M2bi'. There is no.hich !a*es the delegation inoffensive.ers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Roberto Concepcion and '. the present Constitution has significantly eroded the hoary doctrine of non-delegation of legislative po. 0 go by the ruling of the nu!erical !a+ority of seven 'ustices ?na!ely. 'ugo. as to avert the abdication thereof.er and thereby correspondingly reduce the incidence of %undue% delegation of legislative po. . ''.ever radically changed the constitutional set-up. 0n a very real sense. there . ?Art. to e ercise po. /ec. Monte!ayor.ar or other national e!ergency.ould li*e to add ho.as separation of legislative and e ecutive po.ers in the hands of the sa!e group of officials. :nder the circu!stances. this ti!e perhaps not so !uch to authori&e shifting of po.ho uphold the constitutionality of the Act and have voted to dis!iss the petition. ".ithstanding the great deference due to enact!ents of the Batasan. "#$ by its title . :ndoubtedly.ho fell short by one vote to reach the constitutionally re7uired #25 !a+ority ?at the ti!e 4 out of an ""-!e!ber /upre!e Court@ to declare unconstitutional and invalid section 5 .@ The Batasang Pa!bansa !ay by la. the principle of separationof govern!ental po.hen the abiding rule .hich .% 2 The total abolition involves a total of ".4$5. appoint!ents to ". :nder the old Constitution.ithin specified this and sub+ect to such stations and restrictions as it !ay i!pose.B. although it has retained so!e provisions of the old Constitution .harfage dues. Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "$4# and the Act . As pointed out in the !ain opinion. .ing !ain considerations and reasons. a co!!ingling or fusion of e ecutive and legislative po. 0n ti!es of . Reyes.ere predicated on the principle of non-delegation. there is really not !uch sense in rigidly upholding the principle of non-delegation of legislative po. no !ore crucial and transcendental issue of such !agnitude has confronted the Philippine +udiciary than in the present case. "6. Pablo.er. The challenged Act. The "$<5 Constitution has ho.8.ould reorgani&e all e isting courts ?e cept the nine-!e!ber /andiganbayan 1 and the three.er.

''.% #.% But the collision !ay he should be avoided.or* of +urists.ise he .ithout allo. later Chief 'ustice Cesar Beng&on re!ar*ed in his separate opinion B %?T@he MadverseN outco!e of this litigation Msanctioning the ouster fro! office of the ten petitioners .hich shall prevail )bviously the e press guaranty !ust override the i!plied authority. >@ 5 5. and 9never in our history has such a nu!ber of +udges of first instance Mtotalling 55 positionsN been ousted through +udicial reorgani&ation.ing the incu!bent to finish his ter! of office.ords.ere presiding different Courts of (irst 0nstance.er to establish courtsG t"erefore it has i!plicit po.ittingly the Constitution has further .ill perceive that . ""4> abolishing the positions of +udges-at large and cadastral +udgesN is apt to revive the speculation .er to e+ect the +udges holding such positions. others as cadastral +udges.ise has po. To bring about reconciliations is the great .ithout per!anent station . %0!plications can never be per!itted to contradict the e pressed intent or to defeat its purpose.ould go .ith the e=pressguaranty of tenure protecting the petitioners. Resulting +uridical situation. Congress has e press po. ?Cardo&o. A careful analysis .@ .hether . p.ith the !a+ority that %Congress !ay not. under the Constitution the Congress !ay abolish e isting courts.ittingly or un. Accurately stated. As then Associate.hile 'ustice Ale Reyes conceded that other. and both sections given validity.ith the parado ical situation that the last three na!ed 'ustices voted for the validity of the Act as a re!edial !easure that abolished said positions .hich they considered as %repulsive to an independent +udiciary% and violative of an e press prohibitory provision of the "$56 Constitution Q . as a general rule.ho . 0n other .ea*ened the usually . Parado es of 8egal /cience. Ais rationale that the e press constitutional guaranty of security of tenure of +udges %during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office% 3 !ust prevail over the i!plied constitutional authority to abolish courts and to oust the +udges despite their constitutionally-secured tenure bears repeating thus. because they reason out thusly.A. then Chief 'ustice Paras and Padilla. .er. . The implie' authority invo*ed by respondents collides .er to abolish courts and the positions of +udges of such abolished courts ?first inference@G an' t"erefore ?second inference@ Congress li*e.ithout the consent of the /upre!e Court.ea* +udicial depart!ent because of its 9innovative9 re7uire!ent of a #25 !a+ority vote of the /upre!e Court to declare a statute unconstitutional. upon the enact!ent on 'une "$.hereas petitioners invo*e an e=press guaranty or positivedefinition of their ter! of office. "$6D of R. 1e la Costa.hich sub+ected the! to a ri#o'on 'e @ueces .of Republic Act ""4> abolishing the positions of "4 +udges-at-large and "6 cadastral +udges and re!oving or legislating out the incu!bent +udges fro! office as against the contrary vote of a !inority of D 'ustices ?na!ely. so!e as +udges-at-large. respondents9 defense rests on a secon'inference deduced fro! such implie' po. Ale Reyes and 8abrador. if one be considered a proviso or e ception to the other. abolish a +udicial post . provided it does not thereby re!ove the incu!bent +udgesG such abolition to ta*e effect upon ter!ination of their incu!bent The funda!ental provisions on the !atter are thereby coordinated and har!oni&ed9 as 'ustice 8aurel suggested in his concurring opinion in Iandueta v. This reasoning that the e press guaranty of tenure protecting incu!bent +udges during good behavior unless re!oved fro! office after hearing and due process or upon reaching the co!pulsory retire!ent age of seventy years !ust override the i!plied authority of re!oving by . the respondents rely on implie' authority to abolish courts and the positions of the respective +udges.

ere in fact substituted or replaced by other positions of +udgesG or if you please. order their dis!issal. there .ith another na!e. After the passage of Republic Act No. No.ith sa!e po.% citing Professor 'ose Aruego9s observation that the security of +udges9 tenure provision .@ (or it is not per!issible to effect the re!oval of one +udge thru the e pediency of abolishing his office even as the office . these petitioners are entitled to re!ain in the service. ""4 tenn. This being so.. before. 3ibbe9s Case D A. <"4-<"$@% Ae further cited Aruego9s report that a proposed a!end!ent to the effect that the prohibition against transfers of +udges to another district .R. 0n this vie. %?C@all it reorgani&ation.ned on re!oval of +udges of first instance through abolition of their offices or reorgani&ation.hile the %positions MthatN . .ith the sa!e bill. "$6D. "". Act #$>@. the Convention evidently could not have per!itted the re!oval of +udges thru re-organi&ation. and should haveas suggested by /ecretary Tua&on during the hearings in Congress directed in said Republic Act No.ere eli!inated .as intended to %help secure the independence of the +udiciary% in that %during good behavior.ere "=< +udges of first instance. as originally proposed by /enator 8aurel in connection . .e believe.ould have so clearly provided for such for! of re!oval in the "$<5 Constitution. this la. nor in the nu!ber of courts. because such +udges had already been appointed to the +udiciary before the . but actually retained .ished to dispel the strong doubts. There . March 5=.. . ?Brillo v. The abolition of their offices . but the a!end!ent .illia!s. ""4> there . Munless incapacitated and until retire!entN. The (ra!ing of the Philippine Constitution.as done before. As for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on stressed in his opinion in 0campo.8.ith the consent of the Co!!ission on Appoint!ents or by the /ecretary of 'ustice.hich involves an unprecedented total %abolition. ?Aruego. by a vote of at least eight !e!bers. 3. ""4> that 9the present +udges-at-large and cadastral +udges shall beco!e district +udges presiding such districts as !ay be fi ed by the President .hatsoeverG they !ay stay in office until they reach the age of seventy years. No. or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.as for!erly lodged by the 'udiciary Act in the Chief E ecutive. disregards the constitutional assurance that these +udges. pp. 8-<""6. the funda!ental point e!phasi&ed by for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on that abolition of the 55 +udicial positions in the 0campo case . shall hold office during good behavior .ere ""D positions of +udges of first instance.as a !ere change of designation fro! 9Cadastral 'udge or 'udge at large to district +udge Aence it should be ruled that as their positions had not been 9abolished9 de facto..ith greater force in the case at bar . /o!ething si!ilar .legislation the +udges has been further strengthened and placed beyond doubt by the ne. there . p. of the picture.ere eli!inatedG but they . once appointed. the "$5D Constitutional Convention %fro. having vetoed the transfer of +udges thru a re-organi&ation. but on the contrary as already stated they ruled out such re!oval or ouster of +udges by legislative action by vesting e clusively in the /upre!e Court the po. provisions of the "$<5 Constitution that transferred the ad!inistrative supervision over all courts and their personnel fro! the Chief E ecutive through the then /ecretary of 'ustice to the /upre!e Court 4 and vested in the /upre!e Court e clusively %the po.as !erely an indirect !anner of re!oving these petitioners. Enage.er is created . . 5$". they !ay not be legislated out of office by the la. then they . Enage. Malone v.ere in fact substituted or replaced by other positions of +udges% applies .er . Eol. to say the least in the light of the < to D vote in the 0campo case against re!oval of incu!bent +udges through legislative action by abolition of their courts.ith another na!e.ithout the approval of the /upre!e Court 8 %should not be applicable to a reorgani&ation of tribunals of +ustice or of districts. The positions of 'udges-at-8arge and Cadastral 'udges . Congress could have. ?Brillo v.% 7 .-!a*ing body nor re!oved by the Chief E ecutive for any reason and under the guise of any pretense . Re!e!ber that on 'une "$..as %!erely an indirect !anner of re!oving the petitioners-+udges% . if the fra!ers of the "$<5 Constitution .hich po. or legislation or re!oval or abolition. there . .er of discipline and re!oval of +udges of all inferior courts. and it .R. +udges at-large and cadastral +udges ?Rep. #""@. district +udges. D.as no reduction there .as defeated easily .ould not be ob+ectionable as an encroach!ent on the President9s prerogative of appoint!ent.ithout debate% 9 and logically concluded that %?N@o. "$6D.% thus.er to discipline +udges of inferior courts and.as increase B in the nu!ber of +udges.

er to abolish courts as i!plied fro! the po.% The good faith in the enact!ent of the challenged Act !ust needs be granted. Adherents of the Rule of 8a. no. the 7uestioned Act effects certain changes and procedural refor!s .er to establish the! . 8aurel in his separate concurring opinion in the pre-. The Courts of (irst 0nstance. records. supra.ithout appearing to be i!prudent and i!proper and declare that %the legislative po. property and the necessary personnel together . 0 do not subscribe to the test of good faith or bad faith in the abolition of the courts and conse7uent ouster of the incu!bent +udges fro! office as e pounded by the late e!inent 'ustice 'ose P. .ith the e press constitutional guaranty of tenure of the +udges . 13 Realistically vie.ithout fear or favor B %free.% 6. but they do not change the basic structure of the e isting courts.ith a reduction of the nu!ber of divisions fro! "6 ?co!posed of 5 'ustices each@ to "= ?co!posed of 6 !e!bers each@ such that it is feared that there is created a bottlenec* at the appellate level in the i!portant tas* discharged by such appellate courts as revie.hat specific cases of the %old courts% . and the provision !ay be construed in the light of !ere change of official designation plus increase in salary. courts% not been !anifestly and substantially the %old courts% . the %candid ad!ission% by the Chief 'ustice in his opinion for the Court %that he entertained doubts as to . one is hard put to con+ure a case . !y adherence to the <-!e!ber !a+ority opinion of for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on in the 0campo case.ers of facts. agrarian cases.er of reorgani&ation ?is@ sought to cloa* an unconstitutional and evil purpose.ed fro! the basis of the established legal presu!ptions of validity and constitutionality of statutes ?unless set aside by a #25 !a+ority of "= !e!bers of the /upre!e Court@ and of good faith in their enact!ent.passage of the act.% This could not have been possible .ith provision for certain branches thereof %to handle e clusively cri!inal cases. together . as restated by the Philippine Association of 8a.arranto on the ground of petitioner Iandueta9s estoppel and abandon!ent of office. . tribunal% 15a is e7ually applicable to all the other above !entioned courts provided for in the challenged Act as %ne.hereby the %old courts% shall %be dee!ed auto!atically abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office %?T@he cases pending in the old Courts shall be transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act. .hat !ust be reconciled is the legislative po..ith an increase in the nu!ber of Appellate 'ustices fro! the present D6 to 6= but . . Concededly.here the Court could speculate on the good or bad !otives behind the enact!ent of the Act . 'uvenile O 1o!estic Relations Courts and Courts of Agrarian Relations are all restructured and redesignated to be *no.n by the co!!on na!e of Regional Trial Courts . ineptness and inco!petence but even fro! the tentacles of interference and insiduous influence of the political po.ers that be to 7uote again fro! 'ustice Barredo9s separate concurring opinion. s.hich is essential for a free and independent +udiciary.ith a change of na!e B or as described by 'ustice Barredo to have been his first vie.% had these %ne. Professors headed by for!er Chief 'ustice Roberto Concepcion . corruption.ith !ore specific delineation of +urisdiction as !entioned particularly in the !a+ority opinion. are agreed that indispensable for the !aintenance of the Rule of 8a. and2or such other special cases as the /upre!e Court !ay deter!ine in the interest of a speedy and efficient ad!inistration of +ustice% 15 and the Court of Appeals is restructured and redesignated as the 0nter!ediate Appellate Court . it . And the best proof of this is the plain and si!ple transitory provision in section DD thereof that upon the President9s declaration of co!pletion of the reorgani&ation ?.% 11 >. +uvenile and do!estic relations cases. discarded. not only fro! graft. courts. courts%.ar case of )an'ueta 12 . 0n !y vie.ith the pertinent functions. 13 Aence. in his separate opinion. and not a substantial and actual !odification or alteration of the present +udicial structure or syste!% or %a rearrange!ent or re!odeling of the old structure. Circuit Cri!inal Courts. urban land refor! cases . %+ust a rena!ing.ith the %applicable appropriations.ould be transferred to the particular %ne. Municipal Circuit Courts and City Courts are restructured and redesignated as Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts in the challenged Act..ithout a specification and enu!eration of . e7uip!ent.hether the inter!ediate court of appeals provided for is a ne. is a free and independent +udiciary.orn to protect and enforce.herein the Court dis!issed the petition for 7uo . The present Municipal Courts.

arned of the dire conse7uences of giving the 7uestioned provisions of the Act the %absolutist sense .% 1ean Corte& aptly stressed that %+udicial independence is not a guarantee intended for the /upre!e Court alone.ide proble! of congested court doc*ets. thus !a*ing of the +udiciary a veritable stra.hereas the long line of Philippine cases upholding the legislative po. courts9N unless they are re!oved for cause. no 7uestion or encroach!ent by one branch on the other could be apprehended or alleged. the !andate and spirit of the Constitution guaranteeing their security of tenure and !aintaining the independence of the +udiciary should be respected. is an i!portant safeguard of the Rule of 8a. the process of e!bar*ing upon a !odified parlia!entary syste! !ay .% and %?P@articularly under the present for! of !odified parlia!entary govern!ent . the incu!bents of the e isting courts to re!ain in office Mthe appropriate counterpart 9ne. 8a.s.hich its independence assu!es an even !ore vital i!portance. Alafri&.er to abolish offices refers to officers or e!ployees in the e ecutive branch of govern!ent and %the underlying consideration !ust be borne in !ind that Manalang Mthe aggrieved petitionerN belon#e' to t"e E=ecutive *epartment and because the President approved the la.ise.P. % The e tensive !e!oranda filed by 1ean Corte& and other amici curiae such as for!er /enator 'ose .% have greatly helped in fortifying !y vie. "#$ . %for the +udiciary .est levels because there are !ore of the! and they operate closest to the people. official and other.eeps through practically the entire +udiciary .ho advocates for the Court9s adoption of the B Beng&on !a+ority opinion in the 0campo case so as to abide by %the ele!entary rule in the interpretation of constitutions that effect should be given to all parts of the Constitution% and that the +udges9 security of tenure guaranty should not be rendered !eaningless and inoperative% for!er /olicitor 3eneral Arturo A.n the Act %to prevent further destruction of +udicial independence. that %The principles of unre!ovability of the 'udiciary and their /ecurity of Tenure until death or until a retiring age fi ed by statute is reached.ho strongly urges the Court to stri*e do. in the political .% for!er /enator 8oren&o /u!ulong. the /upre!e Court ?e cept the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals@ and the re!oval of the incu!bent 'ustices and 'udges %violates the independence of the +udiciary. 1ean Corte& . Raul M.ea*est branch of govern!ent.yers9 Association .er courts !ay be reshuffled or abolished in the process. 15 This is not a !atter of personal privilege for the incu!bent +udges but as aptly stated by for!er :.. president of the Philippine Constitution Association . and to i!prove +udicial services in the public interest.% <. At this stage of our political develop!ent. The %+udges9 broader and stronger guarantees of tenure than ordinary civil servants% as stressed by for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on in Ms !a+ority opinion in 0campo is based on the +udiciary9s status as a coe7ual and coordinate branch of govern!ent.that %any reorgani&ation should at least sno. the +udiciary is left to perfor! the chec*ing function in the perfor!ance of . 4. are entitled to security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution. it should be borne in !ind that the !e!bers of the +udiciary as the . and they should be retained in the ne.hich s.er to abolish courts asserted under Batas Pa!bansa Blg. %?T@o accept legislative po.ould be to open the door to future court abolitions in the guise of reorgani&ation. Even though the lo. 1io*no . it e tends to the entire court syste! and is even !ore vital to the courts at the lo.hich they appear to have at first blush% thus. 1ean 0rene Corte& in her !e!orandu! as amicus curiae.hose independence is not only eroded but is in grave danger of being co!pletely destroyed. 0 had sub!itted in !y !e!o of /epte!ber D.orld.ith legislative and e ecutive functions overlapping and in certain areas !erging. "$4= to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation that %?. each ruling party in the legislature or any alliance that can co!!and a !a+ority vote !ay periodically underta*e co!plete reorgani&ation and re!ove +udges. 3on&ales.% 0n the sa!e vein. courts. yet called upon to safeguard the people9s rights and protect the! oppression.ho sub!its that the total abolition of all courts belo.ho invo*es the 1eclaration of 1elhi at the 0C' Conference in "$6$.@hatever reorgani&ation plans the co!!ittee !ay reco!!end to !eet the . their security of tenure and right to due process guaranteed the! by the Constitution% and Atty. . president of the National Bar Association of the Philippines .here despite guarantees of +udicial tenure.ind and %?(@urther!ore. president of the Philippine 8a. .ell usher in a situation .

er of the s.or*ing relationship bet.er to replace even the +udges appointed after the effectivity on 'anuary "<. "$<#. not to !a*e !ore enfeebled an already feeble +udiciary.een the e ecutive and the legislative branches.ho.% 0n the cited case of 'udge (ortun ?li*e. "#$. The Court per its March #<.ord of 1a!ocles of future +udicial reorgani&ations "=.ith the provision transferring to the /upre!e Court ad!inistrative supervision over the 'udiciary.ere to be carried out the President . 0t is understandable then . "$4= resolution ordered both to refrain fro! discharging the functions of the 7uestioned office And no.ith the further observation that %!any are the .hat can result in the !odified parlia!entary syste! fro! the close . "$<5 of the "$<5 Constitution is yet invo*ed on behalf of the President in the pending case of . . .er to re!ove and replace all +udges and officials 14 ?as against the li!ited one-year period for the e ercise of such po.ho . e7ually stressed that %.eeping reva!p provided .ho. 0f the s.er granted President Cue&on in the "$56 Constitution upon establish!ent of the Philippine Co!!on. invo*ed his constitutional security of tenure and 7uestioned the appoint!ent e tended on (ebruary #>. The po. that such post-"$<5 Constitution appointed +udges are not sub+ect to the Replace!ent Clause of the cited Transitory Provision. than the interests of +usticeH As it is. The urgent need is to strengthen the +udiciary ..hich li*e the +udiciary are guaranteed independence.aban# 18 it as stressed that .ere replaced or . /hall .ith a record of losing cases% in the +udge9s court and i!posed the penalty of censure on each and everyone of the private respondents-la.hich is essential for a free and independent +udiciary as !andated by the Constitution.hose resignations .yers for the %unsee!ly haste% . abetted by %the appearance of sheer vindictiveness or oppressive e ercise of state .er or of the political boss.ays by .ould rather serve the interests of the party in po. afraid of ouster thru a +udiciary reshuffle. had been re7uired to hand in their resignations.ith the restoration of the security of tenure of +udges. 0t is li*e.hich they filed the cri!inal co!plaint.here to all intends and purposes.9 +udges .hich such independence could be eroded.ithstanding the generally held vie. .ord nor the purse.e render it feebler . especially so at present. although he had not been re!oved or other. The Chief 'ustice. the 'udicial 1epart!ent is feeble enough.apucar vs.ould appoint all of the +ustices and +udges of the courts affected and the .ise undeniable that the Batasang Pa!bansa retains its full authority to enact .ould be his appointees. there is a greater need 9to preserve uni!paired the independence of the +udiciary.ith . "$<>. co!es this total abolition of ". Branch ". . .hole !e!bership in the +udiciary fro! the highest to the lo.ith respondent fiscal 8abang by %disgruntled !e!bers of the bar . /hall . ?0n this case.ould have ans.eep and scope.as rendered nugatory by the Transitory Provisions of the "$<5 Constitution .ise dis!issed fro! his position nor had be resigned therefro!.est courts . "$<# to April.e have +udges of the type of 8ord Co*e )r +udges.hatever legislation !ay be necessary to carry out national policy as usually for!ulated in a caucus of the !a+ority party.een e ecutive and legislature is !ade !anifest in Batas Pa!bansa Blg. !ama'or 17 not. There is listed a total of 65 +udges .9% 19 .% $. "$<> as +udge of the Court of (irst 0nstance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City.ealth :pon the declaration of !artial la.hy in !ortun vs. .ere accepted by the President during the period fro! /epte!ber.hat his !a+esty pleases. possessed neither of the po. in his place. petitioner +udge appointed on 'anuary 5=.>>5 +udicial positions ?and thousands of personnel positions@ unprecedented in its s. there is a fusion bet. e cept the /upre!e Court.hat is e7ually apparent is that the strongest ties bind the e ecutive and legislative depart!ents. in his opinion for the Court.ith +udges precariously occupying their official seats 'udges perfor!ing their duties under the s. in /epte!ber.hich granted the incu!bent President the unli!ited po.ise penned by the Chief 'ustice for the Court@. "$4= to respondent to replace hi!.ered 909ll do . 0t is relevant to point out that it is precisely a situation li*e this that the Constitution see*s to avoid . The +udges9 security of tenure . +ustices and +udges of all courts.hen it provides staggered ter!s for the chair!an and !e!bers of the constitutional co!!issions . the Court issued a . as decried by for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on in his0campo !a+ority opinion.rit of prohibition and certiorari ordering the dis!issal of the cri!inal co!plaint filed .

