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.
JUICO
and
PRESIDENTIAL
AGRARIAN
REFORM
COUNCIL, respondents.
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.

A petitioner is a person who pleads with governmental institution for a legal remedy or a
redress of grievances, through use of a petition.