Case Summary (G.R. No. 78742)
Petitioned Measures and Procedural Posture
The petitions question the constitutionality of:
- Presidential Decree No. 27 (compulsory acquisition, retention limits)
- Executive Order Nos. 228 and 229 (valutation, implementation mechanics)
- Proclamation No. 131 (creation of P50 billion Agrarian Reform Fund)
- Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988)
Various petitioners allege violations of separation of powers, due process, equal protection, appropriation rules, and the “just compensation” clause.
Applicable Constitutional Framework
Because the decision date is July 14, 1989, the 1987 Philippine Constitution governs. Key provisions:
- Article II – Social justice mandate
- Article XIII, Section 4 – Agrarian reform program and retention limits
- Article VI, Sections 24–25 – Appropriations
- Article III, Sections 1 and 9 – Due process, property rights, just compensation
- Transitory Provisions, Article XVIII, Section 6 – Presidential legislative power until Congress convenes
Separation of Powers and Legislative Authority
EO 228, 229 and Proclamation 131 were issued before July 27, 1987, under the President’s transitory legislative power. They remain effective unless repealed or amended by Congress. RA 6657 subsequently affirmed and supplemented them, supplying retention limits and implementation procedures.
Appropriation and Validity of Agrarian Reform Fund
Proclamation 131’s creation of the P50 billion Agrarian Reform Fund is incidental to its reform objectives rather than a pure appropriation. It does not contravene constitutional appropriation requirements, as it was issued when the President held legislative powers and Congress later ratified the fund’s existence under RA 6657.
Retention Limits and Suppleness of RA 6657
RA 6657 sets maximum retention at five hectares per owner (plus three hectares per child under conditions), with exceptions for prior PD 27 retention and homestead grantees. This satisfies the Constitution’s requirement for reasonable retention limits, rendering objections to EO 228 and 229 obsolete insofar as they lacked specific limits.
Equal Protection and Classification
Agricultural landowners constitute a rationally distinct class from other property owners, justified by the public interest in redistributing farm lands. Petitioners failed to show that the classification in PD 27, EOs, Proclamation 131, or RA 6657 arbitrarily discriminates among similarly situated persons.
Due Process and Determination of Just Compensation
Section 16(d) of RA 6657 authorizes summary administrative proceedings by the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine just compensation. This preliminary determination is not final; any aggrieved party may seek judicial review. Thus, judicial prerogatives remain intact and due process is satisfied.
Mode and Medium of Compensation
Section 18 of RA 6657 permits landowners to receive just compensation in combination of cash and government financial instruments (negotiable bonds), shares, tax credits, or other approved assets. Although traditional doctrine favors cash payment, the Constitution allows practical flexibility in a nationwide reform context. The tiered cash percentages (35 percent for ≤ 24 ha, down to 25 percent for > 50 ha) and negotiability provisions are proportional and not unduly oppressive.
Transfer of Title and Vesting of Ownership
Title and possession pass to the State only upon full payment or deposit of just compensation. This respects the principle that an ow
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 78742)
Background and Consolidation of Cases
- Four petitions (G.R. Nos. 78742, 79310, 79744, 79777) were consolidated for common legal issues.
- All challenge the constitutionality of measures implementing agrarian reform under the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions.
- Measures in question include P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, Proclamation No. 131, and R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988).
- Each petition arises from different factual antecedents—rice landowners, sugar planters, coconut and riceland owners, and individual landowners whose holdings were covered or threatened by agrarian reform decrees.
Constitutional Framework on Agrarian Reform
- 1935 Constitution mandated social justice and economic security “especially the less privileged.”
- 1973 Constitution directed the State to equitably diffuse property ownership and “emancipate the tenant from the bondage of the soil.”
- 1987 Constitution (Art. XIII, Sec. 4) requires by law an agrarian reform program founded on farmers’ right to own lands they till, with priorities and retention limits to be prescribed by Congress.
Legislative and Executive Measures Under Review
- R.A. No. 3844 (1963): Agricultural Land Reform Code—initial code for agrarian reform.
- P.D. No. 27 (1972): Martial‐law decree for compulsory acquisition of private lands, retention limits, and tenant emancipation.
- E.O. No. 228 (July 17, 1987): Declared qualified farmer‐beneficiaries full owners as of 1972; prescribed valuation and payment procedures.
- Proclamation No. 131 (July 22, 1987) & E.O. No. 229 (July 22, 1987): Instituted CARP and mechanics for implementation, created Agrarian Reform Fund.
- R.A. No. 6657 (June 10, 1988): Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law—codified CARP, set retention limit of 5 ha, prescribed modes of compensation, gave suppletory effect to earlier measures.
Justiciability and Proper Parties
- Supreme Court’s jurisdiction invoked under its power of judicial review en banc (Art. VIII, Sec. 4(2)).
- Requirements for constitutional questions met: actual case or controversy, proper party or waiver in public importance cases, unavoidable necessity of resolution.
- Landowners and associations shown to sustain or face immediate injury from challenged measures; interventions by sugarcane planters, coconut and riceland owners, and other individual landowners permitted.