Catapang, Mia Claire L.

LEGAWRI K31

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform

Facts:

The case is a consolidation of four cases involving questions on the constitutionality of PD 27, EO 228
and 229, and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act (RA 6657).

1. GR 79777

Petitioners are owners of a 9-hectare and 5-hectare riceland whose tenants were declared full owners
of said lands by EO 228. They question President Aquino’s legislative power when she promulgated EO
228. The law violated Article XII, Sec. 4 of the Constitution for its failure to provide for retention limits
for small landowner.

Likewise, they argue that the just compensation must be determined by a court of justice and not the
President. It should be in cash and not in the form of bonds or other things of value. They also contend
that their right to due process was violated in considering rentals as advance payment.

2. GR 79310

Petitioners are landowners and sugar planters in the Victorias Mill District in Negros Occidental and
Planters’ Committee, Inc. They seek to prohibit the implementation of Proc. No. 131 and EO 229 for
violating the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process, and equal protection. They
contend that there is no tenancy problems in the sugar areas. Hence, sugar planters are of a distinct
class.

3. GR 79744

The petitioner’s land was put under the Operation Land Transfer and Certificates of Land Transfer were
subsequently issued to the private respondents, who then refused payment of lease rentals. Petitioner
argues that EO 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President and are violative of the constitutional
provision that no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation.

4. GR 78742

The petitioners invoke their right of retention under PD 27 as owners of rice and corn lands not
exceeding seven hectares with willingness to cultivate their own land. They ask the Court for a writ of
mandamus to compel the issuance of implementing rules regarding right of retention. Public respondent
argues that PD 27 has been amended by LOI 474, which removes the right of retention from persons
who own other agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares in aggregate are or lands used for other
purposes. Petitioners’ failure to file for retention makes them barred from invoking such right.
Petitioners likewise insist that the measures are not in force as they have not been published as
required by law and that LOI 474 could not have repealed a presidential decree.

Issues:

1. Whether there was a valid exercise of legislative power by the President

 2. Whether there was violation of the equal protection clause
3. Whether there was a violation of the due process clause
4. Whether just compensation should be made in cash

Ruling:

1. YES. Gonzales v. Estrella sustained the promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos under martial
law. Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution also authorized President
Aquino to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and EO 228 and 229. The measures did not cease to be
valid when President Aquino lost her legislative power as the Congress was convened. They
continue to be in force unless modified, repealed, or declared invalid by the courts.

Moreover, even if the LOI 474 is a mere letter of instruction, it can repeal PD 27 because it was
issued by President Marcos whose word was considered as law during martial law. Likewise, it
was published in the Official Gazette.

2. NO. There was no evidence that the sugar planters belong to a particular class. Classification
means grouping of persons or things similar and different to each other in certain particulars.
The requirements are (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 members of the class. Equal protection is not violated because it simply
means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike.

3. NO. Determination of just compensation is up to the courts. But the Department of Agrarian
Reform may set the preliminary determination of the just compensation. This is subject to the
judicial review. Just compensation may be agreed upon even without judicial intervention as
long as both parties – the landowner and the government – agree.

Moreover, the argument that the measures violate due process by arbitrary transfer of title
before full payment is rejected. The title remains with the landowner until receipt of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds
with an accessible bank.

4. NO. Cash as just compensation is a traditional practice. However, the agrarian reform program is
a revolutionary exercise of the power of eminent domain. The government would not have
enough funds to pay everything is cash as the program would require billions in pesos. Hence,
bonds and other securities may be used for just compensation.