Atlas Fertilizer v.

Secretary of DAR Doctrine: Questions concerning the constitutionality of assailed provisions in RA 6657 become moot and academic with the passage of RA 7881. Petitioner: Atlas Fertilizer Corporation Respondents: The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform Date: June 19, 1997 Ponente: Romero, J. Nature: Petition to question constitutionality of some portions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (RA 6657) Summary: Petitioners claim that Sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17 and 32 of the Comprehensive Agrarian reform law are unconstitutional for these extend agrarian reform to aquaculture lands when Sec. 4, Art, 13 of the Constitution limits agrarian reform only to agricultural lands. The Supreme Court held that the questions concerning the aforesaid provisions have become moot and academic with the passage of RA 7881. Facts: Sec. 3(b) includes raising of fish in definition of agricultural, agricultural enterprise or agricultural activity. Sec. 11 defines commercial farms as private agricultural lands devoted to fishponds and prawn ponds. Sec. 13 calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan Sections 16 and 17 rest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the authority to determine just compensation to be paid for lands covered by the Comprehesive Agrarian Reform Law. Sec. 32 spells out production-sharing plan mentioned in Sec. 13 (3% of gross sales from production of lands to be distributed within 60 days at the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other farmworkers in such lands over and above their compensation, provided that individuals or entities realize gross sales in excess of P5M per annum unless the DAR, upon proper application, determines a lower ceiling. For every profit realized, an additional 10% of net profit after tax shall be distributed to regular and other farmworkers within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year. RA 7881: The following provisions shall not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to fishponds or prawn farms, provided the size of the land converted does not exceed the retention limit of the landowner. Issues:

1. WON Sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16(d), 17 and 32 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional.
Held:

1. No, they are not unconstitutional because RA 7881 expressly states that fishponds and prawn farms are
excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.