ithin its o. yes B but not unfair nor unconstitutional.authority.here on public record is there hard evidence on this.ith the !ost perfect procedural rules cannot satisfy the people and the interests of +ustice unless the !en . i. "#$ discussed in the course of co!!ittee hearings of Cabinet Bill No.% 23 and invo*es the adage of $#ran'es males.% and that %?0@f this be the case. ho. ?Barredo. for the !ost 0deal +udicial syste! .orse.ith the po.as denied the opportunity to defend hi!self against the accusation.hich is to assert the po. This brings us to the allegedly underlying need for B.hich traditionally cannot defend itself e cept . the unprecedented.. .. a failure to abide by a Resolution of the 0ntegrated Bar stressing that precisely integration could shield 9the +udiciary .ord of 1a!ocles hanging over their heads could provo*e the! into see*ing the help of people clai!ing to have influence . D# and the deliberation on second reading in the Batasang Pa!bansa to rid the +udiciary of inco!petent and corrupt +udges and to restore confidence in the integrity of the courts. no.ithout citing any hard evidence.as not heardG he . Blg.ers that be. .o-pronged.hen the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act is signed into la. There . i!pregnability to all te!ptations of graft and corruption.ers that be. refers in his separate concurrence to t.ithout due process of la.ere caused by i!pairing its independenceG they .er sidesteps the issue of such purge contravening the rudi!ents of a fair hearing and due process and sub!its that %no ter! of office is sacrosanct . "$4=@.ho9@ !a*e a !oc*ery of +ustice and ta*e advantage of their office for personal ends Ae adds that %it is !y personal assess!ent of the present situation in our +udiciary that its reorgani&ation has to be of necessity t. )ne does not i!prove courts by abolishing the!. inco!petent or corrupts. (or!er /enator 1io*no in his !e!orandu! anticipates the argu!ent that %great ills de!and drastic cures% thus. 1ece!ber D. hovers over the +udiciary has unduly sub+ected the +udges to !ental torture since they do not *no.er to re!ove all the incu!bents guilty or innocent .n foru!.eeping and .9 % and that such sub+ection of a +udge to public %harass!ent and hu!iliation . '.ere of the undesirable category. i!partiality and independence.ould it be of any avail to beg the 7uestion and assert that due process is not available in !ass abolitions of courts.% The !etropolitan papers reported the %an iety gripping the +udiciary as the Ministry of 'ustice has reportedly been as*ed to collate infor!ation 9on the perfor!ance of the +udges and on the 7ualifications of those slated to ta*e over the positions of the inco!petent.ever.P. Petitioner-'udge .ill fall on the!. . s. by President Marcos and i!ple!ented in coordination . bet.% 22 The public respondents9 ans.ever.hen de!anded before the altar of the public good. can di!inish public confidence in the courts.ith the Ministry of 'ustice9s 0ntegrity Council reportedly screening and conducting %integrity tests as to ne.ill be a purge of the corrupt and the !isfits9 . nay.% 21 Pri!e Minister Cesar Eirata .hen or .ere to the effect that out of so!e ". .in ob+ectives of getting rid of % structural inade7uacies of the syste! or of the cu!berso!eness and technicality-peppered and dragging procedural rules in force and of %a good nu!ber of those occupying positions in the +udiciary ?. including the usual i!portunings and the fearso!e albeit i!proper pressures of the po. !isfit. . .as 7uoted as saying that %there . The purge has been the constant sub+ect of headlines and editorials.ith the /upre!e Court.ho hold positions therein possess the character. %1rastic.% 23 But 1ean Corte& in her !e!orandu! states that %Ao. fro! the assaults that politics and self-interest !ay level at it. the inefficient or those involved in irregularities.ill not be cured by totally . and assist it to !aintain its integrity. the s.hether the a e .<== !e!bers of the +udiciary. hu!an Rights and 3ood 3overn!ent.holesale abolition of +udicial offices beco!es an arbitrary act. 9/o!eho. 'ustice Barredo. uphold the validity of the Act. on the part of private respondents then.. as 0 have +ust indicated.% The Court !ar*ed the %violation of the cardinal principles of fairness and due process that underlie the Rule of 8a.% No.e. before the Co!!ittee on 'ustice. the effect of .as. As stated in an editorial. any !ore than a doctor cures a patient by *illing hi!.% "". . The only figures given in the course of the co!!ittee hearings .. co!petence and sense of loyalty that can guarantee their devotion to duty and absolute i!partiality. #ran'es reme'ios$ to no. The ills the +udiciary suffers fro! . applicants and the incu!bent +udges 25 and see*ing %confidential infor!ation on corrupt and inco!petent +udges to help the govern!ent purge the +udiciary. the uncertainty that no.een "= to "6 .

ho are called upon to give due process cannot count it on the!selves.ith the cooperation of the as grieved parties and after due process and hearing. (inally. S!-ara*! O-#%#o%" BARRE O. are +udges entitled to such due process . 0n su!. -the incu!bent +udges guaranteed security of tenure re7uire that they be retained in the corresponding %ne.ould only breed !ore perversity in the ad!inistration of +ustice.hich reads as follo. The issue of unconstitutionality raised by petitioners relates particularly to /ection DD of the Act .hile others .ill repudiate the %oppressive e ercise of legal authority. fi ed delineation of +urisdiction and increases in the nu!ber of courts for a !ore effective and efficient disposition of court cases. The trouble .% More so.er e clusively vested in the /upre!e Court to discipline and re!ove +udges after fair hearing. fro! the Court of Appeals do. it should be left to clean its o. +udges are entitled to the cardinal principles of fairness and due process and the opportunity to be heard and defend the!selves against the accusations !ade against their and not to be sub+ected to harass!ent and hu!iliation. be !ost ironical if 'udges .s. )bservance of procedural due process in the separation of !isfits fro! ?he 'udiciary is the right . co!petence or integrity.n house upon co!plaint and . concurring.ho . "#$.hat is at sta*e is their constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure and non-i!pair!ent of the independence of the +udiciary and the proper e ercise of the constitutional po.ere su!!arily re!oved .ho !ay voluntarily resign fro! office upon being confronted .ithout due process or hearing. and if the +udiciary is to be strengthened.hen . as stated by the "$-i 6 integrated Bar of the Philippines #nd Aouse of 1elegates. save those . courts. J.ith such reports against the!. Batas Pa!bansa Blg. +ust as the abuses of !artial rule have bred !ore subversion. 9 As stressed by the Chief 'ustice in the !ortun case.destroying that independence. 0 see no reason to change the stand sub!itted by !e to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation that B 'udges of inferior courts should not be su!!arily re!oved and branded for life in such reorgani&ation on the basis of confidential adverse reports as to their perfor!ance.en be avoided by holding that since the changes and provisions of the challenged Act do not substantially change the nature and functions of the %ne. To adopt such a course . J. is not unconstitutional as a . %0t .% "#. courts% therein provided as co!pared to the %abolished old courts% but provide for procedural changes. 0 +oin the !a+ority of !y brethren in voting that the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=. and the Court .. .n. The constitutional confrontation and conflict !ay . indeed.ith such e -parte reports. . has been vested by the "$<5 Constitution in the /upre!e Court. concur.here a nu!ber of honest and co!petent +udges .ay to attain a laudable ob+ective.er of discipline and dis!issal of +udges of all inferior courts.ere generally believed to be bas*et cases have re!ained in the serviceG and The po.ould. has been proven fro! our past e perience ..% !ernan'e%.hole nor in any of its parts.

!ere creatures of the la. 2'. that the solution is for the court he is sitting in not to be dee!ed abolished or that he should in so!e . 4=. Article K of the Philippine Constitution of "$<5@.er in this respect is broad and indeed plenary. constitutionally spea*ing. /aid funding shall thereafter be included in the annual 3eneral Appropriations Act.ould deprive the appointing authority. can there be a satisfactory and rational reconciliation of the pretended right of a +udge to continue as such.orse.ing the proble! before :s fro! the above perspectives. since all inferior courts are. the . the Circuit Cri!inal Courts.. the Municipal Courts.er shall be rested in one /upre!e Court and in suc" inferior courts as may be establis"e' by la3. and the Municipal Circuit Courts shall continue to function as presently constituted and organi&ed. 1 The provisions of this Act shall be i!!ediately carried out in accordance . that such a !anner of loo*ing at the issue that confronts :s only confuses and co!pounds the tas* .s that it is .ithin the legislature9s po. it !ight result in the cessation fro! office of the incu!bents thereof before the e piration of their respective constitutionally fi ed tenures. it . the said courts shall be dee!ed auto!atically abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office. the parlia!ent9s po. the security of tenure of !e!bers of the +udiciary and the /upre!e Court9s authority to discipline and re!ove +udges or ?#@ to declare that either the po.ith the pertinent functions. court is even . (or ho.er courts. together . ?of the legislature it follo. order their dis!issal. % ?/ection <. respondents !aintain that thru the above-7uoted /ection DD.ould then have the absurd spectacle of a +udiciary . ho. the said courts ?!eaning the Court of Appeals and all other lo.ords.er of the /upre!e Court or of the Batasan is !ore para!ount than that of the other. as so!e do. the Batasan did nothing !ore than to e ercise the authority conferred upon it be /ection 0 of the sa!e Article of the Constitution . The applicable appropriations shall li*e. the po. such as the security of tenure of its !e!bers ?/ection <. courts functioning under distinct set-ups.ise be transferred to the appropriate courts constituted pursuant to this Act. e7uip!ent. to be aug!ented as !ay be necessary fro! the funds for organi&ational changes as provided in Batas Pa!bansa Blg.er of the /upre!e Court %to discipline +udges of inferior courts and. Eie.er of abolition and reorgani&ation .ith old and ne. :pon such declaration./EC. The Court of Appeals. on the one hand. the 'uvenile and 1o!estic Relations Courts. until the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation provided in this Act as declared by the President.@ )n the other hand.ould appear that our tas* is either ?"@ to reconcile.hich !andates that %upon the declaration upon the President that the reorgani&ation conte!plated in the Act has been co!pleted@.$ 0n other . the Courts of Agrarian Relations.ever.ers not purely +udicial .er to abolish or reorgani&e the! even if in so doing.ransitory provisions.@ and principally. . such as a district court continuing as such in a region .ith an E ecutive )rder to be issued by the President.hen the position occupied by hi! no longer e istsH To suggest. if only because . Respondents e!phasi&e that the legislative po. 0 believe. The cases pending in the old Courts shall e transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act. the prerogatives of the /upre!e Court to ad!inistratively supervise all courts and the personnel thereof ?/ection >. since it . .here the other +udges are regional +udges or of +udges e ercising po. on the other. 2'. 0t is contended by petitioners that the provision in the above section . DD. property and the necessary personnel.ay be allo.hich provides that The 'udicial po.ed to continue to function as +udge until his constitutional tenure e pires is obviously i!practical. records.hich is offensive to the Constitution. by a vote of at least eight Me!bers. the City Courts. the Courts of (irst 0nstance.ith.e are called upon to perfor!.e . The other suggestion that the incu!bent of the abolished court should be dee!ed appointed to the corresponding ne. e cept the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals@ shall be dee!ed abolished and the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office% trenches on all the constitutional safeguards and guarantees of the independence of the +udiciary.

but understandably.ay of !anifesting and conveying the deter!ined legislative intent about it. that to insist that . 0nas!uch as pursuant to the analysis of the !a+ority of the Me!bers of this Court.ed by the building of a ne. even if 0 should appear as shouting in the . !ore on this point later . 0 !ight hasten to add.er to !a*e his o. or at least a prag!atic reality that the tenure of the holder of an office !ust of necessity end .ith. here and abroad. unless 0 a! absolutely sure that !y position is for!idable.% *ura les.isdo! of !y learned colleagues .president. None of the local cases 1 relied upon and discussed by the parties and by the Me!bers of the Court during the deliberations. 0 have co!e to the conviction that at least on this day and hour there are +ustifiable grounds to uphold the Act. )f course.ay...as so!ething 0 could not discount or +ust brush aside. unassailable and beyond all possible contrary ratiocination. disposed to play such a role virtually at the e pense not only of !y distinguished colleagues but of the Batasang Pa!bansa that fra!ed the la. created the i!pression that 0 . As a !atter of fact.er. such as Borro!eo. and it is a legal a io!.er to abolish. .ishful thin*ing. the co!bined . Practically all the Me!bers of the Court concede that . about Batas Pa!bansa "#$ e plaining acade!ically its apparent tendency to invade the areas of authority of the /upre!e Court. touching on the 7uestion no. 0 cannot conceive of a !ore e!phatic . 0ndeed. unconstitutional. not to spea* of its dangerously i!pairing the independence of the +udiciary. before :s cannot be said to be clear and consistent. and. . !uch less unsha*eable and indubitably definite either . all lovers of the +udicial independence. support such a conclusion. as 0 a! not. therefore. 0t is as si!ple as that.ho signed and.hen his office no longer e ists.ith the President and the Batasan in ta*ing . in this connection. the structure of +udicial syste! created by Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is substantially different fro! that under the 'udiciary Act of "$D4. during the deliberations of the Court. should be considered !ore i!periousH 0t being conceded that the po. further!ore. as 0 see it. if only to try ho. that of the Batasang Pa!bansa or that of this Court. 3 Brillo.e have to indulge in any reconciliation or feel bound to deter!ine .hy don9t 0 insist on cha!pioning the cause of the independence of the +udiciary by !aintaining that the constitutional safeguards thereof 0 have already enu!erated earlier !ust be respected in any reorgani&ation ordained by the parlia!ent My ans.er to create or establish carries . . !ust have. se' les. be have no alternative than to hold that petitioners9 invocation of the independence of the +udiciary principle of the Constitution is unavailing ill the cases at bar. is pure .ould still !a*e !yself a hero in the eyes of !an +ustices and +udges.hy a! 0 yielding to the above reasoning and conclusionH . the +urisprudence. as if to !a*e it !ost un!ista*ably e!phatic. publicly *no. as a!ended. the President . it being e plicitly and une7uivocally provided in the section in 7uestion that said courts are dee!ed abolished% and further. in fact and in la.hy do .ilderness. True. not only a rearrange!ent or re!odelling of the old structure but a total de!olition thereof to be follo.hich is a Constitutional anachronis!. !e!bers of the bar and concerned discerning citi&ens. to !y !ind. 2)ca!po. e isting are actually being abolished.ords. But.hich 0 a! not certain of. No. a!ount to an appoint!ent by legislation .hat Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is doing is +ust a rena!ing and not a substantial and actual !odification or alteration of the present +udicial structure or syste! assu!ing a close scrutiny !ight so!eho.er is si!ple. of the po. 5 etc. !y instinct and passion for an independent +udiciary are unco!pro!ising and beyond di!inution.ould. hence the courts no. that %the incu!bents thereat shall cease to hold office. it . 0 i!agine. as 0 shall de!onstrate anon. !ost of all.ill operate so that thereby the people !ay see that .ith it the po.e are one . and different one. sanctioned the Act as it is. 3 Iandueta. .hat is conte!plated is not only general reorgani&ation but abolition B in other . 0 a! practically alone in conte!plating a different vie. !y initial reactions..hose po. really serve as reliable pole stars that could lead !e to certainty of correctness. 0 should not be.hat appear to be i!!ediate steps needed to relieve the people fro! a fast spreading cancer in the +udiciary of our country. Pondering and thin*ing deeper about all relevant factors. 0 . can.n. To start .n choices and .ould vote to declare the la.

. under the foregoing circu!stances. the Me!bers of the Court. i!pregnability to an te!ptations of graft and corruption.hich is one of the bedroc*9s and.isdo! and courage 3od has individually endo. this is. against i!pair!ent of the independence of the +udiciary. aside fro! being controversial. are priceless and should be defended. .ith desirable dispatch.o-pronged. for the !ost 0deal +udicial syste! . . the constitutional guarantees of security of tenure and re!oval only by the /upre!e Court.hich as a !atter of fact is co!!on to all of the! is that about the deterioration in the 7uality of perfor!ance of the +udges !anning our courts and the slo.hile in the co!!unities concerned the !alady is *no. )n the other hand. but also . . it !ay be said that there is +ustification for the patience of the people about the possibility of early eradication of this disease or evil in our +udiciary pictured above to be nearing the brea*ing point. Needless to say..ith the ineptness and2or corruption a!ong and corruptibility of the !en sitting in the courts in so!e parts of the country And .ith the /upre!e Court.ho hold positions therein possess the character.s and rules. /trictly spea*ing.ith all the .hen it beco!es evident that a good nu!ber of those occupying positions in the +udiciary. Eerily. as already e plained.ithin the spirit at least of the Constitution.hich our +udiciary is presently perilously situated. very fe. in our +udiciary . . if all these intolerable instances should actually be for!ally brought to the /upre!e Court.. including the usual i!portunings and the fearso!e albeit i!proper pressures of the po. .e !ust bear in !ind that +udicial reorgani&ation beco!es urgent and inevitable not alone because of structural inade7uacies of the syste! or of the cu!berso!eness and technicality-peppered and dragging procedural rules in force. not yet returned to co!plete nor!alcy The i!proved national discipline so evident during the earlier days of !artial la.n but nevertheless +ust as deleterious. . that they are essentially part and parcel of .ith the situation under e isting la. . if any individuals or even associations and organi&ed groups.e find )urselves face to face . on the one hand. peace.n to factually e ist and is actually graver and . to all of us. . so!ething that !ay not necessarily be related to lac* of independence of the +udiciary. !a*e a !oc*ery of +ustice and ta*e advantage of their office for selfish personal ends and yet.een adhering to the strictly legalistic reasoning pursued by petitioners. The above pre!ises considered.point of the unusual situation in .e have to !a*e a choice bet. .ith a situation. and dragging pace of pending +udicial proceedings.ould be hu!anly i!possible for the Court to dispose of the! . 0 a! certain that the (ilipino people feel happy that Batas Pa!bansa "#$ enco!passes both of these ob+ectives.ever. has declined at a 7uite discernible degree. co!petence and sense of loyalty that can guarantee their devotion to duty and absolute i!partiality.hat is re7uired of an independent +udiciary .hat is .ers that be. 1ifferent sectors of society are de!anding urgent refor!s in their respective field And about the !ost vehe!ent and persistent. a!ong others.ith the foundation of the principle of independence of the +udiciary. of the essence in any %de!ocracy under a regi!e of +ustice. 0t has !ore to do . it .hich are ti!e consulting. a!ong their gripes.idespread. those in authority cannot e peditiously cope .hat . but rather. !ost of all by the /upre!e Court.ed to each of :s. therefore. have the courage and possess the re7uisite legal evidence to co!e out and file the corresponding charges .orse.e are all conscious of the fact that those safeguards have never been intended to place the person of the +udge in a singular position of privilege and untouchability. And 0 a! not vet referring to si!ilar situations that are not 7uite openly *no.ithal. as 0 have +ust indicated.ith the !ost perfect procedural rules cannot satisfy the people and the interests of +ustice unless the !en . . . in a real sense. those guarantees should be enforced under such a circu!stance see! to be difficult. the Philippines has so!eho.here +udges can decide cases and do +ustice to everyone before the! ruat caelum. And so.hich indeed are aligned . to be sure. loud and clear.hich is of e!ergency proportions and to insist on rationali&ing ho. . nay.hich as 0 have said is .Besides. 0t is !y personal assess!ent of the present situation in our +udiciary that its reorgani&ation has to be of necessity t. 0 have decided to tac*le our proble! fro! the vie. liberty and e7uality ?Prea!ble of the "$<5 Constitution@. Ao. truly incensed and an ious to be of help.ith the thousands of other cases it has to attend to and the rather cu!berso!e strict re7uire!ents of procedural due process it has to observe in each and every such ad!inistrative case all of .ithal. and the broader and !ore practical approach. .

