ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V.

SECRETARY OF DAR,
G.R. No. 78742 (175 SCRA 343), July 14, 1989

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
FUNDAMENTAL POWERS OF THE STATE
POLICE POWER
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE
PHILIPPINES,
INC.,
JUANITO
D.
GOMEZ,
GERARDO B. ALARCIO, FELIPE A. GUICO, JR.,
BERNARDO M. ALMONTE, CANUTO RAMIR B.
CABRITO,
ISIDRO
T.
GUICO,
FELISA
I.
LLAMIDO, FAUSTO J. SALVA, REYNALDO G.
ESTRADA, FELISA C. BAUTISTA, ESMENIA J.
CABE,
TEODORO
B.
MADRIAGA,
AUREA
J.
PRESTOSA, EMERENCIANA J. ISLA, FELICISIMA
C. ARRESTO, CONSUELO M. MORALES, BENJAMIN
R. SEGISMUNDO, CIRILA A. JOSE & NAPOLEON S.
FERRER, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE
SECRETARY
OF
AGRARIAN
REFORM, respondent.
G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989
ARSENIO AL. ACUNA, NEWTON JISON, VICTORINO
FERRARIS,
DENNIS
JEREZA,
HERMINIGILDO
GUSTILO, PAULINO D. TOLENTINO and PLANTERS'
COMMITTEE, INC., Victorias Mill District,
Victorias, Negros Occidental, petitioners,

vs.
JOKER
ARROYO,
PHILIP
E.
PRESIDENTIAL
AGRARIAN
COUNCIL, respondents.

JUICO

and
REFORM

G.R. No. 79744 July 14, 1989

INOCENTES
PABICO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. PHILIP E. JUICO, SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, HON. JOKER
ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE
OF THE PRESIDENT, and Messrs. SALVADOR
TALENTO, JAIME ABOGADO, CONRADO AVANCENA
and ROBERTO TAAY, respondents.
G.R. No. 79777 July 14, 1989
NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO,
JR., petitioners,
vs.
HON. PHILIP ELLA JUICO, as Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES,respondents.
CRUZ, J.:
FACTS:
These are consolidated cases involving common legal questions including serious
challenges to the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6657 also known as the
"Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988"
In G.R. No. 79777, the petitioners are questioning the P.D No. 27 and E.O Nos. 228
and 229 on the grounds inter alia of separation of powers, due process, equal

protection 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 a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs
to the Congress and not to the President, the also allege that Proclamation No.
131 and E.O No. 229 should be annulled for violation of the constitutional
provisions on just compensation, due process and equal protection. They contended
that the taking must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such
payment is not contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.
In G.R. No. 79744, the petitioner argues that E.O Nos. 228 and 229 were invalidly
issued by the President and that the said executive orders violate the
constitutional provision that no private property shall be taken without due
process or just compensation which was denied to the petitioners.
In G.R. No 78742 the petitioners claim that they cannot eject their tenants and so
are unable to enjoy their right of retention because the Department of Agrarian
Reform has so far not issued the implementing rules of the decree. They therefore
ask the Honorable Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue
the said rules.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the laws being challenged is a valid exercise of Police power or
Power of Eminent Domain.

RULING:
Police
Power
through
the
Power
of
Eminent
Domain,
though
there
are traditional distinction between the police power and the power of eminent
domain, property condemned under police power is noxious or intended for noxious
purpose, the compensation for the taking of such property is not subject to
compensation, unlike the taking of the property in Eminent Domain or the power of
expropriation which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner of the
property expropriated.