AFC vs DAR Sec | PFFPI vs DAR Sec

ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION, petitioner, 
vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

G.R. No. 97855 June 19, 1997

PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF FISHFARM PRODUCERS, INC. petitioner, 
vs.
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

G.R. No. 93100 June 19, 1997

(Supreme Court, EN BANC)

Facts: 

Before this Court are consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of some portions of Republic Act No. 6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

Petitioners Atlas Fertilizer Corporation, Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc. and petitioner-in-intervention Archie's Fishpond, Inc. and Arsenio Al. Acuna are engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. They assail Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of R.A. 6657, as well as the implementing guidelines and procedures contained in Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 issued by public respondent Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform as unconstitutional.

Petitioners claim that the questioned provisions of CARL violate the Constitution in the following manner:

1. Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of CARL extend agrarian reform to aquaculture lands even as Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution limits agrarian reform only to agricultural lands.

2. The questioned provisions similarly treat of aquaculture lands and agriculture lands when they are differently situated, and differently treat aquaculture lands and other industrial lands, when they are similarly situated in violation of the constitutional guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.

3. The questioned provisions distort employment benefits and burdens in favor of aquaculture employees and against other industrial workers even as Section 1 and 3, Article XIII of the Constitution mandate the State to promote equality in economic and employment opportunities.

4. The questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its government-induced investments in aquaculture even as Sections 2 and 3, Article XIII of the Constitution mandate the State to respect the freedom of enterprise and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth.

The constitutionality of the above-mentioned provisions has been ruled upon in the case of Luz Farms, Inc. v.Secretary of Agrarian Reform regarding the inclusion of land devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.

The issue now before this Court is the constitutionality of the same above-mentioned provisions insofar as they include in its coverage lands devoted to the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and prawn farms.

Issue:

·         Whether or not Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of R.A. 6657, as well as the implementing guidelines and procedures contained in Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 issued by public respondent Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform are unconstitutional.

Held:

No, the contested provisions of R.A. 6657 and of A.O. Nos. 8 and 10 are not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has already ruled impliedly that lands devoted to fishing are not agricultural lands. In aquaculture, fishponds and prawn farms, the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor in productivity and, hence, as held in "Luz Farms," they too should be excluded from R.A. 6657 just as lands devoted to livestock, swine, and poultry have been excluded for the same reason.

When the case was pending, RA 7881 was approved by Congress amending RA 6657. Provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn are excluded from the coverage of CARL.

Thus, the petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court.