TL;DR
The Supreme Court affirmed that livestock farms are exempt from agrarian reform coverage, upholding the Constitutional Commission’s intent. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) cannot regulate or impose retention limits on land exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and poultry-raising. This decision protects landowners engaged in livestock farming from being subjected to land redistribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), ensuring their properties are not included in agrarian reform programs. The ruling reinforces the principle that administrative agencies cannot expand their powers beyond constitutional and statutory limits, safeguarding private property rights in the livestock industry.
Cattle Country: When Agrarian Reform Can’t Fence In Livestock Farms
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) sought to include portions of a Masbate cattle ranch under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). The Sutton family, who had inherited and devoted their land exclusively to cow and calf breeding since 1948, contested this move. The heart of the matter was whether DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribed retention limits for livestock farms, was constitutional, especially given the Supreme Court’s prior ruling in Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR, which excluded livestock farms from agrarian reform.
This case revolves around the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which attempted to regulate land used for livestock raising by prescribing retention limits. The DAR argued that it issued the A.O. under its rule-making power, aiming to prevent landowners from evading agrarian reform by converting agricultural lands to livestock farms. However, administrative agencies’ powers are not without limits. Administrative rules must be authorized by law and consistent with the Constitution. They cannot expand or modify the scope of authority granted by Congress or the Constitution.
The Supreme Court found that DAR A.O. No. 9 overstepped its bounds. The 1987 Constitutional Commission’s deliberations clearly indicated an intent to exclude lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine, and poultry-raising from agrarian reform. As the Court emphasized in Luz Farms, these activities are industrial rather than agricultural. This distinction is crucial because it places livestock farming outside the purview of agrarian laws designed for crop or tree farming. The Court highlighted the significant industrial investment in livestock operations, including specialized structures and equipment, further solidifying its classification as an industrial endeavor.
The Court referred to the case of Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR, which reiterated that the term “agricultural land” does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial. The CARL, under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657, covers public and private agricultural lands, but this definition excludes lands already designated for non-agricultural uses. Just as undeveloped residential lots in Natalia Realty were exempt from agrarian reform, so too are lands devoted to livestock raising, as they are considered industrial.
The Supreme Court also addressed the DAR’s concern that landowners might convert agricultural lands to livestock farms to evade agrarian reform. The Court noted that this concern did not apply to the Suttons, who had been in the cattle-breeding business since 1948, well before the enactment of the CARL. The CARL prohibits the conversion of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes after the law’s effectivity. Since there was no change in the Suttons’ business interest, the DAR’s concern was unfounded. Furthermore, Congress amended the CARL through R.A. No. 7881, explicitly excluding lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine-raising from the definition of “agricultural activity” and “commercial farming.” This amendment aligned agrarian laws with the Constitutional Commission’s intent to exclude livestock farms.
In summary, the Court reinforced the principle that administrative rules must align with the Constitution. They cannot expand or modify the Constitution’s provisions. In this case, DAR’s attempt to regulate livestock farms through A.O. No. 9 was unconstitutional because it broadened the scope of agrarian reform beyond what the 1987 Constitution intended. When an administrative order conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, affirming that DAR A.O. No. 9 was unconstitutional and that the Suttons’ land was exempt from agrarian reform.
FAQs
| What was the key issue in this case? | The central issue was the constitutionality of DAR A.O. No. 9, which prescribed retention limits for land used for livestock raising, and whether it conflicted with the Constitution’s intent and prior Supreme Court rulings. |
| What did the Supreme Court decide? | The Supreme Court ruled that DAR A.O. No. 9 was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of agrarian reform as intended by the 1987 Constitution, affirming that livestock farms are exempt from agrarian reform. |
| Why was DAR A.O. No. 9 considered unconstitutional? | The A.O. was unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate livestock farms, which the Constitutional Commission intended to exclude from agrarian reform, and because it conflicted with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Luz Farms. |
| What was the significance of the Luz Farms case? | The Luz Farms case established that livestock, swine, and poultry-raising are industrial activities, not agricultural, and therefore not subject to agrarian reform, setting a precedent for excluding such farms from the CARL’s coverage. |
| How did R.A. No. 7881 affect this issue? | R.A. No. 7881 amended the CARL to explicitly exclude lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine-raising from the definition of “agricultural activity” and “commercial farming,” aligning the law with the Constitution’s intent. |
| What is the practical implication of this ruling for landowners? | Landowners engaged in livestock, swine, and poultry-raising are protected from having their lands subjected to land redistribution under the CARL, ensuring their properties remain outside the agrarian reform program’s coverage. |
This case clarifies the boundaries of agrarian reform, ensuring that administrative agencies respect constitutional limitations on their powers. By reaffirming the exclusion of livestock farms from agrarian reform, the Supreme Court protects property rights and reinforces the importance of aligning administrative regulations with constitutional intent.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM VS. DELIA T. SUTTON, G.R. NO. 162070, October 19, 2005
Leave a Reply