Title
Supreme Court
Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas vs. Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Authority
Case
G.R. No. 198688
Decision Date
Nov 24, 2020
Indigenous communities and farmers challenged APECO's constitutionality, alleging violations of agrarian reform, ancestral domain rights, and local autonomy. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, citing lack of merit and failure to prove direct injury or constitutional violations.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 198688)

Procedural Posture and Petitions

KMP and allied residents filed the first petition (G.R. No. 198688) in October 2011, followed by PIGLACASA’s similar petition (G.R. No. 208282) in August 2013. Both assailed the legality of the Aurora Special Economic Zone Act of 2007 (RA 9490) as amended by the Aurora Pacific Economic Zone and Freeport Act of 2010 (RA 10083). Respondents filed comments; petitioners submitted replies and memoranda. Despite public hearings and administrative reviews by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), factual disputes persisted.

Petitioners’ Constitutional Claims

Petitioners argued that APECO violated the Constitution’s agrarian reform provisions (Art. II, Sec. 21; Art. XIII, Secs. 1, 4) by compulsorily including titled and irrigated farmlands already awarded to farmer-beneficiaries, infringing due process and effecting illegal land-use conversion without DAR approval. They asserted impairment of stewardship contracts, deprivation of subsistence fisherfolk’s preferential rights (Art. XIII, Sec. 7; Art. XII, Sec. 2), violation of indigenous peoples’ ancestral-domain rights (Art. XII, Sec. 5; RA 8371), and usurpation of local-government autonomy (Art. X, Secs. 3, 10; RA 7160). Additional contentions addressed foreign-loan authority and contractual non-impairment.

Respondents’ Procedural Objections

Respondents countered that the petitions were procedurally defective: improper under Rule 65 because APEZA exercises non-judicial functions; petitioners neglected primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of remedies (DAR for agrarian disputes; NCIP for indigenous issues); engaged in forum shopping; lacked justiciable controversy and standing; and violated the hierarchy-of-courts rule by directly invoking the Supreme Court without first filing before trial courts. They maintained petitioners failed to show grave abuse of discretion or direct injury.

Hierarchy of Courts and Justiciability

The Court reiterated that concurrent jurisdiction over extraordinary writs does not permit direct resort absent compelling reasons. Respect for judicial hierarchy ensures thorough fact-finding and due-process safeguards. Exceptions for direct appeals apply only when disputes raise purely legal questions with undisputed facts of national importance. Here, the petitions intertwined constitutional issues with contested facts (extent of consultation, displacement, specific parcels converted) requiring evidentiary development in lower courts; transcendental importance alone did not suffice to override hierarchy and justiciability.

Analysis on Agrarian Reform Provisions

Under the 1987 Constitution and RA 6657, conversion or reclassification of agricultural lands demands DAR approval, including for presidential reservations or lands subject to Executive Orders 407 and 448. Petitioners’ claims identified no specific instances of approved conversion or actual non-agricultural use of irrigated and irrigable lands; mere inclusion within APECO did not effect conversion. Without clear factual proofs of land-use change or DAR-approved conversion, alleged violations of agrarian reform rights and just-compensation principles remained hypothetical.

Subsistence Fisherfolk Rights

Article XII, Sec. 2 and Article XIII, Sec. 7 recognize State control over marine resources and priority for subsistence fisherfolk. Petitioners feared loss of access along 57.4 km of shoreline but presented no evidence that Section 12(n) of RA 10083, which authorizes APEZA to regulate port services and utilities (with priority to private investors), actually deprived them of fishing rights or imposed foreign exploitation. Speculative injury failed the concreteness requirement for justiciable relief.

Indigenous Peoples’ Ancestral Domains

The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act (RA 8371) secures native titles and free, prior, and informed consent for projects on ancestral lands, yet petitioners produced no Certificate of Ancestral Domain Title nor proof of actual eviction. Several Agta and Dumagat leaders withdrew, affirming they suffered no displacement and benefited from APECO initiatives. Absent undisputed facts on land-tenure disruption or consultation breaches, the Court could not adjudicate alleged infringements of ancestral-domain or participation rights.

Local Government Autonomy Issues

While RA 9490 and RA 10083 required informal coordination with local units, APECO is not a political subdivision; it did not abolish or alter municipal or barangay boundaries, nor wield taxing or legislative powers. Plebiscite is mandated only for changes to local government units under Art. X, Sec. 10 and RA 7160. Preferential tax exemptions in special economic zones have been upheld (Tiu v. CA) as reasonable classifications to spur investment. No concrete local-unit consent or plebiscite defects invalidated the statutes themselves.

Non-Impairment of Contracts and Stewardship Agreements

The non-impairment clause (Art. III, Sec. 10) yields to the State’s police power. APECO’s authority to acq

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.

About Privacy Terms