Facts:
The consolidated cases centered on the validity and application of measures enacted to advance agrarian reform in the Philippines—namely Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27, Executive Order (E.O.) Nos. 228 and 229, and Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988). These cases were brought before the Supreme Court by various landowners, farmers, and planters who questioned the constitutionality of said measures primarily on grounds of just compensation, equal protection, due process, and the separation of powers.
The various petitions involved party petitioners challenging the coverage of their landholdings under P.D. No. 27; the constitutionality of E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, which pronounced emancipated tenant farmers as owners and outlined procedures for fixing land valuation; the sufficiency of P50 billion initial funding; and R.A. No. 6657 regarding the basis of just compensation and the modes of payment.
The legal journey of these petitions to the Supreme Court included claims of usurpation of legislative power by then-President Corazon C. Aquino, alleged failure to comply with constitutional requirements in the determination and payment of just compensation, questions on retention limits under the new agrarian reform program, and the challenge on the medium of payment for the expropriated properties.
Issues:
The primary legal issues revolved around the constitutionality of:
1. The imposition of land ceilings and the consequent transfer of excess lands to tenant-beneficiaries without just compensation.
2. The determination of just compensation by administrative agencies.
3. The modes of payment of just compensation, particularly the provision for payment in negotiable government financial instruments rather than cash.
4. The immediate transfer of possession and ownership of land to the government prior to full payment of just compensation.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the agrarian reform measures, affirming the inherent power of the state to enforce agrarian reform. It acknowledged the following:
1. The legality of limiting land ownership to agrarian reform beneficiaries, provided that the determination of just compensation should be a judicial prerogative.
2. The provisional determination of just compensation by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) subject to final judicial recourse.
3. The reasonable and non-oppressive modes of payment for just compensation, including government financial instruments, as a practical necessity given the magnitude of the agrarian reform program.
4. The transfer of title to the State only upon full payment of just compensation.
Doctrine:
The Supreme Court established that:
1. Agrarian reform measures are legitimate exercises of police power and eminent domain.
2. The determination of just compensation for expropriated property is a judicial function.
3. The State, in advancing agrarian reform, may employ innovative payment schemes to settle just compensation, provided that such arrangements must not unduly burden landowners.
4. Entitlement to retention rights under previous agrarian reform laws shall be recognized, subject to the conditions prescribed by R.A. No. 6657.
5. The Constitutional provision for just compensation encompasses flexibility in the payment method when addressing agrarian reform.
Class Notes:
– The Philippine government has the inherent power to expropriate private lands for agrarian reform under the police power and power of eminent domain.
– Just compensation in agrarian reform is not fixed to be solely in cash but may include other forms of negotiable government financial instruments, stock shares, tax credits, and LBP bonds.
– The DAR’s determination of just compensation is preliminary and subject to judicial review and final determination.
– Retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are preserved and may be exercised under the conditions promulgated in R.A. No. 6657, provided that certain procedures are followed.
– Title to the expropriated property remains with the landowner until just compensation is paid in full.
Historical Background:
The cases provide insights into the historical evolution of agrarian reform in the Philippines, beginning with the ideal of social justice outlined in the 1935 Constitution and subsequent iterations of the Basic Law, presidential enactments during martial law such as P.D. No. 27, and later measures including R.A. No. 6657. The decisions reveal the balance sought between advancing the rights and welfare of tenant-farmers and the property rights of landowners while navigating practical challenges and constitutional mandates. The Supreme Court’s ruling underlined the commitment to upholding the Constitutional directive for agrarian reform within the boundaries of just compensation and fair legal procedures.
Leave a Reply