hat has been discussed about its effect on the guarantees of +udicial independence. it !ay not be a!iss for !e to point out that Batas Pa!bansa Blg. 0 .ay. to the e tent of creating i!pressions. the !ost constitutionally 0dealistic countries have. po. .hich perilously tether along the periphery of their Charters.ho vociferously shouted not only that the President had acted arbitrarily and .hen !artial la. at one ti!e or another.ere those . As " have earlier indicated.as proclai!ed here in "$<#. there . it is . Truth to tell.ell for everyone to bear in !ind that in this +urisdiction. in the light of the prevailing conditions. also pree!pts. 0t is . of the land is a living instru!ent . . the Charter is not +ust a construction of . adopted corresponding realistic !easures. for the sole end of suppressing an insurrection or rebellion .ithout coincidentally ta*ing corresponding !easures to eradicate the root causes of the uprising is utter folly. under the pressure of prag!atic considerations. protection of individual liberties and providing security and pro!otion of the general . has already been upheld several ti!es by this Court. To put it differently. aside fro! . 0 say that the funda!ental la. ?/ection 6?6@. Eerily.er of the /upre!e Court in respect to procedure.hose literal ironclad !eanings . the legislature is e pressly e!po. accepted such a construction because 0 fir!ly believe that to i!pose !artial la. that the sa!e had been transgressed. is only for national security. if indeed there could be so!e doubt as to the correctness of this Court9s +udg!ent that Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is not unconstitutional. such in ordinary proble!s +ustify e ceptional re!edies. although in truth their integrity and i!periousness re!ained undi!inished and uni!paired. After all. but !ore.re7uired factual bases conte!plated in the Co!!ander-in-Chief clause of the "$56 Constitution. ". to be sure.ers not only to !aintain peace and tran7uility and preserve and defend the integrity and security of the state but to establish a Ne. #ran'es reme'ios $. for it is funda!entally in the fight of this Court9s doctrines about the i!position of !artial la. e cept for very unusual instances that hu!an ratiocination cannot +ustify to be conte!plated by its language even if read in its broadest sense and in the !ost liberal . is constitutionally per!issible. particularly its /ection DD. Paraphrasing the /panish adage.ould still continue to lay open to its recurrence.n e perience of such constitutional approach. .hich translates and adapts itself to the de!ands of obtaining circu!stances. 0 have !ade the foregoing discourse. that 0 doubt if the Court has any authority to alter or !odify any rule the Batasang Pa!bansa enunciates.e !ust feel hidebound .ar. as Chair!an of the Co!!ittee on the Revision of . $(ran'es males. 0 a! convinced that the critical situation of our +udiciary today calls for solutions that !ay not in the eyes of so!e confor! strictly . for one.ithout the .s.My concept of the Constitution is that it is not +ust a cluster of high sounding verbiages spelling purely 0dealis! and nobility in the recognition of hu!an dignity.ritten for all seasons.ithout regard to every Constitution9s desirable inherent nature of ad+ustability and adaptability to prevailing situations so that the spirit and funda!ental intent and ob+ectives of the fra!ers !ay re!ain alive. as 0 have stated that 0 prefer to base this concurrence.ith the pardon of !y colleagues. Batas Pa!bansa "#$ is one such adaptation that co!es handy for the attain!ent of the transcendental ob+ectives it see*s to pursue . this concept of !artial la. it is para!ount and supre!e in peace and in . Article K of the Constitution of "$<5@ so !uch so.elfare under a govern!ent of la.ith the letter of the Constitution but indubitably +ustified by its spirit and intent. . for the country . practice and evidence.ords to . /ociety.hile. "#$. the desirable end is achieved thru !eans that. not for the i!position of national discipline under a Ne.ith all e!phasis and vehe!ence.ered by the Charter to do so. but even in peace grave critical situations arise de!anding recourse to e traordinary solutions. that he had gone beyond the traditional and universally recogni&ed intent of said clause by utili&ing his !artial la. Before closing. history records that in the face of grave crises and e!ergencies. And so.ould +ust li*e to say that the Court should not decry this develop!ent too !uch. it has the effect of factually easing out so!e +ustices and +udges before the end of their respective constitutional tenure sans the usual ad!inistrative investigation. in so!e of its provisions. /ociety The critics contended that !artial la. The Philippines has but recently had its o. 1ue to its relevancy to )ur present discussion. of course erroneous. the pri!ary rule-!a*ing po. .

than that the Constitution allo.ill give hi! every !o!ent he acts in each individual case as it co!es for his decision . !ay 0 try to assuage the! by +oining their fervent prayers that so!e other day. in dra.ant all the sundry to *no. it !ust be confessed. corruption. the independence of the +udiciary in the Philippines is far fro! being insubstantial. 0 dare say this is the faith of the nation in a !an . despite doubts and !isgivings.ithout being duly infor!ed of the reason therefor.ould be in fact re!oved. !e!bers of the bar and concerned citi&ens . But even if so!e !ay be eased out even . 0 . This is not only !y individual faith founded on !y personal ac7uaintance .ays of disposing of ad!inistrative co!plaints against erring and !isconducting +udges. clear.n constitutionally conferred po. principally the lac* of a clear consensus as to . ineptness and inco!petence but even fro! the tentacles of interference and insiduous influence of the political po.rite the guarantees of +udicial independence .ill not be appointed can be considered as %ceasing to hold their respective offices%..ould !ost pro!ote genuine and i!partial +ustice for our people. /ection DD of the Batasan9s Act declares that all of the! shall be dee!ed to have ceased to hold office. its o. Presently.ith the best light that 3od . courts.ith each and every individual to be affected by this reorgani&ation . .ith +ustice to all. ho.ill deal .ing the line of de!arcation bet.ith substantial +ustice. not only fro! graft.ho! he !ay see fit to occupy the ne.ith any other vie. failed to co!e up to e pectations of the fra!ers of the Constitution in our . To those +ustices. 0 a! constrained fro! going along . he . but that the strict re7uisites of due process .ith .e overloaded . the President . /o also have .ill ulti!ately be !ade of those .or* beyond hu!an capability of its being perfor!ed e peditiously.ords that are definite. .ith the character and sterling 7ualities of President (erdinand E.ith the fullest reliable infor!ation before acts.ith !ore sy!pathy at the stand of petitioners. perhaps the Court could loo* . Batas Pa!bansa "#$ has precisely opened our eyes to ho.e can e cuse )urselves . lie . 0 a! certain. .the Rules of Court. free.ith the e planation that not only are ..hich are ti!e consu!ing have precluded :s fro! being !ore e peditious and speedy. . because if the above-discussed circu!stances have not co!bined to create a very critical situation in our +udiciary that is !a*ing the people lose its faith and confidence in the ad!inistration of +ustice by the e isting courts. and !ore specifically to the President.ill be eased out of the +udiciary in the course of the i!ple!entation of Batas Pa!bansa "#$. Thus.ithstanding this decision. una!biguous and une7uivocal. for one reason or another.er the cla!or of the people for an upright +udiciary and overco!e constitutional roadbloc*s !ore apparent than real. 0 cannot close this concurrence . Ao.ever.een the Parlia!ent and the 'udiciary in the !anner that in Ais 0nfinite . )f course.ith tears of disappoint!ent and disenchant!ent because of the stand 0 have chosen to adopt in these cases.er of re!oval of +udges. +udges.er to control.ill faithfully adhere to his sole!n oath %to do +ustice to every !an hence. the President .e. 1ivine Providence !ay dictate to another constitutional convention to .ards none. 0 feel 0 !ust say all of these. By this decision.ithout referring to the apprehensions in so!e 7uarters about the choice that . the Constitution can be so construed as to !a*e it possible for those in authority to ans. !uch less !eaningless and dead. or. !uch less being given the opportunity to be heard the past actuations of the President on all !atters of deep public interest shouted serve as sufficient assurance that .isdo! .ho .ho has led it successfully through crises and e!ergencies.e have regrettably procrastinated long enough in !a*ing our procedural rules !ore practical and !ore conducive to speedier disposal and ter!ination of controversies by dealing !ore . leaving it to the President to appoint those . Marcos.ith !alice to.ers that be.s abolition of e isting courts even if the effect has to be the eli!ination of any incu!bent +udge and the conse7uent cutting of his constitutional tenure of office.hen lie ulti!ately acts. as others .hose eyes !ay be di!!ing .ill e7uip hi!self first . the Court has in factual effect albeit not in constitutional conception yielded generally to the Batasang Pa!bansa. hopefully in the near future. those .ith in* of deeper hue and .ould say they .hat so!e of !y colleagues consider very radical proposals voiced by !e or !y co!!ittee.ill !a*e his choices is beyond )ur po. that not.ho .

J. ?a@ An institutional restructuring by the creation of an 0nter!ediate Appellate Court. The la. the petition is pre!ature. not through the classic !ethods of philosophy. but follo.. 1e la 8lana his Co!elec.yers. GUERRERO. 0t is presu!ed to be constitutional. for . (or the record. a city +udge ?. and for this the court properly loo*s at conte!poraneous events.. concurring. J. history and tradition.!a*ing body acted .ell-*no. ?b@ A reappoint!ent of +urisdiction geared to.ould li*e to state !y personal convictions and observations on this case. a highly-respected e pert and authority on constitutional la. There is no +usticiable controversy . Ae is not being re!oved fro! his position.hat the . thirteen ?0 5@ Regional Trial Courts.ever.. 0 concur in the result. Metropolitan Trial Courts. it . and as it . 0 .ith !y distinguished and learned colleagues in upholding the constitutionality of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=. a veritable land!ar* case. Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. the la. The legal basis of the Court9s opinion rendered by our estee!ed Chief 'ustice having been e haustively discussed and decisively +ustified by hi!.% 1 And in pursuing this direct ion. The eighth petitioner. is in issue.ards greater efficiency.n +urist. 0 concur .herein the constitutionality of the said la. de la 8lana. "##$. 4= /CRA 6#6@. is the change fro! the analytical to the functional attitude.ithin the scope of its constitutional po. /even of the eight petitioners are practising la.as enacted in ut!ost good faith and not %to cloa* an unconstitutional and evil purpose As ably e pounded by the Chief 'ustice. They have no personality to assail the constitutionality of the said la. No +urisdictional 7uestion is involved.ould be an e ercise in duplication to reiterate the sa!e cases and precedents. 1ean Pound. even as ta payers. .!a*ing body before enacting it loo*ed into the constitutional angle. "#$@ unconstitutional%. the situation as it e isted.ers and prerogatives.A6U(NO. has no cause of action for prohibition.hatever they !ay be . The petitioners filed this petition for declaratory relief and prohibition %to declare the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= ?Batas Pa!bansa Blg.as pressed upon the attention of the legislative body.ing .ith and rely on the ruling that %another guide to the !eaning of a statute is found in the evil . 3ualberto '.. The 'udiciary Reorgani&ation 8a..ho in "$<< filed a petition for declaratory relief assailing Presidential 1ecree No. 0 !ust also rec*on . ho. ?c@ A si!plification of procedures and ?d@ The abolition of the inferior courts created by the 'udiciary Act of "$D4 and .% 2 0 have no doubt in !y !ind that the institutional refor!s and changes envisioned by the la. .hich it is designed to re!edy. are clearly conducive to the pro!otion of national interests. said that %the !ost significant advance in the !odern science of la.hich called for a referendu!. concurring.orth. The petition should have been dis!issed outright because this Court has no +urisdiction to grant declaratory relief and prohibition is not the proper re!edy to test the constitutionality of the la. in enacting the said la. 0 a! then constrained to approach the proble! 7uite differently. The ob+ectives of the legislation na!ely.

o-year period fro! the filing of the charge to the dis!issal of the respondent. cases. That there are ills and evils plaguing the +udicial syste! is undeniable. repri!and or fine. co!petent and efficient. abuse and arbitrariness.hat is so clearly provided in the Rules of Court% 9G %0t is unfortunate that respondent 'udge failed to ac7uaint hi!self .n in 8-D$4#4.ith the !ore co!ple proble!s on the present and forseeable future cannot but %pro!ote the . . 6CAR 'udges. Records in the /upre!e Court attest to the unfitness and inco!petence. 4. loo!ing li*e a legal !onster.as called do. 46 City 'udges. of the decisions.ill tell as an increasing nu!ber of ad!inistrative cases are being filed by victi!s of +udicial !isconduct. it too* an average of t. and 789 Municipal 'udges. Ao.ere ter!inated after seven years. $D5 in "$<<G D=D. But greater than the need to dispense +ustice speedily and pro!ptly is the necessity to have 'ustices and 'udges . The /upre!e Court has found 7:5 of the! guilty and punished the! .or*able and econo!ical.4 Municipal 'udges.ith the ai! of i!proving the ad!inistration of +ustice.D$< pending cases in "$<>G 56". there should be no difficulty. the total nu!ber of 'ustices and 'udges against . ""$ C(0 'udges.ithout factual basis. To cite a fe. =>5 as of (ebruary 5. since that is the final cause of la. those controlling provisions and doctrines% 15G %The failure of the respondent Municipal 'udge to yield obedience to authoritative decisions of the /upre!e Court and of respondent Court of (irst 0nstance 'udge and his deplorable insistence on procedural technicalities . 4 CAR 'udges. E cepting those . Evident is the need to loo* for devices and !easures that are !ore practical.hich is %to e!body refor!s in the structure. The nu!ber includes 7 CA 'ustice. 7 'uvenile O 1o!estic Relations Court 'udge.ho! ad!inistrative charges have been filed for various offenses.est ebb in public esti!ation is not . 0ndeed. . the proceedings .other statutes.ho are fair and i!partial. 6 are 'ustices of the Court of Appeals. 7CAR. $"" in "$<$G DD". as approved by the Congress of the Philippines 3 are undoubtedly intended to i!prove the regi!e of +ustice and thereby enhance public good and order. doubt or disbelief in its legality and constitutionality. >4> in "$<4G D#>. And these are 4 C(0. 0n one case. ="9 !isinterpreted. 3oing over these ad!inistrative proceedings. 3 Aence.ho have been punished and dis!issed fro! the service. giving no credit to the 'udiciary% 7G applicable rules.ill be disposed of..een the accused and the 'udge to flaunt the la. orders and other acts of the respondent courts.elfare of society. thus. long the pending ad!inistrative cases . C(0 'udges. )f this total.ith. . . organi&ation and co!position of the 'udiciary. fro! the standpoint of The general utility and functional value of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act. /eventeen ?"<@ 'udges have been ordered dis!issed and separated fro! the service.ho have been castigated and censured in final +udg!ents of the /upre!e Court upon appeal or revie. < City 'udges and . ad!onition. According to the co!piled data. honest and incorruptible. %deplorable. only ti!e . of decongesting +udicial doc*ets. corruption and i!!orality of !any dispensers of +ustice. 55# in "$4=G and D6=. and every nor! of propriety and procedure% 8G %there . 5 (ro! the figures alone ?5=".as a deliberate failure of respondent 'udge to respect .hich create and produce such ano!aly. 7 City 'udge and 75 Municipal 'udges. The . )ur decisions have categorically pronounced respondents9 actuations. 5 Cri!inal Circuit 'udges. The general cla!or that the prestige of the 'udiciary today has deteriorated and degenerated to the lo. 7 '1RC 'udge. The notorious and scandalous congestion of court doc*ets as too .ith either suspension. there are !any . venalities and other irregularities reaches 455. and coping . !isconduct. the purpose of the Act as further stated in the E planatory Note. 'uly #6.n to be ignored as are the causes . 'ustices and 'udges. 7 CCC 'udge.hole proceedings loo*ed no !ore than a pre-arranged co!pro!ise bet. "$4#@ 4 the congested character of court doc*ets rising year after year is staggering and enor!ous.ell-*no.

e noted %There is here so so!ething unusual. 3ood faith in the enact!ent of the la. The 7uestions raised by petitioners and amicus curiae for their cause. to paraphrase Chief 'ustice Concepcion in (on%ales v. There is no factual foundation of bad faith on record. 0t is presu!ed that official duty has been regularly perfor!ed. 0n the light of these *no. Truth .e are to accord as . these 'udges and their il* to re!ain and continue to preside in their courtroo!s is a disgrace to the 'udiciary.er or co!petence.er and authority in the pre!ises. (or pere!ptorily dis!issing the third party co!plaint on the ground that the !otion to dis!iss .rongs .. petitioners have not sho.. 15 The 7uestion of good faith then is the cru of the conflict at bar.% 12 0t is dishonorable enough to be publicly and officially rebu*ed but to allo..ill ta*e fro! here to eternity to clean this Augean stable. 0f they are not booted out no.eeding the! out fro! the service.!a*ers9 deep sense of public service and the +udicious e ercise of their high office as the duly-elected representatives of the people.n evils and infir!ities of the +udiciary syste!. it ."$4". and to acts of legislative bodies.n an iota of proof of bad faith.ill eradicate hopefully or at least !ini!i&e the evils and ills that infect and pester the +udicial body.e !ust.9% 19 0n any case.eed out corrupt and !isfits in our 'udiciaryH B !ay not be in7uired into by :s. it .ays to be presu!ed in the absence of proof to the contrary.ise if .isdo! of the action ta*en. /o!e !e!bers of the Court felt that these revelations . vi%: . one reason for . and sooner or later.. there . %May his tribe vanish.ell-ta*en9 and respondent 'udge did not elaborate. 0t is .hose actuations have been found to be patiently . it !erely e acerbated it.hat . That is pri!arily and e clusively a legislative concern.ithin the bounds of propriety and co!!on sense. such as ad!inistrative board or bodies. .ashing dirty linen in public.rong and !anifestly in-defeasible.hy legislate out the +udges . 13 The presu!ption of regularity is not confined to the acts of the individual officers but also applies to the acts of boards. not the . but far fro! palliating the gravity of the error incurred.ould be li*e . it did render the due process re7uire!ent nugatory. Candidly. never in7uire into the . Puno that the Bill . Commission on Elections. And 0 do not consider the state!ent in the sponsorship speech for Cabinet Bill No.ho penned the orfe decision.e have a list of these croo*ed 'udges . for no charges or proceedings have been instituted against the!.hile %?i@t is thus settled. 25 0t !ay be true that .hy not a!end the Rules of Court only 0s abolition of all courts the proper re!edy to . 0t could not be other.rites that .% 14 The Courts %are not supposed to override legiti!ate policy and .riting this concurring opinion is to call attention to these evils. . or to its e pediency.% 17 Chief 'ustice (ernando . a useless cere!ony.ill result in the actual re!oval of the 'ustices of the Court of Appeals and 'udges of the lo.as 9. !ay be the basis for declaring a statute invalid. 0t is to be deplored that the /upre!e Court has not found ti!e to e ercise its po. There ought to be no ob+ection or co!punction in .isdo! of the la. %0t is not the province of the courts to supervise legislation and *eep it .. the propriety of the Act.hile the re!edy or solution for!ulated by the legislation .hich there is none in the case at bar. the Court re!ar*ed.er courts.ith good faith. that only congressional po. does not refer to the .ould be absurd and unreasonable to clai! that the legislators did not act upon the! in good faith and honesty of purpose and .ould be a !ore efficient vehicle of %eli!inating inco!petent and unfit 'udges as indicative of i!per!issible legislative !otive. full faith and credit to the la. 0t is conceded that the abolition of an office is legal if attendant .as an 0dle for!.as so clearly stated by 8aurel that 9the 'udiciary in the deter!ination of actual cases and controversies !ust reflect the .hich are surreptitiously but surely destroying the trust and faith of the people in the integrity of the entire 'udiciary. But these facts are of public and official record nay court cases. . 13 3ood faith is al. for instead of a fair and i!partial trial. it .ill co!e out.ith legiti!ate ends. abuses and .isdo! and +ustice of the people as e pressed through their representatives in the e ecutive and legislative depart!ents of the govern!ent.hy abolish all the courts . D# of Minister of 'ustice Ricardo '. ..isdo! of the !easure.% 18 he adds that it is %useful to recall .% 11 0n one case. of .

ill act according to the best interest of the nation and in accordance . 0ndeed. sober 'udges should be reappointed but that is the sole po. to the public . 21 0n the last analysis.er and prerogative of the President .een the desire to preserve private interest and the desideratu! of pro!oting the public good shall have been struc*.yers. The bad and the croo*ed 'udges !ust be re!oved.elfare of the people in 7uite as great a degree as courts. Republic e!erged and evolved ne. The 'udge of such a court ta*es office .hich govern!ent has been instituted. do +ustice to everyone . but .% 25 The re!oval fro! office of the incu!bent then is !erely incidental to the valid act of abolition of the office as de!anded by the superior and para!ount interest of the people.hen created by the /tate under the authority of the Constitution.ar* of constitutional govern!ent. . 0n our for! of govern!ent.hich the Ne. a *ind or for! of +udicial activis!.ithout detracting fro! the !erits.hen the court is abolished. no one can be said to have any vested right in an office or its salary.th and develop!ent. particularly in la. history and precedents. 0n the light of conte!poraneous events fro! .ell-settled principle that %all reasonable doubts should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of a statute% for .. This is the ti!e and the !o!ent to perfor! a constitutional duty to affi !y i!pri!atur and affir!ance to the la. the end-result is the sa!e B ter!ination of the services of these incu!bents. The 'ustices and 'udges directly affected by the la.ith his sole!n oath of office %to preserve and defend its Constitution. fro! ti!e to ti!e consider his office unnecessary and abolish it. and govern!ent. 22 There is no such thing as a vested interest or an estate in an office.ledge. as violative of the Constitution %e cept in a clear case.. be re!e!bered %that legislatures are ulti!ate guardians of the liberties and . !ay be harsh.er.ill not set aside a la..ever.hich reason it .ith a vie. 0 vie. ho. 0t adheres. in ordaining and establishing the courts. and not the profit. *ura le= se' le=. . the controversy presented to :s as a conflict of opinions B on +udicial independence. the force and brilliance of their advocacies based on logic.hether abolition of office or re!oval therefro!. 0deals of national gro. to uphold its constitutionality. to the . should *no. . but that is the la. or even an absolute right to hold office. a public office is a privilege in the gift of the /tate.hen an office is created by the Constitution.ith that encu!brance and *no. perhaps si!ilar to it. it !ay be abolished by statute and the incu!bent deprived of his office.also true that .. 0t is created for the purpose of effecting the ends for .s. it is funda!ental that public offices are public trust. . any une pired ter! is abolished also. 24 The /upre!e Court has been called the conscience of the Constitution. 27 0t Must. is necessary to +ustify as the ratio 'eci'en'i of )ur +udg!ent.elfare.hether i!paired or strengthened by the la.G on reorgani&ation of the courts. The good and the straight. E cepting constitutional offices . it cannot be abolished by the legislature. . 23 Acceptance of a +udicial appoint!ent !ust be dee!ed as adherence to the rule that %. hopefully an act of proper +udicial states!anship.hich provide for special i!!unity as regards salary and tenure. the la. but also upon the contingency that the legislature !ay for the public good.% 23 %The 'udge9s right to his full ter! and his full salary are not dependent alone upon his good conduct. . therefore. 0 a! certain.% 28 The responsibility of upholding the Constitution rests not on the courts alone but on the legislatures as . . .ho. and that the person to be appointed should be selected solely . % There and then the proper balance bet. and on delegation of legislative po.hether it is ter!ed abolition of office or re!oval fro! office.hich are for the co!!on good. honor or private interest of any one !an.% 29 (inally. e ecute its la.ell. the nature and concept of a public office. fa!ily or class of !en. 0 choose to stand on the social +ustification and the functional utility of the la. or are e pected to *no.hether authori&ed or unauthori&ed. being la. 0t !ay be the last bul..

