The above-mentioned provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL.
EN BANC
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.
R E S O L U T I O N
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. 1
Petitioners Atlas Fertilizer Corporation, 2 Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc. and petitioner-in-intervention Archie's Fishpond, Inc. and Arsenio Al. Acuna 3
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 4 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.
In their first argument , petitioners contend that in the case of Luz Farms, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 5
this 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. They also argue that
they are entitled to the full benefit of "Luz Farms" to the effect that
only five percent of the total investment in aquaculture activities,
fishponds, and prawn farms, is in the form of land, and therefore,
cannot be classified as agricultural activity. Further, that in
fishponds and prawn farms, there are no farmers, nor farm workers, who
till lands, and no agrarian unrest, and therefore, the constitutionally
intended beneficiaries under Section 4, Art. XIII, 1987 Constitution do
not exist in aquaculture.
In their second argument, they contend that R.A.
6657, by including in its coverage, the raising of fish and aquaculture
operations including fishponds and prawn ponds, treating them as in the
same class or classification as agriculture or farming violates the
equal protection clause of the Constitution and is, therefore, void.
Further, the Constitutional Commission debates show that the intent of
the constitutional framers is to exclude "industrial" lands, to which
category lands devoted to aquaculture, fishponds, and fish farms belong.
Petitioners also claim that Administrative Order Nos.
8 and 10 issued by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
are, likewise, unconstitutional, as held in "Luz Farms," and are
therefore void as they implement the assailed provisions of CARL.
The provisions of CARL being assailed as unconstitutional are as follows:
(a) Section 3 (b) which includes the "raising of fish in the definition of "Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity." (Emphasis Supplied)
(b) Section 11 which defines "commercial farms" as private agricultural lands devoted to fishponds and prawn ponds. . . . (Emphasis Supplied)
(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 at the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other
farmworkers in such lands over and above the compensation they currently
receive: Provided, That these individuals or entities realize gross
sales in excess of five million pesos per annum unless the DAR, upon proper application, determines a lower ceiling.
In the event that the individual or entity realizes a
profit, an additional ten percent (10%) of the net profit after tax
shall be distributed to said regular and other farmworkers within ninety
(90) days of the end of the fiscal year. . . .
While
the Court will not hesitate to declare a law or an act void when
confronted squarely with constitutional issues, neither will it preempt
the Legislative and the Executive branches of the government in
correcting or clarifying, by means of amendment, said law or act. On
February 20, 1995, Republic Act No. 7881 6 was approved by Congress. Provisions of said Act pertinent to the assailed provisions of CARL are the following:
Sec. 1. Section 3, Paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 3. Definitions. — For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:
(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or
Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of
crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such farm
products and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer
in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether
natural or juridical.
Sec. 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. —
xxx xxx xxx
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively
used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of
this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been
distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been
subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, by voluntary offer
to sell, or commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory
acquisition, a simple and absolute majority of the actual regular
workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year
from the effectivity of this Act. when the workers or tenants do not
agree to this exemption, the fishponds or prawn farms shall be
distributed collectively to the worker — beneficiaries or tenants who
shall form a cooperative or association to manage the same.
In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not
been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the consent of
the farm workers shall no longer be necessary, however, the provision of
Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply.
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. Section 11, Paragraph 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 11. Commercial Farming. — Commercial farms,
which are private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms,
orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao, coffee and rubber
plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and
distribution after ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. In
the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first
year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR.
During the ten-year period, the Government shall initiate steps
necessary to acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for
the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized
cooperatives or associations, which shall thereafter manage the said
lands for the workers — beneficiaries.
Sec. 4. There shall be incorporated after Section 32 of Republic Act No. 6657 a section to read as follows
Sec. 32-A. Incentives. — Individuals or entities
owning or operating fishponds and prawn farms are hereby mandated to
execute within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, an
incentive plan with their regular fishpond or prawn farm workers'
organization, if any, whereby seven point five percent (7.5%) of their
net profit before tax from the operation of the fishpond or prawn farms
are distributed within sixty (60) days at the end of the fiscal year as
compensation to regular and other pond workers in such ponds over and
above the compensation they currently receive.
In order to safeguard the right of the regular
fishpond or prawn farm workers under the incentive plan, the books of
the fishpond or prawn owners shall be subject to periodic audit or
inspection by certified public accountants chosen by the workers.
The foregoing provision shall not apply to
agricultural lands subsequently converted to fishponds or prawn farms
provided the size of the land converted does not exceed the retention
limit of the landowner.
The
above-mentioned provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that
fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In
view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of
the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of
R.A. No. 7881.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Davide, Jr., Melo, Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Hermosisima, Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.Padilla, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Francisco, JJ., are on leave.
Footnotes
2 G.R. No. 93100.
3 G.R. No. 97855.
4 192 SCRA 51 (1990).
5 Supra.
6 An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, Entitled "An Act Instituting A Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program To Promote Social Justice And Industrialization, Providing The Mechanism For Its Implementation, And For Other Purposes.
No comments:
Post a Comment