Case 1

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines et. al., versus Secretary of Agrarian Reform, GR. No. 79310 , July 14, 1989
(175 SCRA 343) [pertinent portions on just compensation]
FACTS:
These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including serious challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No.
6657 also known as the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988"
In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O Nos. 228 and 229 on the grounds inter alia of
separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for
public use without just compensation.
In G.R. No. 79310, the petitioners in this case claim that the power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as
decreed by the Constitution belongs to the Congress and not to the President, the also allege that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O
No. 229 should be annulled for violation of the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process and equal protection.
They contended that the taking must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such payment is not
contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.
In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President and that the said
executive orders violate the constitutional provision that no private property shall be taken without due process or just
compensation which was denied to the petitioners.
In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention
because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the implementing rules of the decree. They therefore ask the
Honorable Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue the said rules.
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.

ISSUE:
1.Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police power or Power of Eminent Domain.
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.

RULING:
1.Police Power through the Power of Eminent Domain, though there are traditional distinction between the police power and the
power of eminent domain, property condemned under police power is noxious or intended for noxious purpose, the compensation
for the taking of such property is not subject to compensation, unlike the taking of the property in Eminent Domain or the power
of expropriation which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner of the property expropriated.
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.