LUZ FARMS VS.

SECRETARY OF Hence, there is merit on the petitioner’s argument that

AGRARIAN REFORM,  GR NO. 86889, the  product-sharing plan applied to “corporate farms” in
December 4, 1990   the  contested provisions is unreasonable for being
consficatory and  violative of the due process of law. 
Facts: On 10 June 1988, RA 6657
(Comprehensive Agrarian  Reform Law of 1988) SC: Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657
was approved by the President of the  Philippines, insofar as the  inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry
which includes, among others, the raising of  and swine in its  coverage as well as the Implementing
livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.  Rules and Guidelines  promulgated in accordance
therewith, are hereby DECLARED  null and void for
Petitioner Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in being unconstitutional and the writ of  preliminary
the livestock  and poultry business, avers that it injunction issued is hereby MADE permanent.
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
provies,  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”. 

DAR: livestock and poultry raising is embraced in the

term  "agriculture" and the inclusion of such enterprise
under Section  3(b) of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited that
Webster's International  Dictionary, "Agriculture — the art
or science of cultivating the  ground and raising and
harvesting crops, often, including also,  feeding, breeding
and management of livestock, tillage,  husbandry,
farming. 

Issue: Whether or not certain provisions of RA 6657 is 

unconstitutional for including in its definition of
“Agriculture”  the livestock and poultyr industry? YES 

Held: Looking into the transcript of the Constitutional 

Commission on the meaning of the word “agriculture”, it 
showed that the framers never intended to include
livestock and  poultry industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally  mandated agrarian reform program of
the government. 

Further, Commissioner Tadeo pointed out that the

reason why  they used the term “farmworkers” rather
than “agricultural  workers” in the said law is because
“agricultural workers”  includes the livestock and poultry
industry, hence, since they do  not intend to include the
latter, they used “farmworkers” to have  distinction.