g.r. 78742 association of small landowners in the philippines vs. secretary of agrarian reform
DESCRIPTION
My own case digest in a mindmapped version.TRANSCRIPT
Association of Small
Landowners of the
Philippines
vs.
Secretary of Agrarian
Reform Penned by:
Justice Isagani
Cruz
(1989)
Cecille Carmela T. de los Reyes
Philippine Christian University – College of Law
Professor: State Solicitor Erika Buluran
Disclaimer: All images used in this document are provided for by the
Internet and are used for aid in academic purposes only. Full credits
belong to the original uploaders. Thank you!
Hercules held Antaeus up in the
air, and beyond the reach of his
sustaining soil, crushed him to
death. A slogan that underscores
acute imbalance in the
distribution of land among
people.
A BATTLECRY—
dramatizing the
increasingly urgent
demand of the
dispossessed among us.
In Ancient mythology, Antaeus was
a terrible giant who blocked and
challenged Hercules for his life on
his way to Mycenae after
performing his eleventh labor.
x x x The two wrestled, and it
dawned on Hercules that Antaeus
could never die as long as his body
was touching his Mother Earth.
Historical Background of
Agrarian Law
x x x Which further provided an
ORDER to FORMULATE and
IMPLEMENT an agrarian
reform program:
aimed at emancipating
the tenant from the
bondage of the soil.
Historical Background of
Agrarian Law Mandated the policy of
social justice to insure
well-being and economic
security of all people ,
especially the less
privileged.
The State shall regulate the
acquisition, ownership, use
enjoyment and disposition of
private property and equitably
diffuse property and ownership
profits.
Affirmed this stance,
stressing that:
Historical Background of
Agrarian LawArticle XIII on Social Justice and
Human Rights
Sec. 4. The State, shall, by law,
undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers
and regular farmworkers to
receive a just share of the
fruits thereof.
subject to such
priorities and
reasonable retention
limits as the
Congress may
prescribe
taking into account
ecological,
developmental and
equity
considerations and
subject to the
payment of just
compensation.
which in turn shall
encourage the
State to
undertake just
distribution of all
agricultural lands
Emancipation of Tenants Decree (1973)
Agricultural Land Reform Code
(1963)
Related Agrarian Reform Laws
(1935 and 1973 Constitution)
Compulsory acquisition of private lands for
distribution among tenant-farmers and to
specify maximum retention limits for
landowners.
Related Agrarian Reform Laws
(1987 Constitution)
Declaring Full Land Ownership
to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries
covered by PD 27
Sought to:
Declare full land ownership to
farmer beneficiaries of PD 27
Valuate unvalued lands covered
by PD 27
Provides manner of payment
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP)
Mechanics for Implementation
of CARP
Note that these three laws are
implemented prior to the revival of
the Congress of its legislative
power.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL)
Consolidated
Petitions of
Small
Landowners
G.R. 79777
PD 27: Compulsory
acquisition of private lands
among tenant-farmers
E.O. 228: Declaring Full
Ownership to Qualified
Beneficiaries
E.O. 229: Mechanism for
Implementation of CARP
Seeks to challenge
constitutionality of
Separation of powers
Due Process
Equal Protection
Constitutional Limitation of
Private Property which shall
not be taken for Public Use
without Just Compensation
Grounds
1. It will NOT solve the agrarian problem
because even small farmers are deprived of
their lands and retention limits as provided by
the Constitution.
2. In considering rentals as advance payment
of lands, the EO deprives these landowners of
their property rights.
3. The determination of just compensation
can be made only by a court of justice and
NOT by the President.
4. Payment of just compensation has always
been in the form of cash.
PD 27 has already been upheld in
Chavez v. Zobel, Gonzales v.
Estrella, Association of Rice and
Corn Producers of the PH v. The
National Reform Council.
The determination of just
compensation is preliminary only and
does not foreclose judicial
intervention.
Petitioners are not proper
parties because the lands do not
exceed maximum retention limit of
7 hectares.
Intervention by OSG
Consolidated
Petitions of
Small
Landowners
G.R. 79310 Implementation of PP 131
(Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program)
EO 229 (Mechanism for
Implementation of CARP)
Seeks to prohibit
The power to provide for a CARP belongs to the
Congress and not to the President.
The exercise of President s legislative power in the
absence of Congress is allowed only on emergency
measures.
The taking must be simultaneous with payment of
just compensation.
No effort was made to make a careful study of the
sugar planters situation, as no tenancy problem in
the sugar areas can justify the application of the
CARP to them.
The President does not have authority to
appropriate the Agrarian Reform Fund because of
uncertainty of the amount appropriated.
Contentions SolGen invokes presumption of
constitutionality—in that a pilot
project to determine its feasibility
are not indispensable requisites to its
promulgation
Sugar planters failed to prove that
they are from a different class
The designation of P50 billion pesos
as Agrarian Reform Fund although
denominated as the initial amount, is
actually the maximum sum
appropriated. Initial means additional
amounts may be appropriated when
necessary.
Intervention by OSG
Consolidated
Petitions of
Small
Landowners
Prudencio Serrano
Only public lands should be included in CARP.
