AGRARIAN LAWS AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

I. BASIC PRINCIPLES AND CONCEPTS OF AGRARIAN REFORM

A. Agrarian Reform. Defined (Section 3, R.A. No. 6657, as amended)

Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops

or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farmworkers who are
landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality
of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of
the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the
physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing,
labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which
will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands
they work.

B. Constitutional Provisions

1. Article II, Section 21

SECTION 21. The State shall promote comprehensive rural

development and agrarian reform.

2. Article XII, Section 1

SECTION 1. The goals of the national economy are a more

equitable distribution of opportunities, income, and wealth; a
sustained increase in the amount of goods and services produced
by the nation for the benefit of the people; and an expanding
productivity as the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially
the underprivileged.

The State shall promote industrialization and full employment

based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform,
through industries that make full and efficient use of human and
natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and
 foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino
enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all
regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to
develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives,
and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to
broaden the base of their ownership.

3. Article XIII, Section 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8

SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor, local

and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.

It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization,

collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They
shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work,
and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as
may be provided by law.

The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility

between workers and employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes in settling disputes, including conciliation, and
shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial
peace.

The State shall regulate the relations between workers and

employers, recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the
fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable
returns on investments, and to expansion and growth.

Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform

SECTION 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till
or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to
such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress
may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or
equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just
compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall
respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further
provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

SECTION 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers,

farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other
independent farmers organizations to participate in the planning,
organization, and management of the program, and shall provide
support to agriculture through appropriate technology and
research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other
support services.

SECTION 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform

or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the
disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands
of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to
agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small
settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.

The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its

own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the
manner provided by law.

SECTION 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to

invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote
industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public
 sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their
lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.

C. Other important definitions (Section 3, R.A. No. 6657, as

amended)

1. Agricultural Land

Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as

defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.

2. Agrarian Dispute

Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial

arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons
in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands

acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer
of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other
agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.

3. Farmer

Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is

cultivation of land or the production of agricultural crops, either by
himself, or primarily with the assistance of his immediate farm
household, whether the land is owned by him, or by another
 person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or
arrangement with the owner thereof.

4. Farmworker

Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as

an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm
regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly,
monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose
work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a
pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially
equivalent and regular farm employment.

Types of farmworker

a. Regular Farmworker is a natural person who is employed

on a permanent basis by an agricultural enterprise or
farm.
b. Seasonal Farmworker is a natural person who is
employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by
an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a
permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as
"dumaan", "sacada", and the like.
c. Other Farmworker is a farmworker who does not fall
under paragraphs (g) Farmworker, (h) Regular
Farmworker and (i) Seasonal Farmworker.

D. Constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657

1. Police Power

It is the inherent and plenary power if the State which enables it to

prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare of
society.
[Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association, Inc. vs
Mayor of Manila (1967)]
 2. Eminent Domain

The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of the State to

condemn private property to public use upon payment of just
compensation.

Related Jurisprudence:
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs Secretary
of Agrarian Reform

These are four consolidated cases questioning the constitutionality of

the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (R.A. No. 6657 and related
laws i.e., Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A. No. 3844).

Brief background:
Article XIII of the Constitution on Social Justice and Human Rights
includes a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform
program. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform
program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or,
in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits
thereof. RA 3844 was enacted in 1963. P.D. No. 27 was promulgated
in 1972 to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for
distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention
limits for landowners. In 1987, President Corazon Aquino issued E.O.
No. 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of
PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered
by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. In 1987, P.P.
No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program
(CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229, providing the mechanics
for its (PP131s) implementation, was also enacted. After which is the
enactment of R.A. No. 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law in
1988. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned
enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as
they are not inconsistent with its provisions.
G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small Landowners vs Secretary)

The Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. sought

exception from the land distribution scheme provided for in R.A.
6657. The Association is comprised of landowners of ricelands and
cornlands whose landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares. They invoke
that since their landholdings are less than 7 hectares, they should not
be forced to distribute their land to their tenants under R.A. 6657 for
they themselves have shown willingness to till their own land. In
short, they want to be exempted from agrarian reform program
because they claim to belong to a different class.

G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico)

Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of the agrarian reform laws

(PD 27, EO 228, and 229) on the ground that these laws already
valuated their lands for the agrarian reform program and that the
specific amount must be determined by the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR). Manaay averred that this violated the principle in
eminent domain which provides that only courts can determine just
compensation. This, for Manaay, also violated due process for under
the constitution, no property shall be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Manaay also questioned the provision which states that landowners

may be paid for their land in bonds and not necessarily in cash.
Manaay averred that just compensation has always been in the form
of money and not in bonds.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection

clause.
2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process.
3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform
program, must be in terms of cash.
HELD:
1. No. The Association had not shown any proof that they belong to a
different class exempt from the agrarian reform program. Under
the law, classification has been defined as the grouping of persons
or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different
from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must
conform to the following requirements:

a) it must be based on substantial distinctions;

b) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;
c) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and
d) it must apply equally to all the members of the class.

Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly

situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the
liabilities imposed. The Association have not shown that they belong
to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument
that not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be
made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be
rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes
of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see.
There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In any event, the
Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid
classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the
courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to the
detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the contrary, it appears that
Congress is right in classifying small landowners as part of the
agrarian reform program.

2. No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a

power lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which
prohibits administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just
compensation. In fact, just compensation can be that amount
agreed upon by the landowner and the government even without
judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can
determine just compensation through appraisers and if the
 landowner agrees, then judicial intervention is not needed. What is
contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation
determined by an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the
landowner does not agree with the finding of just compensation by
an administrative body, then it can go to court and the
determination of the latter shall be the final determination. This is
even so provided by RA 6657:

Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees with the decision

may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for
final determination of just compensation.

3. No. Money as [sole] payment for just compensation is merely a

concept in traditional exercise of eminent domain. The agrarian
reform program is a revolutionary exercise of eminent domain. The
program will require billions of pesos in funds if all compensation
have to be made in cash if everything is in cash, then the
government will not have sufficient money hence, bonds, and
other securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be used for just
compensation.

Luz Farms vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform

Facts:
Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business
allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of CARP.
Luz Farms petitions CARP to be declared unconstitutional together with
a writ of preliminary injunction or restraining the order. The Court
resolved to deny the petition.
Later, after a motion for reconsideration, the Court granted the motion
regarding the injunction and required the parties to file their respective
memoranda.
Luz Farm: Livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree
farming. Land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and
represents no more than five percent (5%) of the total investment of
commercial livestock and poultry raisers. Indeed, there are many owners
of residential lands all over the country who use available space in their
residence for commercial livestock and raising purposes, under
"contract-growing arrangements," whereby processing corporations and
other commercial livestock and poultry raisers.

DAR: livestock and poultry raising is embraced in the term "agriculture"

and the inclusion of such enterprise under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6657 is
proper. He cited that Webster's International Dictionary, "Agriculture
the art or science of cultivating the ground and raising and harvesting
crops, often, including also, feeding, breeding and management of
livestock, tillage, husbandry, farming.

Issue:
Constitutionality of CARP, insofar as the said law includes the raising of
livestock, poultry, swine in its coverage.

Ruling:
The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of
1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it
was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to
include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the
Government.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.
Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of
the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the
Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance
therewith, are hereby DECLARED null and void for being
unconstitutional and the writ of preliminary injunction issued is hereby
MADE permanent.