AGRARIAN DIGEST: ATLAS FERTILIZER CORP. VS.

DAR SECRETARY
Ponente: Romero Date: June 19, 1997
Nature: PETITION to question the
constitutionality of some portions of the
Comprehensie !"rarian Reform #a$%
Facts and Bac!round o" t#e Case
!tlas et al are en"a"e& in the aquaculture in&ustry utili'in" (shpon&s an& pra$n farms
Petitioners claim that the questione& proisions of C!R# iolate the Constitution in the follo$in" manner)
1% *ections + ,-., 11, 1+, 1/ ,&., 17 an& +0 of C!R# e1ten& a"rarian reform to aquaculture lan&s een as *ection 2, !rticle 3III of the
constitution limits a"rarian reform only to a"riculture lan&s%
0% The questione& proisions similarly treat of aquaculture lan&s an& a"riculture lan&s $hen they are &i4erently situate&, an&
&i4erently treat aquaculture lan&s an& other in&ustrial lan&s, $hen they are similarly situate& in iolation of the constitutional
"uarantee of the equal protection of the la$s%
+% The questione& proisions &istort employment -ene(ts an& -ur&ens in faor of aquaculture employees an& a"ainst other in&ustrial
$or5ers een as *ection 1 an& +, !rticle 3III of the Constitution man&ate the *tate to promote equality in economic an& employment
opportunities%
2% The questione& proisions &eprie petitioner of its "oernment6in&uce& inestments in aquaculture
The constitutionality of the a-oe6mentione& proisions has -een rule& upon in the case of #u' 7arms, Inc% % *ecretary of !"rarian
Reform re"ar&in" the inclusion of lan& &eote& to the raisin" of liestoc5, poultry an& s$ine in its coera"e%
The issue no$ -efore this Court is the constitutionality of the same a-oe6mentione& proisions insofar as they inclu&e in its
coera"e lan&s &eote& to the aquaculture in&ustry, particularly (shpon&s an& pra$n farms%
Le!a$ Issues
1% 8ON some portions of R! //97, Comprehensie !"rarian Reform #a$, are unconstitutional in so far as they inclu&e in their
coera"e lan&s &eote& to the aquaculture in&ustry, particularly (shpon&s an& pra$n farms%
(RA 6657 Sec. 39b, 11, 13, 16d, 17 & 32 & its implementing guidelines and procedures contained in AR Admin. !rder nos.
"&9#
Content%ons and Reso$ut%ons
&ud!'ent
Petition is &ismisse&% :oot an& !ca&emic%
Persona$ Notes
I thin5 !tlas et al &o not $ant to -e su-;ect to C!R# -asically for these proisions)
*ection 1/ ,&. an& 17 $hich est on the <epartment of !"rarian reform the authority to summarily &etermine the ;ust
compensation to -e pai& for lan&s coere& -y the comprehensie !"rarian reform #a$%
*ection +0 $hich spells out t#e (roduct%on)s#ar%n! ($an mentione& in *ection 1+6
=1 1 1 ,8.here-y three percent ,+>. of the "ross sales from the pro&uction of such lan&s are &istri-ute& $ithin si1ty ,/?. &ays at the
en& of the (scal year as compensation to re"ular an& other farm$or5ers in such lan&s oer an& a-oe the compensation they currently
receie) Proi&e&, That these in&ii&uals or entities reali'e "ross sales in e1cess of (e million pesos per annum unless the <!R, upon
proper application, &etermines a lo$er ceilin"%
In the eent that the in&ii&ual or entity reali'es a pro(t, an a&&itional ten percent ,1?>. of the net pro(t after ta1 shall -e &istri-ute&
to sai& re"ular an& other farm$or5ers $ithin ninety ,9?. &ays of the en& of the (scal year% 1 1 1@
*(et%t%oner+ Court
*res(ond
ent+
7irst ar"ument) that in the case of #u' 7arms, Inc% % *ecretary of !"rarian
Reform,

this Court has alrea&y rule& implie&ly that lan&s &eote& to (shin" are
not a"riculture lan&s, for the use of lan& is only inci&ental to an& not the principal
factor in pro&uctiity an&, hence, shoul& -e e1clu&e& from R%!% //97%
7urther, that in (shpon&s an& pra$n farms, there are no farmers, nor farm
$or5ers, $ho till lan&s, an& no a"rarian unrest, an& therefore, the constitutionally
inten&e& -ene(ciaries un&er *ection 2, !rt% 3III, 19A7 Constitution &o not e1ist in
aquaculture%
*econ& ar"ument) that R%!% //97, -y inclu&in" (shpon&s an& pra$n pon&s in
the same classi(cation as a"riculture iolates the equal protection clause of the
Constitution an& is, therefore, oi&% the intent of the consti framers is to e1clu&e
=in&ustrial@ lan&s, to $hich cate"ory lan&s &eote& to aquaculture, (shpon&s, an&
(sh farms -elon"%
!&ministratie Or&er Nos% A an& 1? issue& -y the *ecretary of the
<epartment of !"rarian Reform are, li5e$ise, unconstitutional, as hel& in =#u'
7arms,@ an& are therefore oi& as they implement the assaile& proisions of C!R#%
The question concernin" the
constitutionality of the assaile&
proisions has -een ren&ere& moot
an& aca&emic -ecause R! 7AA1,
approe& -y con"ress on 7e-ruary
0?, 1999, e1pressly states that
(shpon&s B pra$n farms are
e1clu&e& from the coera"e of C!R#%
$%e court &ill not %esitate to declare
la& or an act 'oid &%en con(ronted
&it% constitutional issues, neit%er
&ill it preempt t%e )egislati'e &
*+ecuti'e branc%es o( t%e
go'ernment in correcting or
clari(,ing, b, means o( amendment
said la& or act.