Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 52 views

    Consti Digest Group

    Uploaded by

    Jas Fher
    Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 are unconstitutional insofar as they include the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. [The Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries.] Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry raising, questioned these provisions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Luz Farms based on the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, which showed the framers did not intend to include livestock, poultry and swine in agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Consti Digest Group

    Uploaded by

    Jas Fher
    52 views2 pages
    Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 are unconstitutional insofar as they include the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. [The Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries.] Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry raising, questioned these provisions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Luz Farms based on the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, which showed the framers did not intend to include livestock, poultry and swine in agrarian reform.

    Original Description:

    Consti Digest Group

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 are unconstitutional insofar as they include the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. [The Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries.] Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry raising, questioned these provisions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Luz Farms based on the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, which showed the framers did not intend to include livestock, poultry and swine in agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    52 views2 pages

    Consti Digest Group

    Uploaded by

    Jas Fher
    Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 are unconstitutional insofar as they include the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. [The Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries.] Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry raising, questioned these provisions. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Luz Farms based on the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, which showed the framers did not intend to include livestock, poultry and swine in agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PROTECTED INTERESTS IN PROPERTY CASE NUMBER: 105

    LUZ FARMS, , vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
    192 SCRA 51 December 4, 1990. PARAS, J.

    KEY TAKE-AWAY OR DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER

    Doctrine:

    FACTS

    Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the
    enforcement of some provisions of CARP.

    Luz Farms questions the following provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as they are made to apply to it:

    (a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of livestock (and poultry)" in the definition of "Agricultural, Agricultural
    Enterprise or Agricultural Activity.

    (b) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial, livestock, poultry
    and swine raising . . ."

    (c) Section 13 which calls upon petitioner to execute a production-sharing plan.

    (d) Section 16(d) and 17 which vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the authority to summarily determine the just
    compensation to be paid for lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

    (e) Section 32 which spells out the production-sharing plan mentioned in Section 13

    ". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales from the production of such lands are distributed within sixty (60) days
    of the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other farmworkers in such lands over and above the compensation
    they currently receive xxx

    ISSUES / RATIO ARTICLES/LAWS INVOLVED

    W/N Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Assailed law is R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian
    Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) are Reform Law of 1988)
    constitutional insofar as the said law includes the raising of
    livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage?

    HELD
    YES. The question raised is one of constitutional construction. The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain
    and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers in the adoption of the Constitution (J.M. Tuazon & Co. vs.
    Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413Said provisions are unconstitutional.

    Ascertainment of the meaning of the provision of Constitution begins with the language of the document itself. The words used
    in the Constitution are to be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed in which case the
    significance thus attached to them prevails (J.M. Tuazon & Co. vs. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 [1970]).

    It is generally held that, in construing constitutional provisions which are ambiguous or of doubtful meaning, the courts may
    consider the debates in the constitutional convention as throwing light on the intent of the framers of the Constitution. It is
    true that the intent of the convention is not controlling by itself, but as its proceeding was preliminary to the adoption by the
    people of the Constitution the understanding of the convention as to what was meant by the terms of the constitutional
    provision which was the subject of the deliberation, goes a long way toward explaining the understanding of the people when
    they ratified it (Aquino, Jr. v. Enrile, 59 SCRA 183 [1974]).

    The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural,"
    clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry
    in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.

    Commissioner Tadeo: Ipinaaalam ko kay Commissioner Regalado na hindi namin inilagay ang agricultural worker sa
    kadahilanang kasama rito ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers. Ang inilagay namin dito ay farm worker kaya hindi
    kasama ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers.

    It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes "private agricultural lands devoted to
    commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the
    aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no
    reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform.

    DECISION: PETITION OF LUZ FARMS GRANTED.

    You might also like