ABA SANTOS. The i!plicit suggestion that there could be an unconstitutional i!ple!entation of the 7uestioned legislation is not congruent . concurring.ever.hen he says.er to reorgani&e said courts.hich can be resented and even repelled. E CASTRO.ould be in accordance . 0 concur in the declaration that the la. concurring.s the fullest consideration.ould save and another . ..orn duties to see that the la.ould invalidate a statute. and in the process. 0 cannot agree .hile 0 also concur in the dis!issal of the petition.ise .ith this Court and to accord its vie. unconstitutional.ell-. 0 do so on the additional ground that petitioners have not fulfilled all the re7uisites for the e ercise by this Court of its po. than by .isdo!. To contend other.ay to ne.ilde.e should trust in ho.hat is involved is purely an e ecutive act of the President in . 1 . 0. li!it !yself to a discussion that the assailed statue is not unconstitutional . that no irrepealable la.s are faithfully e ecuted and to do +ustice to every !an. ho. therefore it should be in accordance .ithout having to suggest ho. :nli*e )scar . therefore.hich . or substantially different ones.ith accepted principles of constitutional construction that as far as incu!bent +ustices and +udges are concerned.ould be no plausibility then to the allegation that there is an unconstitutional taint to the challenged Act.ever.hose . J. sub!it this separate opinion !ore to avoid being !isunderstood by !y brethren in the +udiciary as not feeling for the! as !uch concern as 0 should for their security of tenure .ould fulfill his s. it !ay be i!ple!ented in order that it could stand the !ost rigid test of constitutionality.ith the basic principle that in the choice of alternatives bet. This prerogative is plenary and necessarily i!plies the po.een one . 0 . To re7uire consultation .ill constitute an invasion of e ecutive territory .ith the Chief 'ustice .hich . . for in that area. Accordingly. abolish the! to give . he . Moreover.ly created +udicial positions .ill si!ply vote to dis!iss the petition Ao. is not unconstitutional.. such a construction .er to fill the ne.er to declare a la. the for!er is to be preferred. 0n the i!ple!entation of the assailed legislation.castle. There .ith the learned Chief 'ustice of the Philippines that Batas Pa!bansa Blg. Moreover. 0 The creation and organi&ation of courts inferior to the /upre!e Court is a constitutional prerogative of the legislature. May 0.er of +udicial in7uiry B the po... . 0 agree .ould be to forget a basic doctrine of constitutional la. This being the case.ay of giving added force or support to the !ain opinion so .s shall be passed.as done in good faith. 0 choose not to yield to te!ptation by e!bellishing !y concurrence lest 0 be accrued of bringing coal to Ne.hich is raised as the !ain argu!ent against the constitutionality of the la. J. be accorded the fullest consideration. this Court be consulted and that its vie.ritten by )ur learned Chief 'ustice in his usual scholarly fashion. patriotis! and sense of +ustice .ithout any obligation to consult .. "#$ is not unconstitutional. 0t has already been ruled that the statute does not suffer fro! any constitutional infir!ity because the abolition of certain +udicial offices .ith the basic conclusion that it is not unconstitutional. 0 believe that the E ecutive is entitled to e ercise its constitutional po.

.hich.hen t.hether they continue to en+oy the trust.s.er is not !eant to be restricted.hen done in good faith and !otivated solely by the good and the . faith and confidence of the public. !uch less interfere .hich. and that po.hich the security of tenure.ith the facilities at its co!!and.ithout. 0f the legislature. ad!ittedly. This is by far of !ore i!perative and transcedental i!portance than the security of tenure of +udges . li*e.isdo! into .er of creating the statutory courts .do.or*ings of the courts. the legislature is presu!ed to have been !otivated by no other ob+ective than to provide the people the *ind of +udicial !achinery that . be presu!ed that it has been led to this lo.er of creating the courts to provide for a fair and strong +udicial syste!.hich the people9s faith has been eroded. and . :n7uestionably.hen that sa!e po.o co!ponents of a court B the procedural la. and the resultant right of security of tenure of those appointed to said courts could not bring about the e haustion of that po. it involves the e ercise of legislative po.er is a continuing one. in the natural order of things.hich only goes to sho.hat had given rise to the present controversy the duty of the legislature to provide society . the !atter involved is one of policy and . The passage of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= is no !ore than the e ercise of the po. violating a funda!ental precept of constitutional and representative govern!ent that no irrepealable la. Responsibility for this !ore or less e tensive slo. a condition . esti!ate of the utility and effectiveness of the present set-up of the +udiciary after infor!ing itself. therefore.er.ell-being of the people. therefore. !ay even be contributory.ho are not yea there. a good. This inherent character of fullness and plenitude of the po.er to create and abolish courts does not change .hich the courts have no say 0nitially.er of legislative investigation.anting in these basic 7ualities does not deserve the independence that is !eant only for a +udiciary that can serve best the interest and . cannot in7uire.n la. as a conse7uence. such as the po.er can never be e hausted .ith it the duty and responsibility of providing the people . in its belief that the present !achinery is falling short of that !easure of public service. That po.elfare of the people . particularly as to . and in doing so.ise. dee!s it . set of courts.er.ould thereafter arise the security of tenure of those appointed to perfor! the functions of said courts. not a +udiciary in .s or rules that govern the . of the actual condition of the courts. in the e ercise of its authority. efficient and effective +udiciary. a !atter of legislative intent.The po.hat the cause or causes are of their erosion. 0f the creation of courts is a legislative prerogative their abolition is. ones. it suffers fro! no li!itation arising fro! the necessity or respecting the security of tenure of +udges . and .ith the !ost effective and efficient syste! of ad!inistration of +ustice. if not loss. includes the po.ith. A +udiciary . . .er is once !ore e ercised thereafter. 0n enacting the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=.er to create courts and organi&e the! is necessarily the pri!ary authority fro! .hich . as the need therefor is felt. since the occasion to spea* of security of tenure of +udges arises only after the courts have first been brought into being.hich generally concerns policy in the for!ation of . as is the *eenly perceptible feeling of the people in general. the legislature can repeal its o.hen the legislature creates the courts.n of the delivery of +udicial service can be laid on no other than either of the t.er carries .ould best serve their interest and .hich the courts.er to abolish the! in order to create ne.o interests conflict as . by necessary i!plication.s shall be passed. This pri!ary legislative po. is one of the factors that . an act of legislation .ould conduce to independence of the +udiciary B but first of all.ith a fair. not even the /upre!e Court. curtailed. or the persons e ecuting or applying the! B or both. the security of tenure given to the incu!bents should not be a legal i!pedi!ent to the e ercise of that basic po. !uch less e hausted by the socalled +udicial security of tenure. efficient and effective +udicial syste!. 0t should. By this secondary position it has to the pri!ary po.hich is the !ost pri!ordial and para!ount consideration. that . it feels the abolition of the old courts . on one hand.elfare.er vested by the Constitution on the legislative body of the Republic as described above. in so!e instances.ould conduce !ore to its ob+ective of i!proving the +udiciary and raising its standard.ise and urgent to provide for a ne. the e ercise of the po.er of the legislature to create courts. the right to security of tenure ta*es a secondary position to the basic and pri!ary po. .

the right of +udges to security of tenure, on the other, the latter !ust of necessity yield to the for!er. )ne involves public ,elfare and interest !ore directly and on a greater !agnitude than the right of security of tenure of the +udges ,hich is, as is easily discernible, !ore of a personal benefit to +ust a fe,, as indeed only the +udge affected could see* +udicial redress of ,hat he conceives to be its violation. Aerein lies the propriety of the e ercise of %police po,er% of the /tate, if this concept ,hich underlies even the Constitution, has to be invo*ed as a constitutional +ustification of the passage of the Act in 7uestion. That is, if a conflict bet,een the pri!ary po,er of the legislature to create courts, and !ere conse7uential benefit accorded to +udges and +ustices after the creation of the courts is indeed perceivable, ,hich the ,riter fails to see, or, at least, ,ould disappear upon a reconciliation of the t,o apparently conflicting interests ,hich, fro! the above dis7uisition is not hard to find. 0t is, ,ithout doubt, in the essence of the e ercise of police po,er that a right assertable by individuals !ay be infringed in the greater interest of the public good and general ,elfare. This is de!onstrated in ho, the rights and freedo!s enu!erated in the Bill of Rights en+oyable by The entire people, not +ust by a handful in co!parison, are !ade sub+ect to the la,ful e ercise of the police po,er of the /tate. Eie,ed, therefore, fro! the above-!entioned perspective, the general reva!p of the +udiciary involving both its co!ponents B the court as an office or institution, and the +udges and +ustices that !an the! B should not find any legal obstacle in the security of tenure of +udges. This security, after all, is no !ore than as provided for all other officials and e!ployees in the civil service of the govern!ent in /ection 5, Article K00-B of the Constitution ,hich provides. No officer or e!ployees in the civil service shall be suspended or dis!issed e cept for cause as provided by la,. The provision of Article KE00, /ection "= of the Constitution gives to +udicial officials no !ore than a guarantee that their retire!ent age as fi ed in the Constitution shall not be alterable at !ere legislative pleasure. The e7uivalent provision in the "$56 Constitution ,as inserted for the first ti!e because the retire!ent age before then ,as provided !erely by statute not by the Constitution. 0f it co!es to their re!oval or suspension, ,hat gives the! constitutional protection is the afore7uoted provision ,hich does not conte!plate abolition of office ,hen done in good faith, for re!oval i!plies the e istence of the office, not ,hen it is abolished. Ad!ittedly, as has been held, abolition of office for no reason related to public ,elfare or for the good of the service, let alone ,hen done in bad faith, a!ounts to an unla,ful re!oval. 2 The abolition of the courts as declared in the Act as a result of a reorgani&ation of the +udiciary, as the Title of the la, curtly but announces, can by no !eans, fro! any vie,point, be so branded. And ,hether by said reorgani&ation, the present ,ould be dee!ed abolished, as the la, e presses such an un!ista*able intent, the !atter is one for the sole and e clusive deter!ination of the legislature. 0t rests entirely on its discretion ,hether by the nature and e tent of the changes it has introduced, it has done enough to consider the! abolished. To give the /upre!e Court the po,er to deter!ine the e tent or nature of the changes as to their structure, distribution and +urisdiction, before the clear intent to abolish the!, or to declare the! so abolished, is given effect, ,ould be to allo, undue interference in the function of legislation. This ,ould be contrary to the pri!ary duty of courts precisely to give effect to the legislative intent as e pressed in the la, or as !y be discovered therefro!. (ro! the above observation, it ,ould be futile to insist that the present courts ,ould not effectively be abolished by the Act in 7uestion. it !ight be to arrogate po,er for :s to say that the changes the la, brings to the present +udicial syste!, do not suffice for this Court to give effect to the clear intent of the legislative body. ;here ,ould the agrarian courts, the circuit cri!inal courts, the '1RC9s be in the +udicial structure as envisioned by the la,H Are they not abolished by !erger ,ith the regional trial courts, ,hich by such !erger, and by the other changes introduced by the la,, ,ould !a*e said courts different fro! the present Courts of (irst 0nstance ,hich, as a conse7uence, !ay then be considered abolished 0ntegrated as the present

courts are supposed to be, changes so!e,here in the +udicial !achinery ,ould necessarily affect the entire syste!. The fact that the /upre!e Court !ay specially assign courts to function as the special courts +ust !entioned, does not !ean that the changes ,rought are only superficial or %cos!etic% as this ter! has been used so often in the oral argu!ent. ;ithout the ne, la,, these courts ,ill re!ain fi ed and per!anent ,here they are at present. Fet in the course of ti!e, the need for their independent e istence !ay disappear, or that by changed conditions, ,here they are needed at present at a certain place, the need for the! !ay be so!e,here else in later years, if !a i!u! benefit at the least e pense is to be achieved, as al,ays should be a !ost desirable goal and ob+ective of govern!ent. 1e!onstrably then, the abolition of the courts is a !atter of legislative intent into ,hich no +udicial in7uiry is proper, e cept perhaps if they intent is so palpably tainted ,ith constitutional repugnancy, ,hich is not so in the instant case. ;e have, therefore, no occasion, as earlier inti!ated, to spea* of re!oval of +udges ,hen the reorgani&ation of the +udiciary ,ould result in the abolition of the courts other than the /upre!e Court and the Court of Ta Appeals. Aence, the provision of the Constitution giving to the /upre!e Court po,er to dis!iss a +udge by a vote of eight +ustices does not co!e into the vorte of the instant controversy. 0ts possible violation by the assailed statute cannot happen, and !ay, therefore, not constitute an argu!ent against the constitutionality of the la,. (or!er 'ustice Barrera, in a speech before the Philippine Bar Association, 3 i!pliedly indorsed the +udicial reva!p ,hen he enu!erated the 7ualities of a good +udge that the appointing po,er should consider in !a*ing ne, appoint!ents to the +udiciary upon its reorgani&ation pursuant to the 7uestioned Act. The ,ords of the e!inent +urist !ay ,ell reflect the favorable reaction of the public in general to ,hat the Act ai! to achieve in the na!e of good and clean govern!ent. The present +udicial incu!bents, ,ho have not in any ,ay, by their acts and behavior ,hile in office, tarnished the good i!age that the +udiciary should have, therefore, have no cause for apprehension that ,hat they are entitled to under the Constitution by ,ay of security of tenure ,ig be denied the!, considering the publicly *no,n ai! and purpose of the !assive +udicial reva!p, specially as cherished ,ith deep concern by the President ,ho initiated the !ove ,hen he created the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Co!!ittee to reco!!end needed and appropriate +udicial refor!s. 0f the only obstacle to a verdict in favor of constitutionality of the la, is its possible effect of i!pairing the security of tenure of the incu!bents, ;e !ay have the follo,ing facts to consider. ". :nder the "$<5 Constitution all incu!bent +udges and +ustices !ay continue in office until replaced or reappointed by the President. As to those +udicial officials, no security of tenure, in the traditional concept, attaches to their incu!bency ,hich is, in a real sense, only a holdover tenure. Ao, the President has e ercised this i!!ense po,er ,ith ad!irable restraint should serve as the strongest guarantee of ho, +ustice and fairness ,ill be his sole guide in i!ple!enting the la,. #. As to the rest of the incu!bents, they are all appointees of )ur present President, and he should feel concerned !ore than anyone else to protect ,hatever rights they !ay rightfully clai! to !aintain their official standing and integrity. They need have no fear of being ignored for no reason at all, !uch less for !ere spirit of vindictiveness or lac* of nobility of heart. (ro! the foregoing, it ,ould beco!e apparent that only in the i!ple!entation of the la, !ay there possibly be a taint of constitutional repugnancy as ,hen a +udge of ac*no,ledged honesty, industry and co!petence is separated, because an act of arbitrariness ,ould thereby be co!!itted, but the abolition of the courts as decreed by the la, is not by itself or per se unconstitutional.

Conse7uently, the la,, the result of serious and concerned study by a highly co!petent co!!ittee, deserves to be given a chance to prove its ,orth in the ,ay of i!proving the +udiciary. 0f in its i!ple!entation, any one, if at all, feels aggrieved, he can al,ays see* +udicial redress, if he can !a*e out a case of violation of his right of security of tenure ,ith uncontrovertible clarity, as ,hen the separation is very arbitrary in the peculiar circu!stances of his case, for an act of arbitrariness, under any constitution, is unpardonable. This petition should also be dis!issed for being pre!ature, as is the stand of 'ustice A7uino. The petition as*s this Court to e ercise its po,er of +udicial in7uiry, the po,er to declare a la, unconstitutional ,hen it conflicts ,ith the funda!ental la, ?People vs. Eera, >6 Phil. 6>@. This po,er has ,ell-defined li!its, for it can be e ercised only ,hen the follo,ing re7uisites are present, to ,it. ?"@ There !ust be an actual case or controversyG ?#@ The 7uestion of constitutionality !ust be raised by the proper partyG ?5@ Ae should do so at the earliest opportunity, and ?D@ The deter!ination of the constitutionality of the statute !ust be necessary to a final deter!ination of the case. 0 a! of the opinion that the petition does not present an actual controversy nor ,as it filed by the proper parties. The !ain ground for ,hich the constitutionality of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= is assailed is that it is violative of the security of tenure of +ustices and +udges. The only persons ,ho could raise the 7uestion of constitutionality of the la, are, therefore, the actual incu!bents of the courts ,ho ,ould be separated fro! the service upon the abolition of the courts affected by the la,, on the theory as advanced by petitioners that their +udicial security of tenure ,ould be violated. )longapo City 'udge de la 8lana, the only +udge a!ong the petitioners, has not been separated fro! the service. Nor is his separation already a certainty, for he !ay be appointed to the court e7uivalent to his present court, or even pro!oted to a higher court. )nly ,hen it has beco!e certain that his tenure has been ter!inated ,ill an actual controversy arise on his allegation of a fact that has beco!e actual, not !erely probable or hypothetical. The present petition !ay neither be allo,ed as a ta payer suit. A ta payer !ay bring an action to raise the 7uestion of constitutionality of a statute only ,hen no one else can !ore appropriately bring the suit to defend a right e clusively belonging to hi!, and. therefore, ,ould locali&e the actual in+ury to his person, and to no other. (or a %proper party% to invo*e the po,er of +udicial in7uiry, as one of the re7uisites in the e ercise of such po,er, does not !ean one having no better right, one !ore personali&ed, than ,hat he has as a !e!ber of the public in general. ;ith the incu!bent +udges undoubtedly being the ones under petitioners9 theory, ,ho ,ould suffer direct and actual in+ury, they should e clude !ere ta payers ,ho cannot be said to suffer as %direct% and %actual% an in+ury as the +udges and +ustices by the enforce!ent of the assailed statute, fro! the right to bring the suit. The validity of the foregoing observation beco!es !ore evident ,hen ;e consider that only after the fate of the present incu!bents is *no,n, ,hether they have been actually separated or not, ,ould the present courts be declared abolished. (or the la, clearly continues their e istence until all the ne, courts have been filled up ,ith ne, appoint!ents, or at least such nu!ber as ,ould be e7ual to the nu!ber of actual incu!bents, and they are the very courts to ,hich they !ay lay clai! to the right to continue therein, so that the status of each and everyone of the! has thereby been !ade certain. )nly then, upon the actual abolition of the courts, !ay there possibly be a violation of the security of tenure, as contented, that ,ould give rise to an %actual controversy% in ,hich the > i!proper party% can be no other than the +udges ,ho feel aggrieved by their non- appoint!ent to the ne, courts. 0t ,ould, therefore, not be proper to declare the la, void at this stage, before it has even been given a chance to prove its ,orth, as the legislature itself and an those ,ho helped by their e haustive and scholarly study, felt it to be an urgent necessity, and before any of the proper parties ,ho could assail its constitutionality ,ould *no, for a fact, certain and actual, not !erely

