Primary Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 (CARP), P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229, subject to the condition that title to expropriated properties only transfers to the State upon full payment of just compensation to the landowners.

Background

The case arose from the government's efforts to implement agrarian reform, aimed at redistributing agricultural lands to landless farmers. Landowners challenged the legal basis and specific provisions of the agrarian reform laws, arguing that they violated constitutional rights.

Facts

• 1. G.R. No. 79777 involved landowners Nicolas Manaay and Agustin Hermano, Jr., questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229.
• 2. G.R. No. 79310 involved landowners and sugar planters in Victorias Mill District, Negros Occidental, challenging Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229.
• 3. G.R. No. 79744 involved landowner Inocentes Pabico, questioning the inclusion of his land under Operation Land Transfer.
• 4. G.R. No. 78742 involved small landowners seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary of Agrarian Reform to issue implementing rules for P.D. No. 27 regarding retention rights.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. President Aquino usurped legislative power by issuing E.O. No. 228.
• 2. The agrarian reform measures violate due process, equal protection, and the constitutional limitation on taking private property without just compensation.
• 3. Just compensation must be determined by a court and payable in money, not bonds.
• 4. The appropriation for the Agrarian Reform Fund was in futuro, not in esse.
• 5. The executive orders lacked retention limits for small landowners.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. P.D. No. 27 had already been upheld in previous cases.
• 2. President Aquino was authorized to issue the decrees under the Transitory Provisions of the 1987 Constitution.
• 3. The determination of just compensation by executive authorities is only preliminary and does not foreclose judicial intervention.
• 4. The appropriation for the Agrarian Reform Fund was valid.
• 5. The petitioners failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated.

Issues

• 1. Whether P.D. No. 27, Proc. No. 131, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 were validly issued by the President.
• 2. Whether the agrarian reform measures violate the constitutional provisions on just compensation, due process, and equal protection.
• 3. Whether the determination of just compensation can be entrusted to administrative authorities.
• 4. Whether payment of just compensation can be made in bonds or other non-monetary forms.
• 5. Whether the transfer of title to the property can occur before full payment of just compensation.

Ruling

• 1. The Court upheld the validity of the issuance of the agrarian reform measures.
• 2. It recognized that agrarian reform is a public purpose justifying the exercise of eminent domain.
• 3. The Court declared that the determination of just compensation by the DAR is preliminary; the courts have the final say.
• 4. It ruled that just compensation need not be paid entirely in money, given the scale of the agrarian reform program, and payment in government financial instruments is permissible.
• 5. The Court clarified that title to expropriated properties transfers to the State only upon full payment of just compensation.

Doctrines

• 1. Eminent Domain: The inherent power of the State to forcibly acquire private lands for public use upon payment of just compensation.
• 2. Police Power: The power of the State to regulate private property for the promotion of public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
• 3. Just Compensation: The full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, which, while traditionally in money, can include other forms of compensation given the unique context of agrarian reform.
• 4. Due Process: The constitutional guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• 5. Equal Protection: The constitutional guarantee that all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike, both in the rights conferred and liabilities imposed.
• 6. Political Question: A question of policy to be decided by the people or the legislative or executive branch, involving issues dependent on the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
• 7. Judicial Review: The power of the courts to determine whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Land for the Landless" is a slogan that underscores the acute imbalance in the distribution of this precious resource among our people.
• 2. The cases before us categorically raise constitutional questions that this Court must categorically resolve.
• 3. The Court is as acutely anxious as the rest of our people to see the goal of agrarian reform achieved at last after the frustrations and deprivations of our peasant masses during all these disappointing decades.

Precedents Cited

• 1. Gonzales v. Estrella: Sustained the promulgation of P.D. No. 27 by President Marcos under martial law.
• 2. EPZA v. Dulay: Held that the determination of just compensation is a judicial function.
• 3. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon: Established that regulation of property can be a taking if it goes too far.
• 4. Berman v. Parker: Broadened the reach of eminent domain's "public use" test to match the police power's standard of "public purpose."
• 5. J.M. Tuazon Co. v. Land Tenure Administration: Defined just compensation as the equivalent of the value of the property at the time of its taking.
• 6. Tañada v. Tuvera: Emphasized the importance of publication of presidential issuances.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. 1935 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 5: Mandated the policy of social justice.
• 2. 1973 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 6: Affirmed the goal of equitable diffusion of property ownership.
• 3. 1973 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 12: Specific injunction to formulate and implement an agrarian reform program.
• 4. 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 4: Called for the adoption of an agrarian reform program.
• 5. 1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII, Sec. 6: Authorized the incumbent president to continue exercising legislative powers until the first Congress is convened.
• 6. R.A. No. 3844: Agricultural Land Reform Code.
• 7. P.D. No. 27: Provided for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers.
• 8. E.O. No. 228: Declared full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27.
• 9. Proc. No. 131: Instituted a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP).
• 10. E.O. No. 229: Provided the mechanics for the implementation of CARP.
• 11. R.A. No. 6657 (CARP Law): Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
• 12. R.A. No. 6657, Sec. 18: Valuation and Mode of Compensation.