Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
1920
1920
compensation. The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on the receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit of DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds
with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner.
Second case:
1. No. 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, 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.
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.
Third case:
No. PP No.131 is not an appropriation measure even if it provide for the creation of the
said fund, for that is not the principal purpose. Appropriation law is one where the primary and
specific purpose of which is to authorize the release of public funds from the treasury. The
creation of the fund is only incidental to the main objective of the proclamation, which is
agrarian reform.
Fourth case:
1. No. This argument is no longer tenable because RA 6657 does not provide for such limits
now in Section 6 of the law. As such, landowners who were unable to exercise their rights to
retention under PD 27 shall enjoy the retention rights granted by RA 6657 under the
condition therein prescribed.
2. No. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to
different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of their
Prepared by: Mary Louise M. Ramos
1920
properties must be rejected. There is substantial distinction between these two classes of
owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see.