probable or hypothetical, that they have a right violated by ,hat they could possibly contend to be an unconstitutional enforce!ent of the la,, not by a la, that is unconstitutional unto itself. 0 a!, therefore, for giving the la, a chance to be put into application so as not to douse great popular e pectations for the courts to regain their highest level of efficiency had reputation for probity. 0nevitably, this is to be so since only ,hen the la, is fully i!ple!ented ,ill all the courts affected be declared abolished, undoubtedly to avoid an interregnu! ,hen the country is ,ithout any court, e cept the /upre!e Court, the Court of Ta Appeals and the /andigan. )nly then ,ill it be *no,n ,hether an actual controversy ,ould arise because any of the incu!bents have been left out in the restructured +udiciary. There ,ould then be also a proper party to assail the constitutionality of the la,, confor!ably to the conditions re7uisite for the e ercise of the po,er of +udicial in7uiry ,hich by their stringent character, together ,ith the constitutional prescription of a co!paratively higher vote to declare a la, unconstitutional, reveal a salutary principle of govern!ent that a la, should, by all reasonable intend!ent and feasible !eans, be saved fro! the doo! of unconstitutionality, the rule corollary thereto being that if a la, is susceptible to t,o interpretations, one of ,hich ,ould !a*e it constitutional, that interpretation should be adopted that ,ill not *ill the la,. 0t is to adhere to the above principles that the sub!ission is !ade herein, that ,hile in the i!ple!entation of the la,, constitutional repugnancy !ay not entirely be ruled out, a categorical ruling hereon not being necessary or desirable at the !o!ent, the la, itself is definitely not unconstitutional. 3 Any of the incu!bent +udges ,ho feel in+ured after the la, shall have been i!ple!ented has ade7uate re!edy in la,, ,ith full relief as ,ould be proper. But surely, the benefits envisioned by the la, in the discharge of one of the basic duties of govern!ent to the people B the ad!inistration of +ustice B should not be sacrificed, as it ,ould be, if the la, is, as sought in the present petition, declared void right no,, on the clai! of a fe, of being allegedly denied a right, at best of doubtful character, for the clai! ,ould see! to rest on an unsupportable theory that they have a vested right to a public office. 'ust one !ore point. The la, in 7uestion is not self-e ecuting in the sense that upon its effectivity, certain +udges and +ustices cease to be so by direct action of the la,. This is ,hat distinguishes the Act in 7uestion fro! R.A. No. ""4> involved in the )ca!po case, 5 ,hich by its direct action, no act of i!ple!entation being necessary, all the +udges ,hose positions ,ere abolished, auto!atically ceased as such. The Act in 7uestion, therefore, is not as e posed to the sa!e vulnerability to constitutional attac* as R.A. No. ""4> ,as. Fet by the operation of the Constitution ,ith its ,ise provision on ho, a la, !ay be declared unconstitutional, R.A. No. ""4> stood the test for it to be enforced to the fullness of its intent, ,hich ,as, as in the la, under consideration, 0dentified ,ith public interest and general ,elfare, through a !ore efficient and effective +udicial syste! as the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4= see*s to establish. Aence, the constitutionality of the la, should not be assailed, and the la, itself, stri*en do,n, on the ground that so!e +udges or +ustices !ay be re!oved or separated in violation of their security of tenure. The la, does not directly operate ,ith Chat effect. 0t is in ho, the la, ,ould be i!ple!ented that this feared eventuality !ay or !ay not occur. ;e ,ould then be *illing the la, on a !ere speculation if ;e do so at this stage. This ,ould be an in+udicious act done in rec*less disregard of the safeguards built around a la, to defend it ,hen its constitutionality is attac*edG first the presu!ption that a la, is constitutionalG secon' ,hen a la, is susceptible to t,o interpretations one that ,ould !a*e it constitutional, the other, unconstitutional, the for!er should be adoptedG and t"ir', the Constitution itself ,hich ordains that a la, !ay not be declared unconstitutional e cept on the vote of at least ten ?"=@ !e!bers of the /upre!e Court, !ore than ,hat is re7uired for an ordinary decision of the Court en banc. This is not to !ention the stringent re7uisites for the e ercise of the po,er of +udicial in7uiry as already adverted to, all designed to save the la, fro! the dire fate of unconstitutionality.

65 /. 6D /o #45.ritten rule.3. Perkins v.o constitutional provisions. and that the po. a@ 0t is a funda!ental proposition that the legislative po. D6 Ala "=5. The /upre!e Court shall have the po.er to abolish Courts is generally coe tensive .s 0 entertain in regards to the constitutionality of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. 3aines # 8ea 5">@.ing that they are untouchables by virtue of the per!anence of their tenure . )fficer. There should be no conflict Bet. 'ur. !ore fir! and enduring than any of the postulates spread in our . (unter. Article K.riter. <56. efficient and effective +udiciary.. The legislative po. The right of 'udges to hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of <= years. in the last analysis. >$4G /tate.ell-*no. At the sa!e ti!e. "5DG Aalsey vs.hole could have been !eant by the Constitution to be sacrificed for the sa*e of only the fe. The +udge of such court ta*es office .ho sit on the Bench. the 7uestion before this Court is a si!ple !atter of choosing bet."omas v. of the )rganic la. is the !ain the!e of this separate opinion. citing Iandueta vs. The controversy in this case involves t..hen the court is abolished any une pired ter! is abolished also.ith the po. 0t is the character and the !ettle of the 'udges .To the . citing McCulley vs.hat is for the good of the people as a . or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. Rep. (or. Pub. The greatest good for the greatest nu!ber is an un. the po.ho have abused the prerogatives of their +udicial position *no. "#$. 0 !ight say. >"6G D# A!. (or. 0f 0 a! . <.ith that encu!brance and *no. de la Costa. Corbin.% The i!portance and the i!perative of !aintaining the independence of the 'udiciary is undisputed. it is !erely to state certain vie.as not intended to be 7ualified by the per!anence of tenure ?)pinion of Chief 'ustice Ricardo Paras in )ca!po vs.o provisions.er to create the!. as the i!ple!entation of the la. "D< M"$66N.er to discipline +udges of inferior courts and. ">6. concurring.een protecting so!e +udges fro! possible separation. organi&e or reorgani&e inferior Courts ?Brillo vs.er to organi&e and to reorgani&e the!. it is not the security of tenure per se that is the only safeguard to the independence of the 'udiciary.er to abolish. J.ith it the po. >> Phil.ith that encu!brance and *no. > A!. ". "<= Ala. e rel.n and ti!ehonored !a i! %/alus populi establish supre!a le . et al. to achieve its pri!ary purpose of i!proving the +udiciary !ay have to result in. /tate. or serving the interest of the entire society through an honest. $=D-6@. 6" ). Aas not the i!pression been created in the public and that there are those .. Enage.% MELENC(O-7ERRERA. . it is unthin*able that . /ection < of the sa!e Article reads. 'udges of those Courts ta*e office .ritten Constitution. There is un7ualified adherence on !y part to the dis!issal of the Petition filed in this case.er of Congress under the Constitution cannot be abridged.er to create Courts ordinarily includes the po.ledge.een the t. <5#.ledge..er to create a court carries . The Me!bers of the /upre!e Court and +udges of inferior courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.er to abolish . Both should be har!oni&ed. provides that the legislative has the po.er to abolish it. other. does not deprive Congress of its po. by a vote of at least eight Me!bers order their dis!issal. /EC. /ecretary of 'ustice. $D Phil. /ection ". The po.ise e pressed in the .er to establish inferior Courts by la.riting this separate concurrence. . This.

Public interest and public good. #.ithout cause there can be da!age to the public .n sphere./.C. fro! . Courts can be abolished. the 'udges cannot be ousted .er to discipline. the for!er is the . the entire +udicial syste! can be changed. because the %'udiciary% is of !ore i!portance to the . as the legislative body vie. There is no sho.er of discipline vested in the /upre!e Court by the present Constitution reading.hich is an individual right.here the legislature has . tenure of office is a !atter concerning the individual 'udge. 5. The po. . "$$ Mass. "4#.er to discipline in'ivi'ual +udges of inferior Courts.hen there is re!oval fro! an e isting +udicial office but not . as clearly e plained in the !ain opinion. 0 a! satisfied that the challenged la.ill necessarily have to lose his position because the abolished Court is not entailed to hi!.hich they cannot be separated before retire!ent age e cept as a disciplinary action for bad behavior. the po.ithout +ust causeG that is the e tent of the constitutional provision relative to security of tenure of 'udges. 0f that syste! can no longer ad!it of change. supra.as !otivated for personal or political reasons as to +ustify the interference by the Court ?3arvey vs. the rights to the! are necessarily e tinguished ?Manalang vs.ith tenure of 'udges. 46 N.er of abolition of Courts has been used to disguise an unconstitutional and evil purpose to defeat the security of tenure of 'udges. 8o. under /ection <.er of the legislative to establish inferior Courts presupposes the po.elfare of the country than the tenure of office of an individual 'udge.ing that the Reorgani&ation Act .illed that the Courts be abolished. This %individuality% character of /ection < is supported by the clause that the /upre!e Court has the po. Nor does a conflict e ist . Cuitoriano. Besides.er. #4<G "=> Pac. "#< A. .er %to discipline 'udges of inferior Courts. 'udges are entailed to their Courts. by a vote of at least 4 !e!bers. The 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4" sufficiently co!plies . "> /CRA 6$$ M"$>>N@. D>4G /tate vs. 0f a 'udge is re!oved .b@ A distinction should be !ade bet. :nder /ection ". By the abolition of those offices.elfare to so!e e tent. can cause incalculable pre+udice to the people. 1i!aporo. c@ The constitutional guarantee of tenure of 'udges applies only as their Courts e ist.s it. D= Mont. until that presu!ption is clearly overco!e.heels of progress and the i!peratives of gro. and.8. 0f an inferior Court is abolished.ith the po. !ust be balanced .er to abolish those Courts. Courts are not entailed to their 'udges.ell. As long as those Courts e ist. there are no offices for . The reorgani&ation of the +udicial syste! . :pon declaration of the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation as provided for in the Reorgani&ation Act. but !aintenance of a Court that does not !eet the re7uire!ents of progressive 3overn!ent.hen that it office is abolished. the affected Courts %shall be dee!ed auto!atically abolished There being no Courts.ith the bona fi'e rule in the abolition of public office. the 'udge presiding that Court . A legislature is not bound to give security of tenure to Courts. >$6. 0t should riot be said of the Batasang Pa!bansa that its po.ould be futile to spea* of the /upre!e Court9s po. .th in the develop!ent of the 'udiciary. 0t !ay even be stated that. /ection < 7uoted above refers to the tenure of office of %individual% 'udges ?inclusive of 'ustices of inferior Courts that is to say. supre!e .hich tenure of 'udges !ay be clai!ed. $=5 M"$6DN@. D<.oe to the . the /upre!e Court shall have the po. /ection " heretofore !entioned refers to the %'udiciary% as a funda!ental depart!ent of 3overn!ent.ithin the li!its of its o. "$ R. supra. Reverting to /ection " and /ection <.een tenure of 'udges and tenure of Courts. order their dis!issal Absent the Court. it . Thus.eightier. every presu!ption of good faith in its actuations !ust be accorded a coordinate and coe7ual branch of govern!ent.R. #5>G 8lanto vs. To hold that tenure of 'udges is superior to the legislative po.er to discipline can co!e into play only .as enacted by the Batasang Pa!bansa in response to an urgent and pressing public need and not for the purpose of affecting adversely the security of tenure of all 'udges or legislating the! out to the detri!ent of +udicial independence. $D Phil.er to discipline cannot pose an obstacle to the abolition. because the po. . 0n fact.E. Eduards.er to reorgani&e is to render i!potent the e ercise of that po.

"D. 0t goes to the roots and does not +ust scratch the surface of our +udicial syste!. provided for is speciali&ation into four ?D@ Civil Cases 1ivisions.hich is the prerogative of the Chief E ecutive alone As in the case of appoint!ents. "$<5 Constitution@. . The Reorgani&ation Act reorgani&ing the entire +udicial syste! e cluding the /upre!e Court. 6.ith the allocation of po. as an incident to the po. 8a. A public office cannot be regarded as the %property % of the incu!bent. %The thrust is on develop!ent.ith the e ecutive po. . 0t is a privilege in the gift of the /tate ?Bro.er to dis!issal vested in the /upre!e Court by the "$<5 Constitution is deli!ited by its po. Absent any need for discipline and the po. 5# 8RA. #. "$<= ed.@. The facts herein are dissi!ilar fro! those in &rillo vs.o ?#@ Cri!inal Cases 1ivisions and four ?D@ /pecial Cases 1ivisions.er of appoint!ent. certiorari. Political 8a. Ad!inistrative 8a. five !e!bers co!posing each division.ould be no deprivation either of due process of la.er to discipline the 'udges of the abolished Courts. ">> Mass. in case of dissent. can pro!ulgate a decision. and a revision of procedures . and a !a+ority vote of three !e!bers being needed for a decision.hich is the only constitutional Court. of assigning t.% 0t does not provide for a piece!eal change. Noel.ever. . D.ith the po. the %attain!ent of !ore efficiency in the disposal of cases. a reallocation of +urisdiction.er to discipline. prohibition.er of re!oval basically e ecutive in nature. D< Phil..er of discipline and dis!issal in the /upre!e Court deprive the e ecutive of the po.. 0ts !ain ob+ectives are an i!proved ad!inistration of +ustice. ""#.ith !a+or refor!s in other depart!ents of govern!ent. it !ay .hich do not tend to the proper !eting out of +ustice. Ao. constituted into ten ?"=@ divisions instead of fifteen ?"6@.here the position of 'ustice of the Peace. /ection 6 ?>@. This obviates the cu!berso!e procedure.% These ai!s are policy !atters of necessity in the pursuit of develop!ental goals . Ena#e ?$D Phil. Being circu!scribed in scope.n vs. #65 cited also in TaJada O Carreon.8. A public office is a public trust ?/ection ".n charter. arriving at unani!ity.as !erely changed to Municipal 'udge after the !unicipality of Tacloban . 0t does not si!ply change the na!es of the Courts. Eol. 0t envisages institutional refor!s in the Philippine +udiciary. . . .rits of !anda!us. t. The abolition .er of re!ovalH 0s it not !ore in *eeping .er shared . cited in Martin. No.here nu!erous such cases are filed daily. Besides. is not this po.arranto and au iliary .rits or processes .. Russell. D5 NE "==6.er to dis!iss . <5# M"$6DN@ .ould undoubtedly ease the burden of the /upre!e Court .C. and the /andiganbayan. p. A public office is not a contract ?/egovia vs. Article K000. 0t also allo.hether or not in aid of its appellate +urisdiction.er of appoint!ent of the e ecutive .ell be as*ed. This . Article K of the Constitution provides that the /upre!e Court shall appoint its officials and e!ployees.as converted into a city .ho appoints so!e of the Court officials These 7uestions could lend the!selves to an in-depth study in the proper case.er of re!ovalH (or is not the po. 65<@.% 0t is %the first !a+or reorgani&ation after four generations. of the Philippines. habeas corpus. 0t is of significance to note that the po.er to dis!iss does not e ist.ers in our govern!ent to state that the /upre!e Court shares its po."e 2nterme'iate Appellate Court This Court is no.o other !e!bers to co!pose a %division of five%.ith the abolition of certain Courts is not an e ercise of the po. /ignificant a!ong the institutional changes and procedural refor!s are.hich could be ineffective.ith its o.. The speciali&ation is e pected to contribute to the e peditious disposal of cases. it bears stressing that there is no re!oval fro! office but abolition of the office itself. >. 5<4-5<$. on Public )fficers and Election 8a. does the grant of the po. The Court has been given original +urisdiction to issue . 7uo .ithin the 'udiciary. The 7uestioned statute is in *eeping . The officers are the servants of the people and not their rulers ?## R. although ostensibly abolished. p.s fle ibility in that any three !e!bers of a division. 6D5 M"$#6N@.

resolution. thereby resulting in overall fle ibility.er to try cases and conduct hearings. /pecial procedures and technical rules governing special Courts . The /upre!e Court !ay designate certain Branches of said Courts to e ercise special +urisdiction over certain cases. orders or a. etropolitan .ithin its original and appellate +urisdiction.ould no. There are innovative features in the Act that co!!end the!selves. This does a.ithin the e clusive appellate +urisdiction of the /upre!e Court in accordance . This ensures !obility since a 'udge !ay be assigned any.hich is his official station.here .een trial Courts have been entirely eli!inated. The 0nter!ediate Appellate Court . A 'udge is appointed to a region.ithin the Region . /peciali&ed Courts are integrated into the Regional Trial Courts. receive evidence and perfor! any and all acts necessary to resolve factual issues raised in cases falling .ould be to a Metropolitan Trial Court although a 'udge !ay be assigned by the /upre!e Court to any Branch of the Metropolitan Trial Court as de!anded by the e igencies of the service. be Presidential appointees unli*e presently . they re!ain as Branches of Regional Trial Courts. set up is that 'udges of these Courts . Regional Trial Courts .er trial Courts. Additionally. The appoint!ent of 'udges . . boards or co!!issions.here special +urisdiction applies only to cases of traffic violations.een the old and the ne.ith the Constitution. Thus.here the incu!bent 'udges are !erely designated by the /upre!e Court in an Ad!inistrative )rder to sit in e isting Municipal Courts and Municipal Circuit Courts.ards of 7uasi-+udicial agencies. decisions.ill no. thirteen ?"5@ 'udicial Regions. b@ :nder /ection 5$.ith those in cities not for!ing part of !etropolitan areas. +udg!ent. They can also be circuiti&ed .ay .ard.0t has e clusive appellate +urisdiction over all final +udg!ents. there is a unifor! period for appeal of fifteen ?"6@ days counted fro! the notice of the final order. a@ The confusing and illogical areas of concurrent +urisdiction bet.ould try all cases . trials or further proceedings ?/ec. >e#ional . unli*e the present set-up .rial Courts Municipal Trial Courts !ay no. . including the po.er to grant and conduct ne. in . a.ithout applying the constitutional li!itation of si !onths.rial Courts There is one Metropolitan Trial Court . instru!entalities. have the po. instead of si teen ?">@ 'udicial 1istricts. e cept those falling .rial Courts? unicipal Circuit .ithin its +urisdiction unless special cases are assigned to the!. the sa!e as the present ad!inistrative and Batasang Pa!bansa Regions. )ne notable change bet.ith several Branches for large urban areas. $@. or decision appealed fro!. <.ith the delays attendant to the re!and of cases to the lo.rial Courts There are no.hich case. be designated by the /upre!e Court to e ercise special +urisdiction over certain cases. unicipal .ill continue to re!ain applicable in Branches assigned those special cases. -it can re!edy te!porary ine7ualities of caseloads in trial Courts. resolutions.

of .ith unconstitutionality ?Myles /alt Co.% Thus. $. This . to include the superior positions of 'udges . nor be li!ited in.or* to the reco!!endation of options and guidelines in the tas* of reorgani&ation. adoption by reference of findings of fact and conclusions of la. itself . e ceed the salary of the 'ustice or 'udge ne t in ran*. in effect. (or the speedy i!ple!entation of the la. a@ The President can be e pected to indicate a reasonable ti!e fra!e for the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation provided for in the Act and the issuance of the corresponding i!ple!enting )rder. #6$ M"$#<N@. .as because the Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation.er the follo. The staffing pattern for 'udges is already clearly and e plicitly provided in the la. it . 4. Nothing should so trench upon e ecutive choice as to be. The Co!!ittee had no part . the .ord of e planation. the full use of his discretion in the appoint!ent of persons to any public office.hatsoever in the drafting of the bill nor in the public hearings conducted. as set forth in the decision. 0t is also constitutionally ob+ectionable in that it .ith. in deciding appealed cases. confined its . 0n fact. The President !ay not be deprived of. 6= Phil.ing safeguards are reco!!ended and2or e pected to be underta*en. c@ :nder /ection D=. !ay have the satisfaction of at least appro i!ating the salary scale of those above hi! depending on his length of service. to be trans!itted.ould depart fro! the traditional concept of a staffing pattern. To obviate the possibility of an unconstitutional e ercise of po.ith the prerogative of appoint!ent intrinsically e ecutive in nature ?3uevara vs.ill e pedite the rendition of decisions in appealed cases. b@ Appoint!ents and their effectivity should be si!ultaneous . 0 a! constrained to disagree . or as close as possible. /pringer. #5$ :/ D<4. in no case shall the total salary of each 'ustice or 'udge concerned.hich refers !ore to personnel organi&ation and corresponding salaries of inferior e!ployees. the confine!ent of the +urisdiction of the 0nter!ediate Appellate Court !erely to appellate +urisdiction.ho !ay not reach the top.here unfortunately there is not enough roo! for all. the appellation of !e!bers of the 'udiciary.ill be ad!inistered should not be tainted . the !anner in . But . Provided that. A . the /upre!e Court can be e pected to sub!it to the President . Board of Co!!rs. to the declaration by the President of the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation under /ection DD to avoid any detri!ent to the s!ooth and continuous functioning of the +udicial !achinery. 0f 0 had resolved not to inhibit !yself in this case upon !otion filed by petitioners. 0nocentes.hich it . The entire original record is no. >= 8. "=..A record on appeal is no longer re7uired to ta*e an appeal. vs.as privileged to be a !e!ber. or resolution appealed fro!. 5$#. as reco!!ended by the Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation ?Article K0 of its Report@.ritten is constitutional. . +udicial designation.hile the la.hich 0 .. itself as . c@ The services of those not separated should be dee!ed uninterrupted. after this longevity pay is added. "> /CRA 5<$ M"$>>NG 3overn!ent of the Philippines vs. efficient. is also provided for. Ed. so!e of its reco!!endations li*e the circuiti&ation or regionali&ation of the 0nter!ediate Appellate Court. order.ith the suggestion of one of the amici curiae that the staffing pattern be !ade to include the na!es of 'udges. and !eritorious service rendered in the 'udiciary.hich enu!erates the various 'udges and 'ustices in their hierarchical order. 'ustices and 'udges . (urther!ore. 5> /ct #=D@.ould interfere . d@ /ection D# provides for %a !onthly longevity pay e7uivalent to 6P of the !onthly basic pay for 'ustices and 'udges of the courts herein created for each five years of continuous.ithin thirty ?5=@ days fro! the date of finality of its 1ecision the staffing pattern for all Courts re7uired by /ection D5.

