Case Digest (G.R. No. 78742)
Facts:
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. et al., G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777, promulgated July 14, 1989, Supreme Court En Banc, Cruz, J., writing for the Court. The consolidated petitions challenge the constitutionality and implementation of Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. No. 27), Presidential Proclamation No. 131 (Proc. No. 131), Executive Orders Nos. 228 and 229 (E.O. Nos. 228, 229), and Republic Act No. 6657 (R.A. No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARP).The petitions arose from multiple factual matrices. In G.R. No. 79777 petitioners Nicolas Manaay and Agustin Hermano, Jr. (owners of 9- and 5-hectare ricelands respectively) contended that tenants were declared owners by E.O. No. 228 under P.D. No. 27; they assailed the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A. No. 6657 on separation-of-powers, due process, equal protection, and just-compensation grounds. The Solicitor General answered that (inter alia) P.D. No. 27 had been upheld in prior cases and that administrative valuation was preliminary and reviewable by courts.
In G.R. No. 79310 various sugar planters and the Planters’ Committee sought to prohibit implementation of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229, arguing that only Congress could enact CARP and that Proc. No. 131’s creation of a P50 billion Agrarian Reform Fund was an unconstitutional appropriation in futuro; they also challenged modes and timing of compensation, registration penalties, and alleged lack of study of sugar areas. Multiple interventions by sectoral groups were granted.
G.R. No. 79744 (Inocentes Pabico) claimed denial of due process after the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) included his small riceholding under Operation Land Transfer and issued land transfer certificates to beneficiaries; he contested E.O. Nos. 228/229 and asserted retention rights under P.D. No. 27.
G.R. No. 78742 involved small landowners who claimed that—because implementing rules for P.D. No. 27 had not been issued—they could not exercise retention rights and sought mandamus to compel the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to promulgate implementing rules; the DAR countered that implementing instruments and memoranda had been issued and that certain measures (LOI 474) limited retention.
All petitions raised overlapping constitutional questions about the validity of presidential issuances made before the new Congress convened, the scope of legislative/executive powers in the transitory period, the nature of public use, and the constitutionality of procedural...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners proper parties and do the petitions present a justiciable controversy permitting judicial review of the challenged measures?
- Is the invocation of extraordinary relief premature because administrative remedies have not been exhausted, or is mandamus appropriate to compel administrative action?
- Did President Aquino have authority under the Transitory Provisions to promulgate Proc. No. 131 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 before Congress convened?
- Do P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, and R.A. No. 6657 violate the Constitution by failing to provide retention limits or by breaching equal protection or single-subject/title requirements?
- Do the procedures and modes provided by CARP for determining and paying just compensation (administrative summary determination; payment in part by bonds, shares, tax credits, etc.) violate the landowner’s constitutional right to just compensation and to judicial determination of compensation? ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)