Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990

 Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR

G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990

 

Facts:

On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines, which includes, among others, the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.

 

Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business, avers that it would be adversely affected by the enforcement of sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of the said law. Hence, it prayed that the said law be declared unconstitutional. The mentioned sections of the law provides, among others, the product-sharing plan, including those engaged in livestock and poultry business.

 

Luz Farms further argued that livestock or poultry raising is not similar with crop or tree farming. That the land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more than 5% of the total investments of commercial livestock and poultry raisers. That the land is incidental but not the principal factor or consideration in their industry. Hence, it argued that it should not be included in the coverage of RA 6657 which covers “agricultural lands”.

 

Issue: Whether or not certain provisions of RA 6657 is unconstitutional for including in its definition of “Agriculture” the livestock and poultry industry?

 

Ruling:

 

The Court held YES.

 

Looking into the transcript of the Constitutional Commission on the meaning of the word “agriculture”, it showed that the framers never intended to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the government.

 

Further, Commissioner Tadeo pointed out that the reason why they used the term “farmworkers” rather than “agricultural workers” in the said law is because “agricultural workers” includes the livestock and poultry industry, hence, since they do not intend to include the latter, they used “farmworkers” to have distinction.

 

Hence, there is merit on the petitioner’s argument that the product-sharing plan applied to “corporate farms” in the contested provisions is unreasonable for being confiscatory and violative of the due process of law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 73748

  [President Corazon C. Aquino] was installed by direct sovereignty, the people. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a je jure government; and the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government. LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. AQUINO (G.R. No. 73748 - May 22, 1986) (There is no "Full-Text" of this case. This is a Minute Resolution made by the SC.) Minute Resolutions EN BANC   SIRS/MESDAMES: Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court MAY 22, 1986. In G.R. No. 73748, Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, et al .; G.R. No. 73972, People's Crusade for Supremacy of the Constitution vs. Mrs. Cory Aquino, et al ., and G.R. No. 73990, Councilor Clifton U. Ganay vs. Corazon C. Aquino, et al ., the legitimacy of the government of President Aquin...
Read more

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000

Cruz vs Secretary of DENR Natural Resources and Environmental Law; Constitutional Law; IPRA; Regalian Doctrine   GR. No. 135385, Dec. 6, 2000   FACTS : Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa filed a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous People’s Rights Act of 1997 (IPRA) and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR). The petitioners assail certain provisions of the IPRA and its IRR on the ground that these amount to an unlawful deprivation of the State’s ownership over lands of the public domain as well as minerals and other natural resources therein, in violation of the regalian doctrine embodied in section 2, Article XII of the Constitution.   ISSUE : Do the provisions of IPRA contravene the Constitution?   HELD : No, the provisions of IPRA do not contravene the Constitution. Examining the IPRA, there...
Read more

Francisco v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003,

V erba legis , that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution must be given their  ordinary meaning  except where technical terms are employed. ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR. vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003. http://lapispapelatereyser.blogspot.com/2012/10/case-digest_9528.html FACTS: On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."   On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of this Court for "culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." The complaint ...
Read more