ere created by la. but by no !eans the least. is not unconstitutional. Ra!iro. 'ustice Ricardo C.er to create an office includes the po. /ection "@. ?:rgelio vs. ?Manalang vs. . No la. courts..ho . The i!ple!entation of the la. that the 'udiciary reorgani&ation la. )chave. ?Canonigo vs. 0 concur in the vie. The . Cuitoriano. #5 /CRA $$4G Baldo& vs. Puno declared the ob+ectives of the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation 8a. ER(CTA.er to abolish the sa!e. The i!ple!entation of the la. $=5G Cru& vs. 8astly.ill entail appoint!ents to the ne. 6" ).adoption of the syste! found in the :nited Lingdo! and in Co!!on.hile. length of service and other relevant factors shall be appointed to a strengthened and revitali&ed +udicial syste! in the interest of public serviceG that appoint!ents . 0t does not violate the principle of security of tenure of +udges. as Batasang Pa!bansa Blg. $D Phil. "#$. ?:rgelio vs. .een re!oval fro! office and abolition of an office. J.hose co!bined efforts after a careful study and deliberation resulted to the enact!ent of a bill no. . All e isting inferior courts .3.hat is only needed is that the abolition passes the test of good faith. #= /CRA "D#@ /ecurity of tenure cannot be invo*ed . 5" /CRA #<4@ The po.n that said abolition of the courts is !erely incidental to a bona fide reorgani&ation.isdo!. "D<@. in the i!ple!entation of the la.. . The po. is irrepealable. ?)ca!po vs. 5>#@ A distinction should be !ade bet. Ad!ittedly. The Constitution grants to the Batasang Pa!bansa the po. the Minister of 'ustice and the 1eputy Minister of 'ustice. in abolition.o!en .eal !ust prevail. to be the follo.er of appoint!ent is the e clusive prerogative of the President. )s!eJa supra. patriotis! and states!anship of the President.ill result fro! the easing of court doc*etsG and ?5@ structural changes to !eet the e igencies of present day Philippine /ociety and of the foreseeable future. so!e 'udges and 'ustices !ay be adversely affected.een public interest and the individual interest of so!e 'udges and 'ustices.ere not availed of in the final Act.ing. )ffice of the President.elfare of the people is the supre!e la.ill not be unduly delayedG and that appointees .er to create courts inferior to the /upre!e Court ?Article K.ill be evaluated thoroughly to ensure 7uality and i!partiality in the !en and . the office no longer e ists thereby ter!inating the right of the incu!bent to e ercise the rights and duties of the office. 0n his sponsorship speech. concurring. )s!eJa $ /CRA 5"<G Ma&a vs. Pri!icias.ill *eep vigil over our +udicial ra!parts. But in a conflict bet. /ecretary of 'ustice. ?"@ the attain!ent of !ore efficiency in the disposal of casesG ?#@ the i!prove!ent in the 7uality of decisions by the courts that . .ealth countries of having a Court of general +urisdiction . it need only be sho. integrity..ith trial and appellate divisions. signed into la. Re!oval i!plies that the office subsists after ouster. <4 /CRA 56D.@ 0t is unthin*able to i!pute bad faith to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation co!posed of four ?D@ distinguished !e!bers of the /upre!e Court. The po. should be left e clusively to the .hen there is no re!oval of a public officer or e!ployee but an abolition of his office. and to the !e!bers of the Batasang Pa!bansa .er of the legislative branch of the govern!ent to abolish courts inferior to the /upre!e Court has long been established. 0 entertain no doubt that reliance can be placed on the good faith of the President that all the deserving. "".. the public . upon considerations of %efficiency.

ever so!e observations on the doctrine of undue delegation of legislative po.er. so it has the po. 1 0 believe the President is under no obligation to consult . Cabinet !e!bers play a leading role in the legislative process. $= /CRA >#$@ even to the President. There is no.er and thereby correspondingly reduce the incidence of %undue% delegation of legislative po. As pointed out in the !ain opinion. 0 concur in the opinion penned by the learned Chief 'ustice.as separation of legislative and e ecutive po.ers could be negated via unbridled 'ele#ation of legislative po.ith the function of giving advisory opinions. as the /upre!e Court itself has said. The "$<5 Constitution has ho.er. there . Court of 0ndustrial Relations.!a*ing body has the po. there . the Batasang Pa!bansa !ay by la.ould be free to follo. 0f the President should consult the /upre!e Court on the i!ple!entation of Batas Pa!bansa "#$ and the /upre!e Court should give its advice ?leaving aside the 7uestion of procedure@. 3ood faith has thus beco!e the crucial issue in the case at bar.ers in the hands of the sa!e group of officials. 0ndeed. #. 0 believe the President .. J. as has been done in the !ain opinion. 0nc..er. :nder the old Constitution.ever.er to create inferior courts and define.ers. Bacolod B Murcia !illing Co. or disregard the adviceG but. :nder the circu!stances. )n this basis. it is !anifest that actual. E=ecutive consultation 3it" t"e Supreme Court. concurring. -n'ue 'ele#ation of le#islative po3ers .ever radically changed the constitutional set-up. it cannot give advisory opinions ?Bacolod Murcia Planters9 Asso.ith the /upre!e CourtG and the /upre!e Court as such is not called upon to give legal advice to the President. at least vis-avis the E ecutive 1epart!ent. "..er. )ther. 5= /CRA ><G N. there is really not !uch sense in rigidly upholding the principle of non-delegation of legislative po. the legislature has provided a!ple standards or guidelines for the i!ple!entation of the delegated po./A vs.as an atte!pt to vest the /upre!e Court . in either case. there .ould li*e to add ho. did not see fit to adopt the proposal. As the la.ise. not !erely presu!ed good faith attended its enact!ent.er. this ti!e perhaps not so !uch to authori&e shifting of po. the present Constitution has significantly eroded the hoary doctrine of non-delegation of legislative po.er. .ing observations. 0n ti!es of . a co!!ingling or fusion of e ecutive and legislative po. B The petitioners have also assailed the constitutionality of Batas Pa!bansa "#$ on the ground that a provision thereof ?regarding fi ing of co!pensation and allo.as good reason to !aintain the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative po.PLANA. ho. although it has retained so!e provisions of the old Constitution . . The Pri!e Minister indeed !ust co!e fro! its ran*s. as to avert the abdication thereof.hen the abiding rule . prescribe and apportion their +urisdiction.er. 0n a very real sense. the principle of separationof govern!ental po.n in the other. authori&e the President for a li!ited period and sub+ect to such restrictions as it !ay prescribe.ould be no guarantee that the i!ple!enting action . 0n the drafting of the present Constitution.hich .er to abolish or replace the! . 0 . and !e!bers of the Batasan actively discharge e ecutive functions.ances for !e!bers of the 'udiciary@ constitutes an undue delegation unto the President of legislative po.ould be upheld in one case or stric*en do.er.ith other courts as long as the act is done in good faith and not for the purpose of attaining an unconstitutional end.hich !a*es the delegation inoffensive. The fra!ers of the Constitution. :pon an e a!ination of the legislative history of Batas Pa!bansa "#$. to e ercise po.ers necessary and proper to carry out a declared .ere predicated on the principle of non-delegation. vs. 7ualified only by the follo.ar or other national e!ergency.

Roberto Concepcion and '.ing !ain considerations and reasons. ".ithstanding the great deference due to enact!ents of the Batasan. /ec. M2bi'. .% 2 The total abolition involves a total of ".ould go .ithout the consent of the /upre!e Court. i!port and e port 7uotas.N TEE7AN8EE.@ in the leading "$66 case of 0campo 3 . tonnage and . later Chief 'ustice Cesar Beng&on re!ar*ed in his separate opinion B %?T@he MadverseN outco!e of this litigation Msanctioning the ouster fro! office of the ten petitioners . dissenting.B.ith the !a+ority that %Congress !ay not. "#$ by its title .@ . then Chief 'ustice Paras and Padilla.hile 'ustice Ale Reyes conceded that other. Bautista. E000. tariff rates.ithdra.ho fell short by one vote to reach the constitutionally re7uired #25 !a+ority ?at the ti!e 4 out of an ""-!e!ber /upre!e Court@ to declare unconstitutional and invalid section 5 of Republic Act ""4> abolishing the positions of "4 +udges-at-large and "6 cadastral +udges and re!oving or legislating out the incu!bent +udges fro! office as against the contrary vote of a !inority of D 'ustices ?na!ely. "6.ittingly or un.>>5 +udicial positions . "$6D of R. J.ea*ened the usually . Ais rationale that the e press constitutional guaranty of security of tenure of +udges %during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office% 3 !ust prevail over the i!plied constitutional authority to abolish courts and to oust the +udges despite their constitutionally-secured tenure bears repeating thus.ith the parado ical situation that the last three na!ed 'ustices voted for the validity of the Act as a re!edial !easure that abolished said positions . ""4> abolishing the positions of +udges-at large and cadastral +udgesN is apt to revive the speculation . 0 go by the ruling of the nu!erical !a+ority of seven 'ustices ?na!ely.ise he . /ec. such po.ithin specified this and sub+ect to such stations and restrictions as it !ay i!pose.!e!ber Court of Ta Appeals@ and upon declaration by the President of the co!pletion of the reorgani&ation ."4= incu!bent +udges and D45 vacancies@ as of 'anuary #>..8.hich sub+ected the! to a ri#o'on 'e @ueces . :ndoubtedly.ould unprecedentedly dee! all the said courts %auto!atically abolished en !asse and %the incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office. authori&e the President to fi .ittingly the Constitution has further . . ''. ?Art. Pablo.4$5. and 9never in our history has such a nu!ber of +udges of first instance Mtotalling 55 positionsN been ousted through +udicial reorgani&ation.@ The Batasang Pa!bansa !ay by la. Not.national policy.ea* +udicial depart!ent because of its 9innovative9 re7uire!ent of a #25 !a+ority vote of the /upre!e Court to declare a statute unconstitutional.n by resolution of the Batasang Pa!bansa.% #. 'ugo.hich they considered as %repulsive to an independent +udiciary% and violative of an e press prohibitory provision of the "$56 Constitution Q . and other duties or i!posts. ''. "$4# and the Act . upon the enact!ent on 'une "$. Batas Pa!bansa Blg.ing the incu!bent to finish his ter! of office. for the follo. others as cadastral +udges.hether . as a general rule.ers shall cease upon its ne t ad+ourn!ent. Ale Reyes and 8abrador.A.ho uphold the constitutionality of the Act and have voted to dis!iss the petition. appoint!ents to ". no !ore crucial and transcendental issue of such !agnitude has confronted the Philippine +udiciary than in the present case. Monte!ayor.ith ".ho . so!e as +udges-at-large.ould reorgani&e all e isting courts ?e cept the nine-!e!ber /andiganbayan 1 and the three. 0 regretably find !yself unable to +oin the ran*s of !y estee!ed colleagues in the !a+ority .ithout allo. As then Associate. "<?#@. The challenged Act. Reyes. Cesar Beng&on.ould effect an increase of #5= +udicial positions raising the total of +udicial positions to be filled by ne. :nless sooner .harfage dues. abolish a +udicial post .ithout per!anent station .ere presiding different Courts of (irst 0nstance.

ithout debate% 9 and logically concluded that %?N@o.ith the e=pressguaranty of tenure protecting the petitioners.er to abolish courts and the positions of +udges of such abolished courts ?first inference@G an' t"erefore ?second inference@ Congress li*e.A careful analysis . by a vote of at least eight !e!bers. To bring about reconciliations is the great .as intended to %help secure the independence of the +udiciary% in that %during good behavior. Congress has e press po.ould have so clearly provided for such for! of re!oval in the "$<5 Constitution. then they .hich po.or* of +urists. No. and both sections given validity.er to discipline +udges of inferior courts and.% citing Professor 'ose Aruego9s observation that the security of +udges9 tenure provision . having vetoed the transfer of +udges thru a re-organi&ation.as defeated easily ..ned on re!oval of +udges of first instance through abolition of their offices or reorgani&ation. provided it does not thereby re!ove the incu!bent +udgesG such abolition to ta*e effect upon ter!ination of their incu!bent The funda!ental provisions on the !atter are thereby coordinated and har!oni&ed9 as 'ustice 8aurel suggested in his concurring opinion in Iandueta v. As for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on stressed in his opinion in 0campo. but the a!end!ent .hatsoeverG they !ay stay in office until they reach the age of seventy years. before. the "$5D Constitutional Convention %fro.hich shall prevail )bviously the e press guaranty !ust override the i!plied authority. 0n other . order their dis!issal.er..er to establish courtsG t"erefore it has i!plicit po. <"4-<"$@% Ae further cited Aruego9s report that a proposed a!end!ent to the effect that the prohibition against transfers of +udges to another district . respondents9 defense rests on a secon'inference deduced fro! such implie' po. This reasoning that the e press guaranty of tenure protecting incu!bent +udges during good behavior unless re!oved fro! office after hearing and due process or upon reaching the co!pulsory retire!ent age of seventy years !ust override the i!plied authority of re!oving by legislation the +udges has been further strengthened and placed beyond doubt by the ne. Parado es of 8egal /cience.ithout the approval of the /upre!e Court 8 %should not be applicable to a reorgani&ation of tribunals of +ustice or of districts. there . "". because they reason out thusly. Resulting +uridical situation.hereas petitioners invo*e an e=press guaranty or positivedefinition of their ter! of office.ords.ished to dispel the strong doubts.ill perceive that . if one be considered a proviso or e ception to the other. %0!plications can never be per!itted to contradict the e pressed intent or to defeat its purpose. .er .ise has po. provisions of the "$<5 Constitution that transferred the ad!inistrative supervision over all courts and their personnel fro! the Chief E ecutive through the then /ecretary of 'ustice to the /upre!e Court 4 and vested in the /upre!e Court e clusively %the po. if the fra!ers of the "$<5 Constitution . ?Cardo&o.% 7 . The implie' authority invo*ed by respondents collides .as for!erly lodged by the 'udiciary Act in the Chief E ecutive.% But the collision !ay he should be avoided. 1e la Costa. under the Constitution the Congress !ay abolish e isting courts. to say the least in the light of the < to D vote in the 0campo case against re!oval of incu!bent +udges through legislative action by abolition of their courts. >@ 5 5. the Convention evidently could not have per!itted the re!oval of +udges thru re-organi&ation. or beco!e incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office. p. Eol.-!a*ing body nor re!oved by the Chief E ecutive for any reason and under the guise of any pretense . Accurately stated. they !ay not be legislated out of office by the la.er to e+ect the +udges holding such positions. The (ra!ing of the Philippine Constitution. but on the contrary as already stated they ruled out . pp. the respondents rely on implie' authority to abolish courts and the positions of the respective +udges. ?Aruego.

Concededly. Re!e!ber that on 'une "$. The present Municipal Courts. Enage. Malone v. 8-<""6. No. shall hold office during good behavior .hich involves an unprecedented total %abolition. the 7uestioned Act effects certain changes and procedural refor!s . 'uvenile O 1o!estic Relations Courts and Courts of Agrarian Relations are all restructured and redesignated to be *no.ith the consent of the Co!!ission on Appoint!ents or by the /ecretary of 'ustice. After the passage of Republic Act No.hether the inter!ediate court of appeals provided for is a ne.8. .ere in fact substituted or replaced by other positions of +udges% applies . "$6D. there . 0n this vie.% thus.. The Courts of (irst 0nstance. ""4> there .ould not be ob+ectionable as an encroach!ent on the President9s prerogative of appoint!ent. . but actually retained . nor in the nu!ber of courts. and it . or legislation or re!oval or abolition... but they do not change the basic structure of the e isting courts.ith an increase in the nu!ber of Appellate 'ustices fro! the present D6 to 6= but . these petitioners are entitled to re!ain in the service.ith !ore specific delineation of +urisdiction as !entioned particularly in the !a+ority opinion. Congress could have. "$6D. /o!ething si!ilar . ""4 tenn.ere eli!inated .e believe. .as done before. .illia!s.hereby the %old courts% shall %be dee!ed auto!atically abolished and the . the funda!ental point e!phasi&ed by for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on that abolition of the 55 +udicial positions in the 0campo case .n by the co!!on na!e of Regional Trial Courts .ith sa!e po. . There . 5$".such re!oval or ouster of +udges by legislative action by vesting e clusively in the /upre!e Court the po.as a !ere change of designation fro! 9Cadastral 'udge or 'udge at large to district +udge Aence it should be ruled that as their positions had not been 9abolished9 de facto.ers of facts. The positions of 'udges-at-8arge and Cadastral 'udges .er of discipline and re!oval of +udges of all inferior courts. once appointed.ith the sa!e bill. . %?C@all it reorgani&ation. March 5=. This being so. district +udges. Munless incapacitated and until retire!entN.as %!erely an indirect !anner of re!oving the petitioners-+udges% .ith provision for certain branches thereof %to handle e clusively cri!inal cases. because such +udges had already been appointed to the +udiciary before the passage of the act.er is created . agrarian cases.as no reduction there .hile the %positions MthatN .as !erely an indirect !anner of re!oving these petitioners.as increase B in the nu!ber of +udges. tribunal% 15a is e7ually applicable to all the other above !entioned courts provided for in the challenged Act as %ne. ?Brillo v. +uvenile and do!estic relations cases. disregards the constitutional assurance that these +udges.ere "=< +udges of first instance. D. 3.@ (or it is not per!issible to effect the re!oval of one +udge thru the e pediency of abolishing his office even as the office . Municipal Circuit Courts and City Courts are restructured and redesignated as Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts and Metropolitan Trial Courts in the challenged Act. urban land refor! cases .ere in fact substituted or replaced by other positions of +udgesG or if you please. The abolition of their offices . this la. and the provision !ay be construed in the light of !ere change of official designation plus increase in salary. Act #$>@. ?Brillo v. there . p. . the %candid ad!ission% by the Chief 'ustice in his opinion for the Court %that he entertained doubts as to . and2or such other special cases as the /upre!e Court !ay deter!ine in the interest of a speedy and efficient ad!inistration of +ustice% 15 and the Court of Appeals is restructured and redesignated as the 0nter!ediate Appellate Court .ere eli!inatedG but they . and should haveas suggested by /ecretary Tua&on during the hearings in Congress directed in said Republic Act No. 3ibbe9s Case D A. as originally proposed by /enator 8aurel in connection . of the picture. And the best proof of this is the plain and si!ple transitory provision in section DD thereof that upon the President9s declaration of co!pletion of the reorgani&ation ?. courts%.R.ith greater force in the case at bar .ith another na!e. 0n !y vie.ith a reduction of the nu!ber of divisions fro! "6 ?co!posed of 5 'ustices each@ to "= ?co!posed of 6 !e!bers each@ such that it is feared that there is created a bottlenec* at the appellate level in the i!portant tas* discharged by such appellate courts as revie. +udges at-large and cadastral +udges ?Rep. . #""@.ere ""D positions of +udges of first instance.R. Enage.ith another na!e. Circuit Cri!inal Courts. ""4> that 9the present +udges-at-large and cadastral +udges shall beco!e district +udges presiding such districts as !ay be fi ed by the President .% 6.

