Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Atlas Fert VS Sec of Dar

    Uploaded by

    Rodrigo Agustine Carrillo
    This document summarizes two consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of provisions in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) that extended agrarian reform to aquaculture lands. The petitioners claimed this violated the constitution. However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality because a new law, RA 7881, was subsequently passed that expressly excluded fishponds and prawn farms from CARL's coverage, rendering the issue moot. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions.

    Copyright:

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

    Atlas Fert VS Sec of Dar

    Uploaded by

    Rodrigo Agustine Carrillo
    16 views2 pages
    This document summarizes two consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of provisions in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) that extended agrarian reform to aquaculture lands. The petitioners claimed this violated the constitution. However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality because a new law, RA 7881, was subsequently passed that expressly excluded fishponds and prawn farms from CARL's coverage, rendering the issue moot. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    ATLAS FERT VS 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?

    This document summarizes two consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of provisions in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) that extended agrarian reform to aquaculture lands. The petitioners claimed this violated the constitution. However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality because a new law, RA 7881, was subsequently passed that expressly excluded fishponds and prawn farms from CARL's coverage, rendering the issue moot. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    16 views2 pages

    Atlas Fert VS Sec of Dar

    Uploaded by

    Rodrigo Agustine Carrillo
    This document summarizes two consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of provisions in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) that extended agrarian reform to aquaculture lands. The petitioners claimed this violated the constitution. However, the court did not rule on the constitutionality because a new law, RA 7881, was subsequently passed that expressly excluded fishponds and prawn farms from CARL's coverage, rendering the issue moot. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    93100 June 19, 1997

    ATLAS FERTILIZER CORPORATION, petitioner,


    vs.
    THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

    G.R. No. 97855 June 19, 1997

    PHILIPPINE FEDERATION OF FISHFARM PRODUCERS, INC. petitioner,


    vs.
    THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

    FACTS: Petitioners Atlas Fertilizer Corporation,   Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc.
    2

    and petitioner-in-intervention Archie's Fishpond, Inc. and Arsenio Al. Acuna   are engaged in the
    3

    aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms. They assail Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d),
    17 and 32 of R.A. 6657, as well as the implementing guidelines and procedures contained in
    Administrative Order Nos. 8 and 10 Series of 1988 issued by public respondent Secretary of the
    Department of Agrarian Reform as unconstitutional.

    Petitioners claim that the questioned provisions of CARL violate the Constitution in the following
    manner:

    1. Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of CARL extend agrarian reform to
    aquaculture lands even as Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution limits agrarian
    reform only to agricultural lands.

    2. The questioned provisions similarly treat of aquaculture lands and agriculture


    lands when they are differently situated, and differently treat aquaculture lands and
    other industrial lands, when they are similarly situated in violation of the constitutional
    guarantee of the equal protection of the laws.

    3. The questioned provisions distort employment benefits and burdens in favor of


    aquaculture employees and against other industrial workers even as Section 1 and 3,
    Article XIII of the Constitution mandate the State to promote equality in economic and
    employment opportunities.

    4. The questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its government-induced


    investments in aquaculture even as Sections 2 and 3, Article XIII of the Constitution
    mandate the State to respect the freedom of enterprise and the right of enterprises to
    reasonable returns on investments and to expansion and growth.

    ISSUES: consolidated petitions questioning the constitutionality of some portions of Republic Act No.
    6657 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.

    HELD: Court will not hesitate to declare a law or an act void when confronted squarely with
    constitutional issues, neither will it preempt the Legislative and the Executive branches of the
    government in correcting or clarifying, by means of amendment, said law or act. On February 20,
    1995, Republic Act No. 7881   was approved by Congress. Provisions of said Act pertinent to the
    6

    assailed provisions of CARL are the following:

    The above-mentioned provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms
    are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question concerning the
    constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A.
    No. 7881.

    WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED.

    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like