EO 229 (Mechanism for CARP
Implementation) embraces more than one
subject—which is not expressed in the title.
The power of the President to legislate was
terminated on July 1972.
The appropriation of a P50 billion special
fund from the National Treasury did not
originate from the House of Representatives.
The measure is unconstitutional
because
G.R. 79744
Consolidated
Petitions of
Small
Landowners EO 228 and 229 (Declaring Full Ownership of
Land and Providing Mechanisms Therefor under
PD 27, and Mechanisms for CARP) were
invalidly issued by the President—as the
legislative power granted to the President
under Transitory Powers refers only to
emergency measures that may be promulgated
in the proper exercise of the police power.
The said EOs are violative of the constitutional
provision that no private property shall be
taken for public use without just
compensation.
Petitioner is denied the right of maximum
retention provided for the 1987 Constitution.
Contentions:
G.R. 78742
Petitioners invoke their right of retention
granted by PD 27 to owners of rice and corn
lands not exceeding 7 hectares as long as they
are cultivating or intend to cultivate the same.
They also claim that they cannot eject their
tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right
to retention because the Department of
Agrarian Reform
Are the Executive Orders issued by
the President unconstitutional? (As
they are not within the ambit of
the emergency powers definition.
EO 228 (Mechanism for PD 27)
EO 229 (Mechanism for CARP)
ISSUES and COURT RULING 1. Transitory Provisions of the
Constitution (Sec. 6)
They are not midnight enactments
intended to pre-empt the legislature
because EO 228 was issued on July
1987 and the other measures PP 131
and EO 229 were issued July 1987.
A statute does not ipso facto become
inoperative simply because of the
dissolution of the legislature that
enacted it. In this case, Pres. Aquino s
loss of legislative power does not
invalidate these laws.
Is the appropriation of a P50 billion
fund valid? (As it did not originate
from the House of Representatives)
PP 131 is NOT an appropriation measure even if it does provide
for the creation of said fund for it is not its principal purpose.
An appropriation law is one and the primary and specific purpose
for it is to authorize release of public funds from the treasury.
In this case, the creation of fund is incidental only to the main
objective of the proclamation—which is agrarian reform.
Also worthy to note is that the Congress has not yet convened
at the time these laws are enacted.
ISSUES and COURT RULING
Should PP 131 and EO 229 be
invalidated? (As they do not
provide retention limits required by
Art. XIII Sec. 4 of the
Constitution?)
In fact, RA 6657
provides for retention
limits, which says:
Retention by the
landowner shall NOT
exceed 5 hectares
3 hectares to each
child of the landowner,
provided he is
15 years of age, and
he is actually tilling
the land or directly
managing the farm
On the issue of such measure as
unconstitutional as it requires the
owners of the expropriated
properties to accept just
compensation in less than money—
the Court said:
That they assume the framers of the Constitution were aware
of expropriation difficulties as part of this is when they
envisioned that just compensation would have to be paid not
in the orthodox way but in a less conventional if more
practical method.
It is a suggestion to fine tune the requirement to suit the
demands of the project even as it was also felt that they
should leave it to the Congress to determine how payment
should be made. (Revolutionary payment of just compensation)
The proportion of cash payment to the other things of value
constituting total payment, is not unduly oppressive to the
landowner.
ISSUES and COURT RULING The argument that the assailed measures violate
due process by arbitrary transfer of the title
before the land is fully paid must be
REJECTED.
It is true that PD 27 expressly ordered the
emancipation of tenant-farmer and declared
that he shall be deemed owner of a portion
of a land consisting of a family-sized farm,
except that no title to the land owned by
him was to be actually issued, unless and until
he had become a full-fledged member of a duly
recognized farmer s cooperative .
It is understood that full payment of the just
compensation has to be made first, conformably
to the constitutional requirement.
Is the landowner divested of his
property even before the actual
payment to him in full of just
compensation?
Two requirements for transfer of private agricultural
land: (in this case) by virtue of PD 27 and EO 228
1. Full just compensation.
2. Farmer has to be a full-fledged member of a
recognized farmer s cooperative.
ISSUES and COURT RULING
Are the sugar planters
denied of equal
protection?
NO—they failed to prove that they belong to a
different class exempt from the agrarian reform
program.
Was there a violation of
due process since
according to petitioners,
the determination of just
compensation rests on
the judiciary alone?
NO—It is true that the power to determine
just compensation is lodged with the courts.
However, there is no law which prohibits
administrative bodies like DAR from determining
just compensation.
The just compensation can be agreed by the
landowner and the government—even without
judicial intervention—so long as the parties
agree.
Wherefore, the
court holds
that:
RA 6657 (CARL), PD 27
(Tenant Emancipation Decree),
Proc. 131 (CARP), EO 228
(Mechanisms of PD 27) and EO
229 (Mechanisms of CARP Law)
be SUSTAINED.
Title to expropriated properties
shall be transferred to the State
only upon full payment of
compensation to their respective
owners.
All rights previously
acquired by tenant-
farmers under PD 27
are retained and
recognized
Landowners who are
unable to exercise their
rights of retention
under PD 27 shall enjoy
retention rights under
RA 6657
Subject to these
rulings, all
petitions are
DISMISSED.