Professors headed by for!er Chief 'ustice Roberto Concepcion that %any reorgani&ation should at least sno. courts% not been !anifestly and substantially the %old courts% . 8aurel in his separate concurring opinion in the pre-. corruption. The %+udges9 broader and stronger guarantees of tenure than ordinary civil servants% as stressed by for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on in Ms !a+ority opinion in 0campo is based on the +udiciary9s status as a coe7ual and coordinate branch of govern!ent.hose independence is not only eroded but is in grave danger of being co!pletely destroyed. together .here the Court could speculate on the good or bad !otives behind the enact!ent of the Act .arranto on the ground of petitioner Iandueta9s estoppel and abandon!ent of office.% The good faith in the enact!ent of the challenged Act !ust needs be granted. !y adherence to the <-!e!ber !a+ority opinion of for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on in the 0campo case. supra.% 1ean Corte& aptly stressed that %+udicial independence is not a guarantee intended for the /upre!e Court alone. records. 8a.hereas the long line of Philippine cases upholding the legislative po. one is hard put to con+ure a case . it .est levels because there are !ore of the! and they operate closest to the people.ithout fear or favor B %free.er to establish the! . courts9N unless they are re!oved for cause.ith the e press constitutional guaranty of tenure of the +udges .er to abolish courts as i!plied fro! the po.hat !ust be reconciled is the legislative po. 13 Aence.% <..ho advocates for the Court9s adoption of the B Beng&on !a+ority opinion in the 0campo case so as to abide by %the ele!entary rule in the interpretation . .orn to protect and enforce.ar case of )an'ueta 12 . president of the Philippine Constitution Association . ineptness and inco!petence but even fro! the tentacles of interference and insiduous influence of the political po. discarded. e7uip!ent. and not a substantial and actual !odification or alteration of the present +udicial structure or syste!% or %a rearrange!ent or re!odeling of the old structure.ould be transferred to the particular %ne.er of reorgani&ation ?is@ sought to cloa* an unconstitutional and evil purpose. as restated by the Philippine Association of 8a.P. are agreed that indispensable for the !aintenance of the Rule of 8a. %for the +udiciary .% and %?P@articularly under the present for! of !odified parlia!entary govern!ent .er to abolish offices refers to officers or e!ployees in the e ecutive branch of govern!ent and %the underlying consideration !ust be borne in !ind that Manalang Mthe aggrieved petitionerN belon#e' to t"e E=ecutive *epartment and because the President approved the la.% This could not have been possible .ers that be to 7uote again fro! 'ustice Barredo9s separate concurring opinion.ithout appearing to be i!prudent and i!proper and declare that %the legislative po.ed fro! the basis of the established legal presu!ptions of validity and constitutionality of statutes ?unless set aside by a #25 !a+ority of "= !e!bers of the /upre!e Court@ and of good faith in their enact!ent.% had these %ne.hat specific cases of the %old courts% . Adherents of the Rule of 8a. 13 Realistically vie.hich is essential for a free and independent +udiciary. no 7uestion or encroach!ent by one branch on the other could be apprehended or alleged. %+ust a rena!ing.. 1ean 0rene Corte& in her !e!orandu! as amicus curiae.ithout a specification and enu!eration of .n the Act %to prevent further destruction of +udicial independence. courts. s.ho strongly urges the Court to stri*e do.incu!bents thereof shall cease to hold office %?T@he cases pending in the old Courts shall be transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act. in his separate opinion. .% 11 >.hich its independence assu!es an even !ore vital i!portance. % The e tensive !e!oranda filed by 1ean Corte& and other amici curiae such as for!er /enator 'ose .ith a change of na!e B or as described by 'ustice Barredo to have been his first vie. no. property and the necessary personnel together .% for!er /enator 8oren&o /u!ulong. the +udiciary is left to perfor! the chec*ing function in the perfor!ance of . 0 do not subscribe to the test of good faith or bad faith in the abolition of the courts and conse7uent ouster of the incu!bent +udges fro! office as e pounded by the late e!inent 'ustice 'ose P.ith the %applicable appropriations.ith legislative and e ecutive functions overlapping and in certain areas !erging. is a free and independent +udiciary. the incu!bents of the e isting courts to re!ain in office Mthe appropriate counterpart 9ne. not only fro! graft. 15 This is not a !atter of personal privilege for the incu!bent +udges but as aptly stated by for!er :. it e tends to the entire court syste! and is even !ore vital to the courts at the lo. 1io*no .ith the pertinent functions.herein the Court dis!issed the petition for 7uo .

eeps through practically the entire +udiciary .hat can result in the !odified parlia!entary syste! fro! the close . courts.arned of the dire conse7uences of giving the 7uestioned provisions of the Act the %absolutist sense . and they should be retained in the ne.een e ecutive and legislature is !ade !anifest in Batas Pa!bansa Blg.eeping reva!p provided .ell usher in a situation .ould be his appointees. "#$ . ?0n this case. yet called upon to safeguard the people9s rights and protect the! oppression.ind and %?(@urther!ore. 4. Even though the lo. 1ean Corte& . "$<#. +ustices and +udges of all courts. that such post-"$<5 Constitution appointed +udges are not sub+ect to the Replace!ent Clause of the cited Transitory Provision.ho . in /epte!ber.er to replace even the +udges appointed after the effectivity on 'anuary "<. There is listed a total of 65 +udges . The Court per its March #<. official and other. "$<> as +udge of the Court of (irst 0nstance of Agusan del Norte and Butuan City. 0f the s. 0 had sub!itted in !y !e!o of /epte!ber D.ea*est branch of govern!ent.ho invo*es the 1eclaration of 1elhi at the 0C' Conference in "$6$.% $. are entitled to security of tenure as guaranteed by the Constitution. "$<>. .s.ide proble! of congested court doc*ets.% have greatly helped in fortifying !y vie.hose resignations . Branch ".yers9 Association .ise dis!issed fro! his position nor had be resigned therefro!.ho sub!its that the total abolition of all courts belo.er granted President Cue&on in the "$56 Constitution upon establish!ent of the Philippine Co!!on. Alafri&.@hatever reorgani&ation plans the co!!ittee !ay reco!!end to !eet the .hen it provides staggered ter!s for the chair!an and !e!bers of the constitutional co!!issions . is an i!portant safeguard of the Rule of 8a. Raul M. their security of tenure and right to due process guaranteed the! by the Constitution% and Atty. The po. president of the Philippine 8a. that %The principles of unre!ovability of the 'udiciary and their /ecurity of Tenure until death or until a retiring age fi ed by statute is reached. e cept the /upre!e Court. president of the National Bar Association of the Philippines .apucar vs. thus !a*ing of the +udiciary a veritable stra. 3on&ales. "$4= to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation that %?. although he had not been re!oved or other. petitioner +udge appointed on 'anuary 5=.ithstanding the generally held vie.as rendered nugatory by the Transitory Provisions of the "$<5 Constitution .% 0n the sa!e vein. !ama'or 17 not. it should be borne in !ind that the !e!bers of the +udiciary as the .hich s.hich granted the incu!bent President the unli!ited po. "$4= resolution ordered both to refrain fro! discharging the functions of the 7uestioned office . "$<5 of the "$<5 Constitution is yet invo*ed on behalf of the President in the pending case of .ould appoint all of the +ustices and +udges of the courts affected and the .ealth :pon the declaration of !artial la. in the political .er courts !ay be reshuffled or abolished in the process. and to i!prove +udicial services in the public interest.est courts . The +udges9 security of tenure . the process of e!bar*ing upon a !odified parlia!entary syste! !ay .hole !e!bership in the +udiciary fro! the highest to the lo. the /upre!e Court ?e cept the /andiganbayan and the Court of Ta Appeals@ and the re!oval of the incu!bent 'ustices and 'udges %violates the independence of the +udiciary. %?T@o accept legislative po.ere to be carried out the President . the !andate and spirit of the Constitution guaranteeing their security of tenure and !aintaining the independence of the +udiciary should be respected.here despite guarantees of +udicial tenure. each ruling party in the legislature or any alliance that can co!!and a !a+ority vote !ay periodically underta*e co!plete reorgani&ation and re!ove +udges. "$<# to April.hich li*e the +udiciary are guaranteed independence.hich they appear to have at first blush% thus. "$4= to respondent to replace hi!.of constitutions that effect should be given to all parts of the Constitution% and that the +udges9 security of tenure guaranty should not be rendered !eaningless and inoperative% for!er /olicitor 3eneral Arturo A. 0t is relevant to point out that it is precisely a situation li*e this that the Constitution see*s to avoid . At this stage of our political develop!ent.ould be to open the door to future court abolitions in the guise of reorgani&ation. "#$.or*ing relationship bet.ere replaced or . invo*ed his constitutional security of tenure and 7uestioned the appoint!ent e tended on (ebruary #>.er to re!ove and replace all +udges and officials 14 ?as against the li!ited one-year period for the e ercise of such po. had been re7uired to hand in their resignations.er to abolish courts asserted under Batas Pa!bansa Blg.ere accepted by the President during the period fro! /epte!ber.ise.orld.

n foru!. .as not heardG he .een the e ecutive and the legislative branches.ise penned by the Chief 'ustice for the Court@. than the interests of +usticeH As it is.eep and scope.ho.ith the Ministry of 'ustice9s 0ntegrity Council reportedly screening and conducting %integrity tests as to ne.9 +udges .hat is e7ually apparent is that the strongest ties bind the e ecutive and legislative depart!ents. the uncertainty that no.hich traditionally cannot defend itself e cept .9% 19 .ith the /upre!e Court.P. 0t is understandable then .ill be a purge of the corrupt and the !isfits9 .ould rather serve the interests of the party in po. The Chief 'ustice. .hy in !ortun vs.er sidesteps the issue of such purge contravening the rudi!ents of a fair hearing and due process and sub!its that %no ter! of office is sacrosanct .yers for the %unsee!ly haste% . This brings us to the allegedly underlying need for B.ho. .>>5 +udicial positions ?and thousands of personnel positions@ unprecedented in its s.hich such independence could be eroded.as denied the opportunity to defend hi!self against the accusation.% 21 Pri!e Minister Cesar Eirata . on the part of private respondents then.ered 909ll do . as decried by for!er Chief 'ustice Beng&on in his0campo !a+ority opinion.ith the further observation that %!any are the . . co!es this total abolition of ". abetted by %the appearance of sheer vindictiveness or oppressive e ercise of state authority.as. in his place.er of the s. by President Marcos and i!ple!ented in coordination .. possessed neither of the po.as 7uoted as saying that %there .ord nor the purse. /hall . D# and the deliberation on second reading in the Batasang Pa!bansa to rid the +udiciary of inco!petent and corrupt +udges and to restore confidence in the integrity of the courts.er or of the political boss.e have +udges of the type of 8ord Co*e )r +udges. e7ually stressed that %. hovers over the +udiciary has unduly sub+ected the +udges to !ental torture since they do not .ise undeniable that the Batasang Pa!bansa retains its full authority to enact . The purge has been the constant sub+ect of headlines and editorials. and assist it to !aintain its integrity. especially so at present.ays by . afraid of ouster thru a +udiciary reshuffle. As stated in an editorial.hat his !a+esty pleases. /hall .ould have ans. "#$ discussed in the course of co!!ittee hearings of Cabinet Bill No. There . there is a fusion bet.And no. there is a greater need 9to preserve uni!paired the independence of the +udiciary.hen de!anded before the altar of the public good. Petitioner-'udge . .% "". the 'udicial 1epart!ent is feeble enough.% The !etropolitan papers reported the %an iety gripping the +udiciary as the Ministry of 'ustice has reportedly been as*ed to collate infor!ation 9on the perfor!ance of the +udges and on the 7ualifications of those slated to ta*e over the positions of the inco!petent.. . in his opinion for the Court.ith +udges precariously occupying their official seats 'udges perfor!ing their duties under the s.ithin its o.rit of prohibition and certiorari ordering the dis!issal of the cri!inal co!plaint filed .ith a record of losing cases% in the +udge9s court and i!posed the penalty of censure on each and everyone of the private respondents-la. a failure to abide by a Resolution of the 0ntegrated Bar stressing that precisely integration could shield 9the +udiciary .ith .aban# 18 it as stressed that . The urgent need is to strengthen the +udiciary . . .ith respondent fiscal 8abang by %disgruntled !e!bers of the bar .hich is essential for a free and independent +udiciary as !andated by the Constitution. not to !a*e !ore enfeebled an already feeble +udiciary. fro! the assaults that politics and self-interest !ay level at it.9 % and that such sub+ection of a +udge to public %harass!ent and hu!iliation .ord of 1a!ocles of future +udicial reorgani&ations "=. 0t is li*e. . Blg. can di!inish public confidence in the courts. the inefficient or those involved in irregularities. 9/o!eho.ith the restoration of the security of tenure of +udges. the Court issued a .ith the provision transferring to the /upre!e Court ad!inistrative supervision over the 'udiciary.% 22 The public respondents9 ans.hich they filed the cri!inal co!plaint.% The Court !ar*ed the %violation of the cardinal principles of fairness and due process that underlie the Rule of 8a. applicants and the incu!bent +udges 25 and see*ing %confidential infor!ation on corrupt and inco!petent +udges to help the govern!ent purge the +udiciary.e render it feebler .hatever legislation !ay be necessary to carry out national policy as usually for!ulated in a caucus of the !a+ority party.hen the 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act is signed into la.here to all intends and purposes.% 0n the cited case of 'udge (ortun ?li*e. i!partiality and independence.

To adopt such a course . has been proven fro! our past e perience . . . #ran'es reme'ios$ to no.% More so. "$4=@. be !ost ironical if 'udges . as 0 have +ust indicated. any !ore than a doctor cures a patient by *illing hi!.e.ord of 1a!ocles hanging over their heads could provo*e the! into see*ing the help of people clai!ing to have influence . The trouble .here on public record is there hard evidence on this.ithout due process of la. . including the usual i!portunings and the fearso!e albeit i!proper pressures of the po.ere to the effect that out of so!e ".. indeed. 9 As stressed by the Chief 'ustice in the !ortun case.eeping and .ould it be of any avail to beg the 7uestion and assert that due process is not available in !ass abolitions of courts. nay.ith such e -parte reports. (or!er /enator 1io*no in his !e!orandu! anticipates the argu!ent that %great ills de!and drastic cures% thus. yes B but not unfair nor unconstitutional. The ills the +udiciary suffers fro! . i!pregnability to all te!ptations of graft and corruption.% 23 and invo*es the adage of $#ran'es males. the effect of . (inally.ithout due process or hearing.hat is at sta*e is their constitutionally guaranteed security of tenure and non-i!pair!ent of the independence of the +udiciary and the proper e ercise of the constitutional po.% 23 But 1ean Corte& in her !e!orandu! states that %Ao.*no. the s.ould only breed !ore perversity in the ad!inistration of +ustice. i. bet.o-pronged.% No.ithout citing any hard evidence. inco!petent or corrupts.ers that be. 0n su!.er e clusively vested in the /upre!e Court to discipline and re!ove +udges after fair hearing.in ob+ectives of getting rid of % structural inade7uacies of the syste! or of the cu!berso!eness and technicality-peppered and dragging procedural rules in force and of %a good nu!ber of those occupying positions in the +udiciary ?..ith the po. ?Barredo.ith such reports against the!. 'ustice Barredo. )bservance of procedural due process in the separation of !isfits fro! ?he 'udiciary is the right .ho !ay voluntarily resign fro! office upon being confronted .ill fall on the!. ho.ill repudiate the %oppressive e ercise of legal authority.ers that be. +udges are entitled to the cardinal principles of fairness and due process and the opportunity to be heard and defend the!selves against the accusations !ade against their and not to be sub+ected to harass!ent and hu!iliation. !isfit.holesale abolition of +udicial offices beco!es an arbitrary act. 1ece!ber D.ho9@ !a*e a !oc*ery of +ustice and ta*e advantage of their office for personal ends Ae adds that %it is !y personal assess!ent of the present situation in our +udiciary that its reorgani&ation has to be of necessity t. 0 see no reason to change the stand sub!itted by !e to the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation that B 'udges of inferior courts should not be su!!arily re!oved and branded for life in such reorgani&ation on the basis of confidential adverse reports as to their perfor!ance. +ust as the abuses of !artial rule have bred !ore subversion.hich is to assert the po. no. '.ill not be cured by totally destroying that independence.orse. for the !ost 0deal +udicial syste! .ho are called upon to give due process cannot count it on the!selves.ould.<== !e!bers of the +udiciary. and the Court . hu!an Rights and 3ood 3overn!ent. are +udges entitled to such due process .ere . before the Co!!ittee on 'ustice.ith the !ost perfect procedural rules cannot satisfy the people and the interests of +ustice unless the !en .ho hold positions therein possess the character. uphold the validity of the Act. s. co!petence or integrity.ay to attain a laudable ob+ective. )ne does not i!prove courts by abolishing the!. %1rastic.% "#.hether the a e . .ere of the undesirable category. the unprecedented. .% and that %?0@f this be the case. save those .ever.hen or .er to re!ove all the incu!bents guilty or innocent . %0t . refers in his separate concurrence to t.ever.here a nu!ber of honest and co!petent +udges .een "= to "6 . The only figures given in the course of the co!!ittee hearings .hen . as stated by the "$-i 6 integrated Bar of the Philippines #nd Aouse of 1elegates. co!petence and sense of loyalty that can guarantee their devotion to duty and absolute i!partiality.ere caused by i!pairing its independenceG they .

.n. Enri7ue /y7uia. >5 Phil. 1io*no sub!itted !e!oranda.ho argued .er of discipline and dis!issal of +udges of all inferior courts.. concur.er court has the duty arid The po. College of 8a.yers CircleG Atty. and if the +udiciary is to be strengthened.er shall be vested in one /upre!e Court and in such inferior courts as !ay be established by la. :. Cf.G Atty. Angara v.n in constitutional la. Borro!eo v. J. Bellaflor Angara Castillo. /ection ". a principle that goes bac* to the epochal decision of Chief 'ustice Marshall in Marbury v. Philippine Constitution AssociationG 1ean 0rene Cortes. E ecutive Eice-President. 5 Article K.n house upon co!plaint and . the other petitioners are all !e!bers of the Philippine bar. then. as do lo. "5$ ?"$5>@G People v. Raul Roco.ere generally believed to be bas*et cases have re!ained in the serviceG and The po.ith the cooperation of the as grieved parties and after due process and hearing. > Ae .ho . first sentence of the Constitution reads.hich the Court allo. This Court. 0ntegrated Bar of the PhilippinesG Atty. The +udicial po. it should be left to clean its o. that there is no such proceeding *no.o!en 8a. President. for the Trial 8a. D" Phil. /o it has been authoritatively ruled even prior to the "$56 Constitution and !uch !ore so after its effectivity and Chat of the present Constitution. for!er 1ean..P.are. . 6 3ualberto '. Mariano. " Cranch "5< ?"4=5@. de la 8lana is the Presiding 'udge of Branch 00 of the City Court of )longapo. the incu!bent +udges guaranteed security of tenure re7uire that they be retained in the corresponding %ne. /untay. Pa& Eeto Planas. Eera >6 Phil. Raul 3on&ales entered his appearance for petitioner and argued by . That is The concept of +udicial revie. Electoral Co!!ission. D 0t !ay be !entioned in passing that petitioners ignored the fact that an action for declaration relief should be filed in a Court of (irst 0nstance and apparently are una.% !ernan'e%. .. . < The amici curiae . as *no.o!en 8a. Eera >< Phil.ed to stay in the records. . A!broiso Padilla li*e. Atty. courts. /ection < of the Constitution. The constitutional confrontation and conflict !ay .yers AssociationG Atty.yers AssociationG and /enator 'ose .ere /enator 8oren&o /u!ulong.ise sub!itted a !e!orandu!. has been vested by the "$<5 Constitution in the /upre!e Court.ay of rebuttal. :. 6> ?"$5<@.er to declare an act unconstitutional but only as in incident to its function of deciding cases. fro! the Court of Appeals do. Madison.oo*%o*!" " Article K.su!!arily re!oved . fi ed delineation of +urisdiction and increases in the nu!ber of courts for a !ore effective and efficient disposition of court cases. 6> ?"$5<@.hile others . courts% therein provided as co!pared to the %abolished old courts% but provide for procedural changes. President. 5## ?"$#"@ and People v. President. Puno.% # Cf.n in The Philippines. to declare an act unconstitutional. Philippine Bar AssociationG AttyG Rafael 3.P. Atty.en be avoided by holding that since the changes and provisions of the challenged Act do not substantially change the nature and functions of the %ne.as assisted by Assistant /olicitor 3eneral Reynato /. President.

>. as . ><". .as abolished by E ecutive )rder No.ealth Act No. 5.as designated as Chair!an. #> Republic Act No. "= 8-D===D.% "$ 2bi'. #$>. it . Antonio. 4$. there shall also be appointed eighteen 'udges-at-large and fifteen Cadastral 'udges . #5 Act No.4 >6 Phil. five !e!bers in each division. #< /ection 65 of this Act provided.hich too* effect on )ctober D. citing the President9s fore. The . Cf. 5=4. Melencio-Aerrera. 0t . The last sentence of this portion of the Report reads.riter of this opinion . "> 2bi'. $-"=. 5. %That is to achieve the de!ocrati&ation and hu!ani&ation of +ustice in . :nder Co!!on. "$<6. the !e!bership of the Court of Appeals . "$D>. A7uino and A!eurfina A. T. Puno as Co-Chair!an. .ith one Presiding 'ustice and fourteen Associate 'ustices. #D Co!!on. 6> ?"$5<@. #= 2bi'. 1eputy Minister of 'ustice 'esus Borro!eo co!pleted the !e!bership.ord to The Philippine 1evelop!ent Plan. "D Report of the Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation. .ealth Act No. under Republic Act No. >"". 5< of President /ergio )s!eJa e ercising his e!ergency po.ers under Co!!on. 4-$.ere created. 0n "$D6 after the liberation of the Philippines. #5D< and D==<. /ec. "$54.ell as a for!er !e!ber. >"$-A. retired 'ustice (eli C. "" 2bi'. %0n addition to the 1istrict 'udges !entioned in section forty-nine hereof. "5>. The Act . ># /CRA #<6.ealth Act No. "< 2bi'. Act No.hat has been felicitously referred to by the (irst 8ady as a 9co!passionate society. "# E ecutive )rder No. Three divisions . "4 2bi'. 'anuary 5". 6#. #6$.as established ane. 'ustices Ra!on C. "6 2bi'. #.ho shall not be assigned per!anently to any . 4. ## 2bi'. 6. $ 2bi'.as increased to fifteen. and Minister Ricardo C. "=. #6 2bi'. #" 2bi'.ere na!ed to such body.as approved on April <. <. "5 E ecutive )rder No.o !e!bers of the Court.

