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.

ISSUE:

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

RULING:

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.
Facts: Several petitions are the root of the case:

a. A petition alleging the constitutionality of PD No. 27, EO 228 and 229 and RA
6657. Subjects of the petition are a 9-hectare and 5 hectare Riceland worked by four tenants.
Tenants were declared full owners by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27. The petitioners
now contend that President Aquino usurped the legislature’s power.

b. A petition by landowners and sugarplanters in Victoria’s Mill Negros Occidental against

Proclamation 131 and EO 229. Proclamation 131 is the creation of Agrarian Reform Fund with
initial fund of P50Billion.

c. A petition by owners of land which was placed by the DAR under the coverage of Operation
Land Transfer.

d. A petition invoking the right of retention under PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not
exceeding seven hectares.

Issue: Whether or Not the aforementioned EO’s, PD, and RA were constitutional.

Held: The promulgation of PD 27 by President Marcos was valid in exercise of Police power and
eminent domain.

The power of President Aquino to promulgate Proc. 131 and EO 228 and 229 was authorized
under Sec. 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore it is a valid
exercise of Police Power and Eminent Domain.

RA 6657 is likewise valid. The carrying out of the regulation under CARPbecomes necessary to
deprive owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there
is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of
just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of
the land. What is required is the surrender of the title and the physical possession of said excess
and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favour of the farmer.

A statute may be sustained under the police power only if there is concurrence of the lawful
subject and the method.

Subject and purpose of the Agrarian Reform Law is valid, however what is to be determined is
the method employed to achieve it.
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC

G.R. No. 78742 [July 14, 1989]

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, et al., petitioners,

vs.

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

FACTS
The association of the Small Landowners of the Philippines invokes the right of retention
granted by PD 27 to owners of rice and corn lands not exceeding 7 hectares as long as they are
cultivating on intend to cultivate the same. Their respected lands do not exceed the statutory
limits but are occupied by tenants who re actually cultivating such lands.
Because PD No. 316 provides that no tenant-farmer in agricultural land primarily devoted to
rice and corn shall be ejected or removed from his farm holding until such time as the
respective rights of the tenant-farmers and the land owners shall have been determined, they
petitioned the court for a writ of mandamus to compel the DAR Secretary to issue the IRR, as
they could not eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of retention.
ISSUE
Whether or not the assailed statutes are valid exercises of police power.
Whether or not the content and manner of just compensation provided for the CARP is
violative of the Constitution.
Whether or not the CARP and EO 228 contravene a well accepted principle of eminent domain
by divesting the land owner of his property even before actual payment to him in full of just
compensation
HELD
Yes. The subject and purpose of agrarian reform have been laid down by the Constitution itself,
which satisfies the first requirement of the lawful subject. However, objection is raised to the
manner fixing the just compensation, which it is claimed is judicial prerogatives. However, there
is no arbitrariness in the provision as the determination of just compensation by DAR is only
preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts will still have the
right to review with finality the said determination.
No. Although the traditional medium for payment of just compensation is money and no other,
what is being dealt with here is not the traditional exercise of the power and eminent domain.
This is a revolutionary kind of expropriation, which involves not mere millions of pesos. The
initially intended amount of P50B may not be enough, and is in fact not even fully available at
the time. The invalidation of the said section resulted in the nullification of the entire program.
No. EO 228 categorically stated that all qualified farmer-beneficiaries were deemed full owners
of the land they acquired under PP 27, after proof of full payment of just 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.

G.R. No. 79777 [July 14, 1989]

NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO, JR., petitioners,

vs.

Secretary of Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents

FACTS
Nicolas Manaay and his wife owned a 9-hectare Riceland; while Agustin Hermano Jr. owned 5.
They both have four tenants, each on their respective landholdings, who were declared full
owners of the said land by EO 228 as qualified farmers under PD 27.
The Manaays and Hermano questioned the constitutionality of PD 27 and Eos 228 and 229.
ISSUE
Whether or not the PD No.27, RA 6657 and EO Nos. 228 and 229 were constitutional.
HELD
Yes. The promulgation of PD No. 27 by then Pres. Marcos in the exercise of his powers under
martial law has already been sustained and there is no reason to modify or reverse it on that
issue. As for the power of then Pres Aquino to promulgate PP 131 and Eos 228 and 229, the
same was authorized by Section 6 of the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
Significantly, the Congress which was alleged to have been undercut by her did not reject but in
fact substantially affirmed the challenged measures and has specifically provided that they shall
be suppletory to RA 6657 whenever not inconsistent with its provision.

G.R. No. 79310 [July 14, 1989]

PLANTERS' COMMITTEE, INC. et al., petitioners,

vs.

PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL, respondents.

FACTS
Landowners and sugar planters in the Victoria Mills District in Negros as well as Planters’
Committee, Inc., seek to prohibit the implementation o the PP131 and EO 229 for being
violative of the Constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process and equal
protection.
Subsequently, the National Federation of Sugar Planters (NASP), Manuel Barcelona and
Prudencio Serrano filed their own petitions, which also assailed the abovementioned statutes.
ISSUE
Whether or not the CARP fund provision in PP No.131 conforms to the requirements of a valid
appropriation.
HELD
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.

G.R. No. 79744 [July 14, 1989]

INOCENTES PABICO, petitioner,

vs.

SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, et al, respondents.

FACTS
Inocentes Pabico alleges that then DAR Secretary placed his landholding under the coverage of
OLT, in violation of due process and the requirement for just compensation. Certificates of land
transfer were subsequently issued to tenants, who then refused to pay lease rentals to him. He
then protested the erroneous inclusion of his small landholding under OLT and asked for the
recall and cancellation of the said CLT, which was denied without hearing. Although he filed an
MR, EO Nos. 228 and 229 were issued, rendering his MR moot and academic because the said
EOs directly affected the transfer of his land to his farmer-tenants.
ISSUE
Whether or not PP No. 131 and EO No. 229 should be invalidated because they do not provide
for retention limits.
Whether or not the assailed statutes violates the equal protection clause.
HELD
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.

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 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.