ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES V SEC OF AGRARIAN

REFORM (1989)
This is a consolidated case which questions the constitutionality of P.D. No. 27, E.O. Nos.
228 and 229, and R.A. No. 6657.
P.D. No. 27 or DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE
OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY
TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM THEREFOR
E.O. Nos. 228 or DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO QUALIFIED FARMER
BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27: DETERMINING THE
VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND CORN LANDS SUBJECT TO P.D. NO.
27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF PAYMENT BY THE FARMER
BENEFICIARY AND MODE OF COMPENSATION TO THE LANDOWNER
E.O. 229 or PROVIDING THE MECHANISMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
R.A. No. 6657 or CARP or AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION,
PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Facts:
P.D. No. 27 was promulgated on October 21, 1972, along with martial law, to provide for the
compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum
retention limits for landowners.
The people power revolution of 1986 did not change and indeed even energized the thrust for
agrarian reform. President Corazon C. Aquino issued E.O. No. 228, declaring full land ownership in
favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered
by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed by Presidential Proclamation
No. 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and E.O. No. 229, providing
the mechanics for its implementation.
Subsequently, with its formal organization, the revived Congress of the Philippines took over
legislative power from the President and started its own deliberations, including extensive public
hearings, on the improvement of the interests of farmers. The result, after almost a year of spirited
debate, was the enactment of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988, which President Aquino signed on June 10, 1988. This law, while considerably
changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they
are not inconsistent with its provisions.
The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of
separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no private
property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.

Held:
I.

SEPARATION OF POWERS

The doctrine of separation of powers imposes upon the courts a proper restraint, born of the
nature of their functions and of their respect for the other departments, in striking down the acts of
the legislative and the executive as unconstitutional. The policy, indeed, is a blend of courtesy
and caution. To doubt is to sustain. The theory is that before the act was done or the law was
enacted, earnest studies were made by Congress or the President, or both, to insure that the
Constitution would not be breached.
In addition, the Constitution itself lays down stringent conditions for a declaration of
unconstitutionality, requiring therefor the concurrence of a majority of the members of the
Supreme Court who took part in the deliberations and voted on the issue during their session en
11
banc. And as established by judge made doctrine, the Court will assume jurisdiction over a
constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requisites of a judicial inquiry into
such a question are first satisfied. Thus, there must be an (1) actual case or controversy
involving a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination, the (2)
constitutional question must have been opportunely raised by the proper party, and the (3)
resolution of the question is unavoidably necessary to the decision of the case itself.
The Court held that the requisites are satisfied by the petitioners because each of them has
sustained or is in danger of sustaining an immediate injury as a result of the acts or measures
complained of.
When the judiciary mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any
superiority over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
Legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to
determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to establish for the parties in
an actual controversy the rights which that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in
truth all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of
judicial review under the Constitution.

II.

DUE PROCESS

In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive order also deprives the
petitioners of their property rights as protected by due process. The equal protection clause is
also violated because the order places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners
only of agricultural lands. No similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other properties.
The petitioners also maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 to be the
owners of the lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and so violated
due process. Worse, the measure would not solve the agrarian problem because even the small
farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
Petitioners insist that P.D. No. 27 does not provide for retention limits on tenanted lands and that
in any event their petition is a class suit brought in behalf of landowners with landholdings below
24 hectares. They maintain that the determination of just compensation by the administrative
authorities is a final ascertainment.

III.
IV.
V.

EQUAL PROTECTION
VALIDITY OF THE EXERCISE OF THE STATES POLICE POWER AND
EMINENT DOMAIN
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATION THAT NO PRIVATE PORPERTY SHALL BE
TAKEN FOR PUBLIC USE WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION