Luz
Farms vs. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
192
SCRA 51 (1990)
Facts:
Petitioner
Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business. It seeks
to nullify Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 in so far as they apply to
livestock and poultry business.
Held:
Sec.
3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional in so far as they include
lands devoted to raising livestock, swine and poultry within its coverage. The
use of land is incidental to but not the principal factor or consideration of
productivity in this industry. The Supreme Court held that:
The
transcripts of 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 RA 3844, as land devoted to any growth, including but not
limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record,
CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 11).
The
Supreme Court noted that the intention of the Committee to limit the
application of the word "agriculture" is further shown by the
proposal of Commissioner Jamir to insert the word "arable" to
distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and
industrial lands and residential properties. The proposal, however, was not
considered because the Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are
limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include
commercial, industrial and residential lands (Record, CONCOM, 7 August 1986,
Vol. III, p. 30).
Moreover,
in his answer to Commissioner Regalado's interpellation, Commissioner Tadeo
clarified that the term "farmworker" was used instead of
"agricultural worker" in order to exclude therein piggery, poultry
and livestock workers (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.