ABRAJANO, Joy Marie G.

II. Declaration of Principles and Policies

Objectives of Agrarian Reform:

 To provide landowners equality in terms of income and opportunities

 To empower land owner beneficiaries to have an equitable land ownership
 To enhance the agricultural production and productivity
 To provide employment to more agricultural workers
 To put an end to conflicts regarding land ownership

Beneficiaries:

 Landless farmers
 Agricultural lessees
 Tenants
 Regular farm workers
 Seasonal and other farm workers

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R.
Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, 04 July 1989

These are consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. No. 228,
Presidential Proclamation No. 131, E.O. No. 229, and R.A. No. 6657

FACTS:
G.R. No. 79777

Raised in this petition is the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A. No.
6657. The petitioner Nicolas Manaay and his wife are the owners of a 9-hectare rice field that is
worked by four tenants, and petitioner Augustin Hermano, Jr. is the owner of a 5-hectare rice
field that is also operated by four tenants. The law declared the tenants to be the sole owners
of these lands being eligible farmers.

P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are being questioned by the petitioners based on the
grounds of, among other things, the separation of powers, the right to due process, the right to
equal protection, and the constitutional prohibition against taking private property without just
compensation.

G.R. No. 79310

Petitioners contend that Congress, not the President, has the authority to enact the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program that the Constitution mandates. Although they
concur that the President could act as a legislator until the Congress was seated, she could only
do so to implement emergency measures during the transition. Proc. No. 131 and EO No. 229
would then need to be overturned for failing to follow the Constitution's guarantees of equal
protection, due process, and just compensation, even if the President's interim legislative
authority had been used legally.

The petitioners are the landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District, Victorias,
Negros Occidental, as well as the Planters' Committee, Inc., a group with 1,400 members who
are sugar planter-members. The purpose of this petition is to prevent the implementation of
Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229.

The National Federation of Sugarcane Planters (NASP), which claims to have at least 20,000
individual members across the nation, submitted a motion for intervention on August 27, 1987.
Subsequently, on September 10, 1987, Manuel Barcelona, et al., acting on behalf of the owners
of coconut and rice land, filed another motion for intervention. The Court granted both
motions.

G.R. No. 79744

The petitioner claims that the former secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform included
his landholding in Operation Land Transfer without following the rules of due procedure and
receiving reasonable compensation. The private respondents received certificates of land
transfer and yet they did not pay lease rentals by him. He asked for a recall of said land
transfers that was allegedly denied without hearing. Then, during the pendency of his actions,
Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 were enacted rendering the issues he raised as moot and
academic. Petitioner now alleges the said executive orders are violative of the constitutional
provision that no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation. He
also questions the denial of his right of maximum retention as espoused under the 1987
Constitution.

G.R. No. 78742

In this matter, the petitioners invoke the right of retention provided by PD No. 27 to owners of
rice and corn lands with a maximum size of seven hectares as long as they are currently farming
or intend to do so. Their individual lands are occupied by tenants who are genuinely farming,
but the landholdings do not go above the legal limit. They want to be exempted from the
agrarian reform program because they claim to belong to a different class, hence they are
assailing that said measures violate the equal protection clause.

ISSUES:

• Whether or not the enactment of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229 is valid

• Whether or not the measures violate the equal protection clause

• Whether or not the measures violate due process

• Whether or not cash should be the form of just compensation

RULING:

Yes, the said assailed measures were issued by President Aquino before July 27, 1987, when the
Congress of the Philippines was formally convened and the legislative power ceased to emanate
from her. Moreover, the Congress she is accused of undermining has explicitly stated that the
disputed measures should be suppletory to RA No. 6657 wherever not conflicting with its
provisions, meaning that it has not rejected but rather significantly confirmed the measures in
question. RA 6657 also provides for the retention limits.

No, it is true that the courts have the authority to determine what just compensation is but
there is no law prohibiting DAR from doing so. In fact, if the landowner and the government
can come to an agreement on a sum, it can be done with the absence of judicial action. The
law, however, provides that the just compensation decided by an administrative body is only
provisional. It needs the consent of the landowner. If the landowner does not agree then the
court's decision will serve as the final judgment.

No, petitioners haven't provided any evidence that they fall under a separate category and are
therefore exempt from the agrarian reform program. According to the law, categorization is the
grouping of individuals or objects that are similar to one another in some aspects and dissimilar
in other aspects. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be
based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must
not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of
the class.

