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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 24 views

    Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform

    Uploaded by

    Refold Andre Raga
    The Supreme Court ruled certain provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 unconstitutional for including livestock and poultry raising in its definition of "agriculture". Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, argued that land is not the primary resource in their industry and they should not be subject to the law's coverage and product-sharing plan. While the Department of Agrarian Reform claimed livestock and poultry raising falls under "agriculture", the Court found the framers of the Constitution did not intend to include these industries in the agrarian reform program. The Court declared null and void the provisions covering livestock and poultry raising.

    Copyright:

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

    Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform

    Uploaded by

    Refold Andre Raga
    24 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled certain provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 unconstitutional for including livestock and poultry raising in its definition of "agriculture". Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, argued that land is not the primary resource in their industry and they should not be subject to the law's coverage and product-sharing plan. While the Department of Agrarian Reform claimed livestock and poultry raising falls under "agriculture", the Court found the framers of the Constitution did not intend to include these industries in the agrarian reform program. The Court declared null and void the provisions covering livestock and poultry raising.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled certain provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 unconstitutional for including livestock and poultry raising in its definition of "agriculture". Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, argued that land is not the primary resource in their industry and they should not be subject to the law's coverage and product-sharing plan. While the Department of Agrarian Reform claimed livestock and poultry raising falls under "agriculture", the Court found the framers of the Constitution did not intend to include these industries in the agrarian reform program. The Court declared null and void the provisions covering livestock and poultry raising.

    Copyright:

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

    Luz Farms v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform

    Uploaded by

    Refold Andre Raga
    The Supreme Court ruled certain provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 unconstitutional for including livestock and poultry raising in its definition of "agriculture". Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business, argued that land is not the primary resource in their industry and they should not be subject to the law's coverage and product-sharing plan. While the Department of Agrarian Reform claimed livestock and poultry raising falls under "agriculture", the Court found the framers of the Constitution did not intend to include these industries in the agrarian reform program. The Court declared null and void the provisions covering livestock and poultry raising.

    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

    LUZ FARMS VS.

    SECRETARY OF Hence, there is merit on the petitioner’s argument that


    AGRARIAN REFORM,  GR NO. 86889, the  product-sharing plan applied to “corporate farms” in
    December 4, 1990   the  contested provisions is unreasonable for being
    consficatory and  violative of the due process of law. 
    Facts: On 10 June 1988, RA 6657
    (Comprehensive Agrarian  Reform Law of 1988) SC: Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657
    was approved by the President of the  Philippines, insofar as the  inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry
    which includes, among others, the raising of  and swine in its  coverage as well as the Implementing
    livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.  Rules and Guidelines  promulgated in accordance
    therewith, are hereby DECLARED  null and void for
    Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in being unconstitutional and the writ of  preliminary
    the livestock  and poultry business, avers that it injunction issued is hereby MADE permanent.
    would be adversely affected  by the enforcement of
    sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of  the said
    law. Hence, it prayed that the said law be declared 
    unconstitutional. The mentioned sections of the law
    provies,  among others, the product-sharing plan,
    including those  engaged in livestock and poultry
    business. 

    Luz Farms further argued that livestock or poultry


    raising is not  similar with crop or tree farming. That
    the land is not the primary  resource in this
    undertaking and represents no more than 5% of 
    the total investments of commercial livestock and
    poultry  raisers. That the land is incidental but not
    the principal factor or  consideration in their
    industry. Hence, it argued that it should  not be
    included in the coverage of RA 6657 which covers 
    “agricultural lands”. 

    DAR: livestock and poultry raising is embraced in the


    term  "agriculture" and the inclusion of such enterprise
    under Section  3(b) of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited that
    Webster's International  Dictionary, "Agriculture — the art
    or science of cultivating the  ground and raising and
    harvesting crops, often, including also,  feeding, breeding
    and management of livestock, tillage,  husbandry,
    farming. 

    Issue: Whether or not certain provisions of RA 6657 is 


    unconstitutional for including in its definition of
    “Agriculture”  the livestock and poultyr industry? YES 

    Held: Looking into the transcript of the Constitutional 


    Commission on the meaning of the word “agriculture”, it 
    showed that the framers never intended to include
    livestock and  poultry industry in the coverage of the
    constitutionally  mandated agrarian reform program of
    the government. 

    Further, Commissioner Tadeo pointed out that the


    reason why  they used the term “farmworkers” rather
    than “agricultural  workers” in the said law is because
    “agricultural workers”  includes the livestock and poultry
    industry, hence, since they do  not intend to include the
    latter, they used “farmworkers” to have  distinction. 

    You might also like