Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines,

Inc. 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 tenantfarmers 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.
[Two of the consolidated cases are discussed below]
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:
(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 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.