Case Digest (CREBA vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)
Case Digest (CREBA vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)
FACTS:
Petitioner CREBA, a private non-stock, non-profit
corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the
Republic of the Philippines, filed a petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition seeking to nullify and prohibit the enforcement of
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order
(AO) No. 01-02, as amended by DAR AO No. 05-07, and DAR
Memorandum No. 88, for having been issued by the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform with grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction as some provisions of the
aforesaid administrative issuances are illegal and
unconstitutional.
The aforesaid DAR AO No. 01-02, entitled “2002
Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion, issued by the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform covers all applications for
conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to
another agricultural use. Thereafter, the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform amended certain provisions of DAR AO No. 01-02 by
formulating DAR AO No. 05-07, particularly addressing land
conversion in time of exigencies and calamities. To address
the unabated conversion of prime agricultural lands for real
estate development, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform further
issued Memorandum No. 88 which temporarily suspended the
processing and approval of all land use conversion
applications.
By reason thereof, petitioner claims that there is an
actual slow down of housing projects, which, in turn,
aggravated the housing shortage, unemployment and illegal
squatting problems to the substantive prejudice not only of the
petitioner and its members but more so of the whole nation.
1
ISSUE:
Whether or not DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, and
DAR Memorandum No. 88 are the constitutional.
RULING:
YES, the Supreme Court ruled that DAR AO No. 01-02,
as amended does not also violate the due process clause, as
well as the equal protection clause of the Constitution. In
providing administrative and criminal penalties in the said
administrative order, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform simply
implements the provisions of Sections 73 and 74 of Republic
Act No. 6657.
The petitioner’s argument that DAR Memorandum No.
88 is unconstitutional, as it suspends the land use conversion
without any basis, stands on hollow ground. It bears emphasis
that said memorandum was issued upon the instruction of the
President in order to address the unabated conversion of
prime agricultural lands for real estate development because
of the worsening rice shortage in the country at that time. Such
measure was made in order to ensure that there are enough
agricultural lands in which rice cultivation and production may
be carried into. The issuance of said Memorandum No. 88
was made pursuant to the general welfare of the public, thus,
it cannot be argued that it was made without any basis.