ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V.

SECRETARY OF DAR
G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989
CRUZ, J.:

FACTS: These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including serious
challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988"

In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O Nos. 228 and 229 on
the grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the
constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use without just
compensation.

In G.R. No. 79310, the petitioners in this case claim that the power to provide for a
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to the
Congress and not to the President, the also allege that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No. 229
should be annulled for violation of the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due
process and equal protection. They contended that the taking must be simultaneous with payment
of just compensation which such payment is not contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.

In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the
President and that the said executive orders violate the constitutional provision that no private
property shall be taken without due process or just compensation which was denied to the
petitioners.

In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to
enjoy their right of retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far
not issued the implementing rules of the decree. They therefore ask the Honorable Court for a
writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue the said rules.

ISSUE: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s, PD, and RA were constitutional.

HELD: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and eminent
domain. The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized under
Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid exercise of
Police Power and Eminent Domain.

 
RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARP becomes necessary to deprive owners
of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the
power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking
contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title
and the physical possession of said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer.
 
 A statute may be sustained
under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawfulsubject and the method.
 
Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to be determined is the method
employed to achieve it.