FACTS:

Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, entitled "An Act Reorganizing the

Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor and for Other
Purposes was enacted. Petitioners assailed the
constitutionality of BP 129. They filed a Petition for
Declaratory Relief and/or for Prohibition seeking to enjoin
respondent Minister of the Budget, respondent Chairman of
the Commission on Audit, and respondent Minister of Justice
from taking any action implementing BP 129.

Petitioners contend that the abolition of the existing inferior

courts collides with the security of tenure enjoyed by
incumbent Justices and judges under Article X, Section 7 of
the Constitution.

ISSUE:
Is Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 is unconstitutional for violating
the the security of tenure enjoyed by incumbent Justices and
judges?

RULING:
No

Removal is to be distinguished from termination by virtue of

the abolition of the office. There can be no tenure to a non-
existent office. After the abolition, there is in law no occupant.
In case of removal, there is an office with an occupant who
would thereby lose his position. It is in that sense that from
the standpoint of strict law, the question of any impairment
of security of tenure does not arise.

Moreover, the Batasang Pambansa is expressly vested with

the authority to reorganize inferior courts and in the process
to abolish existing ones.