Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 54 views

    18 - Luz Farms v. Secretary of The DAR

    Uploaded by

    Paul Joshua Suba
    The petitioner questioned provisions of RA 6657 that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. The Supreme Court held these provisions unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries. Requiring corporate farms that raise livestock and poultry to distribute profits to workers is unreasonable and confiscatory, violating due process.

    Copyright:

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

    18 - Luz Farms v. Secretary of The DAR

    Uploaded by

    Paul Joshua Suba
    54 views1 page
    The petitioner questioned provisions of RA 6657 that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. The Supreme Court held these provisions unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries. Requiring corporate farms that raise livestock and poultry to distribute profits to workers is unreasonable and confiscatory, violating due process.

    Original Title

    18 - Luz Farms v. Secretary of the DAR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The petitioner questioned provisions of RA 6657 that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. The Supreme Court held these provisions unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries. Requiring corporate farms that raise livestock and poultry to distribute profits to workers is unreasonable and confiscatory, violating due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    54 views1 page

    18 - Luz Farms v. Secretary of The DAR

    Uploaded by

    Paul Joshua Suba
    The petitioner questioned provisions of RA 6657 that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in the coverage of agrarian reform. The Supreme Court held these provisions unconstitutional. The framers of the constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include livestock and poultry industries. Requiring corporate farms that raise livestock and poultry to distribute profits to workers is unreasonable and confiscatory, violating due process.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Luz Farms v.

    The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform


    G.R. No. 86889 December 4, 1990
    Paras, J.
    Facts:
    Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, questioned the
    constitutionality of the following provisions of R.A. 6657 insofar as the law includes the raising of
    livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage:
    (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: Provided, That these individuals or entities realize gross sales in excess
    of five million pesos per annum unless the DAR, upon proper application, determine a
    lower ceiling.
    In the event that the individual or entity realizes a profit, an additional ten (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 . . ."

    Issue: Whether or not the assailed provisions are unconstitutional?

    Held: Yes.
    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. The Committee adopted the definition of
    “agricultural land” as defined under Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as laud devoted to any growth,
    including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land. The intention
    of the Committee is to limit the application of the word “agriculture.”

    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.

    Hence, there is merit in Luz Farms' argument that the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of R.A.
    6657 directing “corporate farms” which include livestock and poultry raisers to execute and
    implement “production-sharing plans” (pending final redistribution of their landholdings) whereby
    they are called upon to distribute from three percent (3%) of their gross sales and ten percent
    (10%) of their net profits to their workers as additional compensation is unreasonable for being
    confiscatory, and therefore violative of due process.

    CAUILAN

    You might also like