Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 11 views

    Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR

    Uploaded by

    StevensonYu
    Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Agrarian Reform Act that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. The Supreme Court ruled the provisions unconstitutional, finding that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include the livestock and poultry industry. The Court declared sections of the law covering livestock, poultry and swine raising null and void and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction against enforcing those provisions.

    Copyright:

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

    Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR

    Uploaded by

    StevensonYu
    11 views1 page
    Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Agrarian Reform Act that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. The Supreme Court ruled the provisions unconstitutional, finding that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include the livestock and poultry industry. The Court declared sections of the law covering livestock, poultry and swine raising null and void and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction against enforcing those provisions.

    Original Description:

    SocLeg

    Original Title

    1. Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Agrarian Reform Act that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. The Supreme Court ruled the provisions unconstitutional, finding that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include the livestock and poultry industry. The Court declared sections of the law covering livestock, poultry and swine raising null and void and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction against enforcing those provisions.

    Copyright:

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

    Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR

    Uploaded by

    StevensonYu
    Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Agrarian Reform Act that included raising livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. The Supreme Court ruled the provisions unconstitutional, finding that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for agrarian reform to include the livestock and poultry industry. The Court declared sections of the law covering livestock, poultry and swine raising null and void and made permanent the writ of preliminary injunction against enforcing those provisions.

    Copyright:

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

    [G.R. No. 86889. December 4, 1990.

    LUZ FARMS, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE


    DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

    Facts:
    The President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which includes
    the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. The
    Secretary of Agrarian Reform then promulgated the Guidelines and
    Procedures Implementing as embodied in Sections 11 (Commercial
    Farms), 13 and 32 (Production and Profit Sharing) of R.A. No. 6657.
    Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the
    livestock and poultry business and together with others in the same
    business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement
    of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17 and
    Section 32 of R.A. No. 6657.
    Issue:
    Whether the guidelines and rules mentioned above are constitutional,
    insofar as the said law includes the raising of livestock, poultry and
    swine in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines
    promulgated in accordance therewith.
    Ruling:
    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.
    Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of
    the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the
    Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith,
    are hereby DECLARED null and void for being unconstitutional and the writ of
    preliminary injunction issued is hereby MADE permanent.

    You might also like