Case Digest: Atlas Fertilizer Corp vs DAR GR No 97855

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Case Digest: Atlas Fertilizer Corp vs DAR 
GR No 97855                                                                   June 19, 1997

Facts:
This is a consolidated case questioning the constitutionality Sections 3 (b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17 and 32 of RA 6657. That the said provision extends agrarian reform to aquaculture lands even as Sec. 4 of Art. XIII of the Constitution limits agrarian reform only to agricultural lands. The said provisions being violative of the equal protection clause of the Constitution by similarly treating of aquaculture and agriculture lands when they are differently situated. That the said provisions distort employment benefits and burdens in favor of aquaculture employees and against other industrial workers  even as Section 1 and 3 of Art. XIII of the Constitution mandates the State to promote equality in economic and employment opportunities and that the questioned provisions deprived petitioner of its government-induced investments in aquaculture even as Sec. 2 and 3 of Art. XIII of the Constitution mandate the State to respect the freedom of enterprise and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of investments and to expansion and growth.

In the petitioner's argument they contended that in the case of Luz Farms, Inc v. Secretary of Agrarian and Reform, the Court has already ruled impliedly that lands devoted to fishing are not agricultural lands. That in aquaculture, fishponds and prawn farms, the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor in productivity and hence, as held in the above-mentioned case, they too should be excluded from RA 6657 just as land devoted to livestock, swine, and poultry have been excluded for the same reason.  

While this case is pending RA 7881 was approved by Congress amending RA 6657.

Issue:
Whether or not the said provisions of RA 6657 are unconstitutional.

Ruling:
The question regarding the constitutionality of the above-mentioned provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of RA 7881 and RA 7881 expressly stat that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of RA 6657.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Ebralinag vs The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR No 95770 95887

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu GR Nos. 95770 and 95887                                                     March 1, 1993 Facts: The petitioners (Ebralinag, et al.) are elementary and high school students who were expelled from their classes by public school authorities for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and recite the patriotic pledge as required by RA 1265 and Department Order No. 8 of the DepEd. Jehovah's Witnesses admittedly teach their children not to salute the flag, sing the national anthem, and recite the patriotic pledge for they believe that those are "acts of worship" or "religious devotion” which they "cannot conscientiously give . . . to anyone or anything except God". They feel bound by the Bible's command to "guard ourselves from idols — 1 John 5:21". They consider the flag as an image or idol representing the State (p. 10, Rollo). They think the action of th
Read more

Tax Case Digest: ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita GR No 168056

By PactaSuntServanda -
ABAKADA Guro Party List vs. Ermita G.R. No. 168056                                       September 1, 2005 Facts: ABAKADA GURO Party List, et al., filed a petition for prohibition o questioning the constitutionality of Sections 4, 5 and 6 of R.A. No. 9337, amending Sections 106, 107 and 108, respectively, of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC).  Section 4 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of goods and properties; Section 5 imposes a 10% VAT on importation of goods; and Section 6 imposes a 10% VAT on sale of services and use or lease of properties; These provisions contain a provision which authorizing the President, upon recommendation of the Secretary of Finance, to raise the VAT rate to 12%, effective January 1, 2006, after specified conditions have been satisfied. Issues: Whether or not there is a violation of Article VI, Section 24 of the Constitution. Whether or not there is undue delegation of legislative power in violation of Article VI Sec 28(2) of the
Read more

Case Digest: Estrada vs Escritor 492 SCRA 1 AM No P-02-1651

By ResIpsaLoquitor -
Estrada vs. Escritor, 492 SCRA 1, A.M. No. P-02-1651,  August 4, 2003 Facts: Escritor is the Court Interpreter of RTC Branch 253 of Las Piñas City. Estrada requested an investigation of respondent for cohabiting with a man not her husband and having a child with the latter while she was still married.Estrada believes  that Escritor is committing a grossly immoral act which tarnishes the image of the judiciary, thus she should not be allowed to remain employed  therein as it might appear that the court condones her act. Escritor admitted the above-mentioned allegations but denies any liability for the alleged gross immoral conduct for the reason that she is a member of the religious sect Jehovah’s Witness and Watch Tower Society and her conjugal arrangement is approved and is in conformity with her religious beliefs. She further alleged that they executed a “Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness” in accordance with her religion which allows members of Jehovah’s Witnesses who h
Read more