LUZ FARMS v.

SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORMS

(G.R. No. 86889 DECEMBER 4, 1990)
PONENTE: SERRENO, J.
FACTS:
On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines, which
includes, among others, the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage. Petitioner Luz
Farms, a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business, avers that it 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 provide, 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”.
ISSUE:
Whether or not certain provisions of RA 6657 is unconstitutional for including in its
definition of “Agriculture” the livestock and poultry industry.
RULING:
YES. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of
1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of
the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.
The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under
Section 166 of R.A. 3844, as land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands,
salt beds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p.
11).The intention of the Committee is to limit the application of the word "agriculture."
Commissioner Jamir proposed to insert the word "ARABLE" to distinguish this kind of
agricultural land from such lands as commercial and industrial lands and residential properties
because all of them fall under the general classification of the word "agricultural". This proposal,
however, was not considered because the Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are
limited to arable and suitable agricultural lands and therefore, do not include commercial,
industrial and residential lands.
It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Section II of R.A. 6657 which
includes "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising"
in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial
activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply
no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform.