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.