ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWERS IN THE PHILS INC. v SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM G.R No. 78742 July 14, 1989
CRUZ, J.:
FACTS: These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including serious challenges to the constitutionality of several measures like E.O. No. 228, P.D. No. 27, Presidential Proclamation No. 131, E.O. No. 229 and R.A. No. 6657 – Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
In G.R. No. 7977
The petitioners in the said case are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on the grounds of separation of powers, equal protection, due process and the constitutional limitation that no private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation.
In G.R. No. 79310
The petitioners in this case claim that the power to provide for Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as provided in the Constitution is lodged in the Congress and not to the President. The petitioners also seek to prohibit the implementation of Proclamation No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. The petitioners contend that the taking of the property must be simultaneous with the payment of just compensation which Sec. 5 of E.O. No. 229 does not provide.
In G.R. No. 79744
The petitioner alleges that E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly issued by the President and that the said E.O.s violate the constitutional provision that no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation which was denied to the petitioner.
In G.R. No. 78742
Petitioner claims that they are unable to enjoy their right of retention because they cannot eject their tenants due to the fact that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) has not issued the implementing rules required under the said decree. The petitioners are therefore asking the Honorable Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the DAR to issue the said rules
ISSUE: WON the laws questioned are valid exercise of power of eminent domain.
RULING: YES. There are traditional distinctions between the power of eminent domain and police power which logically preclude the application of both powers at the same time involving the same subject. The property condemned under police power is harmful or intended for harmful purposes, like a building on the verge of collapse, which needs to be demolished for public safety, or obscene materials, which should be destroyed in the interest of public morals. Under police power, the confiscation of such property is not compensable, unlike the taking done in the exercise of power of eminent domain, which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner.
The petitions before the Court present no knotty complication insofar as the question of compensable taking is concerned. There is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution with regards to the extent that the laws in question merely prescribe the retention limits for the landowners. However, there is definitely a taking under power of eminent domain which payment of just compensation is imperative when in order to carry out the regulation, it is necessary to deprive such land now