No, the traditional use of eminent domain does not require money as the only form of fair
compensation. Eminent domain was exercised in a novel way through the agrarian reform
program or as the court termed it, “a revolutionary kind of expropriation”. If all compensation is
paid in cash, the program will need billions of pesos in funding and since the government won't
have enough cash, so just compensation may be made using bonds and other securities, such as
shares of stock.

Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, 05 July 2011

FACTS:
Ths is a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65 with prayer for preliminary
injunctive relief filed by petitioner Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI), assailing with a prayer to set
aside PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 and Resolution No. 2006-34-01.
Formerly held by Tabacalera, the Hacienda Luisita de Tarlac (Hacienda Luisita) was a 6,443-
hectare swath of mixed agricultural, industrial, and residential land that bordered many Tarlac
municipalities. In 1957, The Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and/or
controlled by the Jose Cojuangco, Sr. Group bought the same from its Spanish owners. During
martial law the then government filed a case in court for Tadeco to surrender ownership over
Hacienda Luisita so it could be distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Marcos government won
but the petitioners appealed. During the pendency of the appeal, People Power occurred and
the Marcos government was toppled. A motion was made by the Solicitor General to withdraw
the case but it was subject to a condition of the PARC’s approval of a stock distribution plan
(SDP). If Tadeco fails to do, Hacienda Luisita will be subjected to agrarian reform.
Approximately 93% of the Hacienda Luisita's farmworker beneficiaries (FWBs) at the time
indicated in a referendum on May 9, 1989, that they approved of the proposed HLI Stock
Distribution Option Plan. Tadeco, HLI, and the 5,848 eligible FWBs signed the Stock Distribution
Option Agreement (SDOA), also known as a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), on May 11,
1989, and Philip Juico, the then-DAR Secretary, attested to it. The SDP's foundation and
workings were encapsulated in the SDOA before being submitted to the PARC for approval. But
this was revoked in the assailed PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01. Farmworkers Agrarian
Reform Movement, Inc. (FARM) would later intervene as a party to the issue and allege Section
31 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional for allowing a stock transfer option rather than a direct
transfer over the ownership of the land.

ISSUES:
Whether PARC has the authority to revoke the Stock Distribution Plan.
Whether Section 31 of RA 6657 is unconstitutional.

RULING:
Yes, the stock distribution plan must be approved by PARC, which has that jurisdiction under
Section 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10. Moreover, PARC also has the authority to
cancel the SDP that it previously accepted, which is in contrast to the position taken by
petitioner HLI. The authority to withdraw or recall an approved SDP is not specifically granted to
the PARC by RA 6657 or other executive orders on agricultural reform but such power or
authority, however, is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary implication,
a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is
expressed. As stated in the decision, “every statute is understood, by implication, to contain all
such provisions as may be necessary to effectuate its object and purpose, or to make effective
rights, powers, privileges or jurisdiction which it grants, including all such collateral and
subsidiary consequences as may be fairly and logically inferred from its terms.” The Court ruled
in placing the lands subject of HLI’s SDP under compulsory coverage on mandated land
acquisition scheme of the CARP with a modification that the original 6,296 qualified FWBs shall
have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI if they so choose by secret ballot. DAR is
directed to explain to the FWBs the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of
their choice prior to voting.
No, the contention of FARM must fail. The Supreme Court said when it is called upon to
exercise the power of judicial review over, and pass upon the constitutionality of, acts of the
executive or legislative departments, it does so only when the following essential requirements
are first met, to wit: (1) there is an actual case or controversy; (2) that the constitutional
question is raised at the earliest possible opportunity by a proper party or one with locus
standi; and (3) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case. The current
constitutionality of Section 31 of RA 6657 and its counterpart provision in EO 229 were not
property raised at the eariest time and it is not the lis mota of the present case. Also, the Court
cannot be persuaded into ruling on a constitutional question that FARM failed to raise after a
significant amount of time has passed and several actions have taken place as a result of the
application of an allegedly unconstitutional legal provision. The Court will not rule on the
constitutionality of a matter unless it is properly brought and presented in an appropriate case
at the earliest opportunity, as has been underlined in numerous cases. Furthermore, the lis
mota aspect is not present, the constitutional issue FARM has assailed is not critical in arriving
at a resolution in the instant case. Hence, requirements 2 and 3 are wanting.