. 'une l5. #4$ ?"$<5@. ACC(A. "=6 Phil. )s!eJa 'r.as repealed by Republic Act No. 66 /CRA 5D. Republic Act no. August 5=. >#>. there . D45D and D45>. "D4#. "D=D. $D> ?"$<>@. May #5. """ Phil. #="5. "==5. 5=< ?"$>#@G Alipio v.ere added under Presidential 1ecree No. "#><. #$ Presidential 1ecree No. "$>$. )s!eJa 'r. D" Enciso v. D= 8-#4>"D. 8-5=#DD. Third Regular /ession. 6"<$. 8-##55>. be designated by the 1epart!ent Aead. 6$ ?"$>5@ 8lanto v. 1i!aporo. 8-#5$4#. Aechanova. #= /CRA <##. ""4> ?"$6D@. ""D Phil. Pabalan. #$ /CRA 64=G Ro7ue v. Re!o. 64 /CRA <"". 'anuary "<. D# >> Phil. Briones v. "#5 Phil. "$4=-4". ""=# ?"$>>@G Abanilla v. 644 ?"$64@G Cuneta v. "$<D. 56 E planatory Note. "4 /CRA "45G 1e la Ma&a v. Prior to such decision. 4D# ?"$>>@G 3uillergan v. $D Phil. D5 Co!!on. #4 Cf. /epte!ber #4. "$>>. "$<D. the follo. $>D ?"$6D@G 3acho v. t. in "$<4. "< /CRA >6#G CariJo v. "=5 Phil. Court of Appeals. 6#= ?"$>4@ and Presidential 1ecree No. "$><. "#5 Phil. 5$ 2bi'. /epte!ber 5=. /ubse7uently. 8-#54D". 5D Republic Act No. 8-"$4=4. "D5$ ?"$<4@. 5< 2bi'. 3an&on. "$>4. Ericta. )chave. 55 Republic Act Nos. "$><. Eolu!e (our. 5> /ponsorship /peech of Minister Puno. #D$ ?"$>"@G (acundo v. City of Basilan v.as a Presidential 1ecree providing for 'uvenile and 1o!estic Relations Courts in thirteen provinces and t. Cf. "#5 Phil. 1u7ue.. #= /CRA "D#G Arao v. 5= Republic Act No. Montinola. 54 8-#46<5. ""#6 ?"$6D@.o !ore branches . ""$ Phil. "$>>. 45< ?"$64@.ealth Act No. 5" Republic Act No. Cuitoriano. 0t . 'uly #>. Rodrigue&. 8uspo.% This /ection .ing cases had reaffir!ed such a principle. 65 /CRA "6>. Ticao 8###<". >"6 ?"$54@. /ept.as a!ended by Presidential 1ecree No. #5 /CRA $$4. 'uly #". $=5 ?"$6D@G Rodrigue& v. and . 5# Republic Act No. 6->.+udicial district. D"5 ?"$>>@G )ca!po v. . DD 2bi'. $D Phil.ho shall render duty in such district or province as !ay fro! ti!e to ti!e. "D6. 8-#5><=. Manalang v. Aon. #$. "$<5.enty-seven other cities.

/ection #$. the Courts of Agrarian Relations. 0t !ay be stated that the . /ections "5-#D. /ections 5-"#. /ection #. "#$. tribunal. Candor co!pels the ad!ission that he entertained doubts as to .D6 2bi'. The Philippines >< ?"$D6@. together . 66 2bi'. 0t could be considered though as part of an integrated sche!e for the +udicial reorgani&ation as conte!plated by the Batasang Pa!bansa. >#>. the Municipal Courts. D4 >> Phil. ># >< Phil. 6" 2bi'. 0t last sentence reads.ith an appellate as . /ection #4.riter of this opinion as the Chair!an of tile Co!!ittee on Reorgani&ation. <5D-<56. 65 2bi'. 6# 2bi'. <5# ?"$6D@.ealth countries or. . e7uip!ent. in the alternative. and the Municipal Circuit Courts. "#$.ise abolished the Court of 8and Registration ?"$"D@. . 64 2bi'. /ection 5". "5$. the courts of (irst 0nstance. /ection #<.ith the pertinent functions. ># ?"$5$@. The Co!!ittee accepted such proposals and incorporated the! in the guidelines.as for the establish!ent either of ?"@ a court of general +urisdiction . %The cases pending in the old Courts shall be transferred to the appropriate Courts constituted pursuant to this Act.% >= 2bi'. D$ Batas Pa!bansa Blg. 6> $D Phil. <56. 6D 2bi'.hether the inter!ediate court of appeals provided for is a ne. >#>->#<. /ection 5=. 6$ According to Batas Pa!bansa Blg. the Circuit Cri!inal Courts. ?#@ of a circuit court of appeals. D< "$5#. records. 6< 2bi'. property and the necessary personnel. the City Courts. >"6. %The organi&ation herein provided shall include the Court of Appeals. the 'uvenile and 1o!estic Relations Courts.% >" Aayden. 6= 2bi'.ell as a trial division patterned after that of the syste! of +udicature found in the :nited Lingdo! and in !any Co!!on. D> 0t li*e. /ection DD. >5 >5 Phil.

/ection <.een presidential and parlia!entary syste!s. May #<.. Trudeau of CanadaG Ihao Iiyang of ChinaG M. de )liviera (iguereido of Bra&ilG (. >"6.or* of President Marcos entitled. >6 Article E00.>D 2bi'.s of the land . co!posed of the Pri!e Minister as Chair!an. "$4". %All po. <6 Article K.ith the assistance of the Cabinet. That characteri&ation is in accordance . A. in its original for!. 64"4D. Boigny of 0vory CoastG 8ope& Portillo of Me icoG A.ith the Anglo-A!erican concept of the distinction bet.). /ection " and 5 of the a!ended Constitution. The E ecutive Co!!ittee shall assist the President in the e ercise of his po. in the . Countries . %The E ecutive po.ers vested in the President of the Philippines under the "$56 Constitution and the la. /ection " of the constitution. E. Thatcher of the :nited Lingdo!G 0. Nyerere of Tan&ania R. Reagan of the :nited /tatesG 8. <# Article 0K. >> /ection "> of Article E00 of the "$<5 Constitution reads as follo. %The /upre!e Court shall have ad!inistrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. . <5 8-54545. )ctober 5=. Mitterand of (ranceG A.s. headed by the Pri!e Minister. >4 Article E00. /ection 5 reads in full. "=D /CRA >=<. provides. Article E00 of the "$56 Constitution. Lreis*y of Austria and A. /hagari of Nigeria. C. /attar of BangladeshG '. /ection >. "$4". /ection " of the "$<5 Constitution. shall consist of the heads of !inistries as provided by la. The Cabinet.% >< /ection ".T. countries under the parlia!entary syste! sent their Pri!e Ministers. Aerrera Ca!pins of Eene&uelaG /. Cheng of 3uyana A. Marcos of the Philippines '. at least half of .ise.hich are not herein provided for or conferred upon any official shall be dee!ed and are hereby vested in the President unless the Batasang Pa!bansa provides other. <D 2bi'. <= 3. B. >$ According to Article 0K. and not !ore than fourteen other !e!bers.eden.ise.R.n Prince (ahd Bin Abdul A&i& of /audi Arabia does not fall under either category. B.ith the presidential syste!s sent their presidents.hile called Chancellors. Ben+ie did of AlgeriaG A. D. <" 2bi'.ho! shall be Me!bers of the Batasang Pa!bansa. (erdinand E. Marcos Notes for the Cancun /u!!it "$4". /ection " of the "$<5 Constitution prior to its being a!ended last year. (alldin of /. Lraigher of Fugoslavia. 8i*e. L. The Pri!e Minister shall be the head of the 3overn!ent. /.ers and functions and in the perfor!ance of his duties as he !ay prescribe. %There shall be an E ecutive Co!!ittee to be designated by the President. 3andhi of 0ndiaG I. % <> Article K. No. the Conference appears to have adopted such a distinction. "6>. . P. Cro. /u&u*i of 'apanG N. /ch!idt of 3er!any hold such a position.er shall be e ercised by the Pri!e Minister .

65< ?"$<D@. the Philippine Bar Association. /ection $< as to re!oval of !unicipal +udges also by the President. 3insburg. 4< Phil. 44 /CRA "$6. "$<$. #<< :/ "4$. involving serious !isconduct or inefficiency. Cf. Nos. 45 The !e!oranda sub!itted by the 0ntegrated Bar of the Philippines. >D> ?"$56@G 1e los /antos v. if thereby a constitutional ob+ection could be plausibly raised. #4$ ?"$6=@G Martine& v. People v. A!icus curiae 8oren&o /u!ulong. Revie. "#. D$<.as for dis!issing the petition. 8insangan. . . )ctober 5=. "$$#.o!en 8a. DD /CRA ##G and Pa!il v. D#> ?"$6=@. March #D. that in the interpretation of the funda!ental la. Morfe. 46 Planas v.yers Association of the Philippines .<< According to /ection >< of the 'udiciary Act of "$D4G as a!ended. 'anuary 5=..ledges the aid it received fro! the !e!oranda sub!itted.as for granting it. 56 /CRA D5". 8=D$""#.yers Circle. 4" /ection <. No.P. College of 8a. "5$. 1io*no . the literal language is not necessarily controlling. (ebruary #. 4< Phil. Edu. .. the .. "6< ?"$5>@. A !e!orandu! allo. 44 8-5#=$>. upholding the contention of the (ilipino leaders that the President of the /enate and the /pea*er of the Aouse of Representatives of the then Philippine 8egislature could sit in a Board of Control . 4> /CRA D"5. for!er 1ean of the :. 3overn!ent of the Philippine 0slands.o!en 8a. 4= 2bi'. President of the Philippine Constitution Association. 8-5D=##.. "$<=. "=5 Phil.. 4< Chapter 0E. The court ac*no. )ctober #D. #4 Cleveland /tate 8a. "$<4.yers Association. The 7uotation fro! 'ustice Aol!es ca!e fro! /pringer v. in the +udg!ent of the /upre!e Court. "$4".ere for dis!issing the petition. Mallare.R. %No 1istrict 'udge shall be separated or re!oved fro! office by the President of the Philippines unless sufficient cause shall e ist.hile amicus curiae 'ose .as for granting it. Cf. Teleron. $= 3. "=6" ?"$6<@ lends itself to the vie. spea*ing on his o. <4 Cf. "#$. 4$ 2bi'. <5-<D ?"$5$@.ith po. for the re!oval of said +udge fro! office after the proper proceedings. and the Philippine Trial 8a. The !a+ority sustained the opposite vie.% Cf. thus giving the then A!erican 3overnor-general such prerogative. Presidential 1ecree No. "$<#. the Philippine . >< Phil >#.er to vote govern!ent shares in corporations o. 4# TaJada v. 8-5D46D. Nove!ber #=. 6=64"-6=>"<. 4> Arnault v. Pecson. ># Phil. Cuenco. 3il. Ae and 'ustice Brandeis dissented.as on a si!ilar !ind. 4D >5 Phil. .R. D"4. D" of Batas Pa!bansa Blg. #"" ?"$#4@. "=. 'udicial Repair of 8egislation. 5="-5=D ?"$<$@ <$ 3.ed to stay in the records by for!er /enator A!brosio Padilla . Amicus curiae 1ean 0rene Cortes. 64"4D.ned or controlled by it. Agustin v. /ec.n behalf .

.8. "#$. as earlier noted. $< This Court is ready . "65. #<$ :/ 55<. the assailed legislation did not go far enough. Cf. 'ournal " ?"$>$@.ers vested in the President of the Philippines under the "$56 Constitution and the la. the petition .% $$ Cf. to repeat. "$<6 /upre!e Court Revie. $5 Batas Pa!bansa Blg. due to insufficient votes to invalidate section 5 of Republic Act No. The /ecretary of 'ustice et al. efficiency. % Article E00. 'ugo. "=D Article K000.s of the land . or offices. e ercise general supervision over all local govern!ents as !ay be provided by la. $6 Article E00. $D 2bi'. /ection DD. $# 2bi'. "#$. 0t is certainly !uch !ore. Mr.B. Monte!ayor. /ection ". "#5. Roschen v.er as far as this Court is concerned. 8-<$"=. /ection DD. 0n such cases.ever. first sentence of the Constitution reads. That is. . ho.% $> Batas Pa!bansa Blg. /ection D5. Chief 'ustice Paras.$" 2bi'. 3.. par.. "=5 2bi'. "== (ro! the standpoint of the .riter of this opinion.illia! Ao. 55$ ?"$#$@. believe it is . Bic*el. ""4>. ?"@ of the Constitution reads.s.% "=6 6< ).s be faithfully e ecuted. '. Bautista.3. No. "". %The President shall have control of all the e ecutive depart!ents. The per curia! !inute resolution of the Court reads as follo. Concepcion and Reyes.. and 'ustices Padilla. /ection "> of the A!ended Constitution pro. 1io*no. Taft Rehabilitates the Court.ellian phrase of being a %relevant !odification of s!all particulars (or so!e it could be characteri&ed as a close of conservation and a dash or innovation. K0 of the Proposed 3uidelines for 'udicial Reorgani&ation. integrity. . "=" (or!er /enators /alvador A.ithout costs.ard. "=# (ish. /ection "=.. vs. "=> 2bi'. %Public office is a public trust. no argu!ent against its validity .hich. Reyes ?A@ and 8abrador voted to uphold that particular sectionG 'ustices Pablo. %The services of those not separated shall be dee!ed uninterrupted. Beng&on.R.ise. and ta*e care that the la.hich are not herein provided for or conferred upon any official shall be dee!ed and are hereby vested in the President unless the Batasang Pa!bansa provides other.ith such a list to be furnished the President. to use the 8ass. is solely a 7uestion of po. "D< ?"$66@. length of service and other relevant factors shall be considered. bureaus.as denied. <$ Fale 8a.ard Taft and Charles Evan Aughes. $4 0n the language of par. 8aurel and 'ose . %0n )ca!po et al.provides %AN po.

>> Phil. "=$ 6< Phil.illoughby )n the Constitution of the :nited /tates. >"6. "D<. May 5". "#$. <5#. Cabinet Bill No.% At "D<. The Nature of the 'udicial Process. "=< D" Phil. 6 Chief 'ustice Castro. >=6. May #$. 8-<$"=. "$<4. "$6D. cited in .. 'uly #". D6<. D6=.R. 4D /CRA "$4. No. " /ee Cardo&o. "=4 2bi'. " And 0 a! not fond of borro. #=5. ""= 2bi'. Also Report of Court Ad!inistrator. rather than an )rganic Act of an unincorporated A!erican territory as the Philippines then . 0.. >". . 555. be to the Constitution.unconstitutional. April 4. D" Phil. $ /ee 8-D>6D#. There . 6" ). D Cardo&o. D Iandueta vs. 5## ?"$#"@. $D Phil. The 'udiciary Reorgani&ation Act of "$4=. 5 E planatory vote. # Church of The Aoly Trinity vs.ing 0deas fro! supposed legal acu!en of alien +udicial figures no !atter their recogni&ed reputation. The Bar and the Congested 1oc*ets. "$<4. 45 /CRA D5<. '.3./.as. of the difference in constitutional provisions. 6< /CRA "#5. abolished the positions of 'udges-at-8arge and Cadastral 'udges. Republic Act No. they could not be considered as applicable in vie. ""4>. '. Mariano. but as noted in the opinion of 'ustice 8abrador. < /ee 8-5<5$$. The Nature of the 'udicial Process. Eol./. . BARRE1). p. > /ee Report of the Presidential Co!!ittee on 'udicial Reorgani&ation.hich beca!e Batas Pa!bansa Blg. "= /ee 8-D$$$6. # Borro!eo vs. <5. "$4". 5 3. >>. (ro! 'ustices Monte!ayor and Bautista also ca!e separate opinions as to its unconstitutionality. 6 Brillo vs. "$<D. 3:ERRER). 55=. 'anuary "4. 1e la Cuesta. p. p. "D5 :. p. 4 /ee 8-5=566.hich too* effect on 'une "$. >== ?"$5#@. #nd ed. :. "$66.as a vigorous dissent fro! 'ustice Beng&on relying on certain A!erican /tate /upre!e Court decisions notably fro! 0ndiana and Pennsylvania. The reference should no. D# . Me+ia.

$=. #> Ans. 'une "5. Ad!inistrative 8a. The Po. p..er of 'udicial Revie. The Nature of the 'udicial Process. "$4". "5D.. /avage.. "D4. "<5. The Constitution of the Philippines. ## /CRA D#D. "$>$. 44". "$>4.n vs. "4 Chief 'ustice (ernando. 65 /CRA "6>G Abanilla vs. 1u7ue. D>. . p. "#. "< 2bi'. (ernando.."" /ee 3.'. con. #< 8aurel. "6 Cru& vs. O T. Ticao. 1E CA/TR). 8-5=#DD. 'r. ""=. 6DD6#. # Ro7ue vs. Ericta. Mutuc. "> Morfe vs./. /tate.. 'r. (eb. #<=G People vs. /ept. 6>. par. Co. "$<5. "$<D. "5 Rule "5 ". D6=. Pri!icias.. Ericta. $D Phil. 8-#4>"D. 'an. /ept. #5 2bi'. 5=. #$ People vs. >"6 #4 Missouri. "<<. #4. 8-#=54<. p. "$<5. "D 5" C. 8-#46<5. )s!eJa. vs. ##.. Iandueta vs. 'ur. #nd 4=5. Revised Rules of Court. #5 /CRA $$4G )ca!po vs. #6 McCulley vs. " Constitution of the Philippines by Chief 'ustice Enri7ue M. "D. 4"=. 65 /.R. D4. p. #" Bro. $ /CRA 5"<G 3acho vs.F. #$. de la Cuesta ?"$54@. #=4. ">> Mass.. Pri!icias. 5. 8a. p. #nd ed. #= 'ournal of the Batasan. "> /CRA $>#G Briones vs. "6D. p. cited in 3on&ales. )s!eJa. No. 65 /CRA "6>. 'uly #=. "$<< Edition. p. #D Chero*ee. 66 /CRA 5DG Enciso vs. ## D# A!. vs. 5". 'anuary "<. 5# /o./. /ection 6?!@. "$D :. "=D Phil. )s!eJa. Provincial 3overnor. "$ 2bi'. p.. >6 Phil. l$4". on Public )fficers and Election 8a. "$>4. L. /ee Chief 'ustice (ernando. Russel. Re!oval 8-#5><=. >> Phil. Third Regular /ession. '. #><. 'r. Eera ?"$5<@. Crane #"D N. 644G :rgelio vs. #$ /CRA 64= Ro7ue vs. cited in Cardo&o. #5 /CRA $$4G Bendanillo /r.er of /olicitor 3eneral. May. County vs. "< /CRA >6#G Cru& vs. 1ece!ber "$. "# /ee 8-5>">"..

"$<5 Constitution. Eol. E000. p.3. fn.5 1elivered on 8a. K. /ecretary of 'ustice. "$<5 Constitution. "#$. sec. "$56 Constitution. "> Art. "$ Main opinion at page #". The Aonorable Minister of 8abor and E!ploy!ent.P. " . "D<. "D At page 4 thereof. /epte!ber "$. $ Aruego. 1e la Costa. 6=. sec. > Art. pages "D-"6. pro!ulgated on )ctober 5=. "4 "=D /CRA >=< ?May #<. Constitution. B. '. 3. (ra!ing of the Phil. "$66G 6" ). #5. 6 )ca!po vs. 5 )ca!po vs. No. "$4=. No. /ecretary of 'ustice.or*ers :nion vs. as a!ended ?Art. K. "" At page 5 thereof. <.R.P. Blg. "= /ec. 6= ).R.3. sections $ and "=. 1ay. >> Phil. <.R. >"6 ?"$54@. TEEAANLEE. . sec. "=a At page ">. "5 /ee the Chief 'ustice opinion. "< 3. 6"5. Blg. #6"6. E000. 8-"<$=. section <.3. 6= ). $. "#$. 4 Art. < 0de!. "D<. 64"4D. 3. No. >. Cuitoriano. page 5<>G e!phasis copied. 65D>< filed on March #<. "$4" before the Philippine Bar Association. 6 Cited in Chief 'ustice (ernando9s The "$<5 Constitution.ith three vacancies. "6 Citing Manalang vs. 'an. sec. (ree Telephone . "# Iandueta vs. "$4"@. # /ection DD."$56 Constitution@. D Article K. B. ". "$4". "4. D Cf. Art. KE00.

. "". #5 Metropolitan papers of Aug. "$4". ## Evening Post issue of Aug.#= Phil. "$4". "$4=. #D At page 6. "$4". "$4=. #D. #" Ti!es 'ournal issue of Aug. 4. 1aily E press issue of Aug. Ti!es 'ournal editorial of Aug. ">. 5".