Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Case Digest (CREBA vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    838 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2010 regarding the constitutionality of certain Department of Agrarian Reform administrative orders and memorandums around land use conversion. The petitioner claimed the orders were unconstitutional as they slowed down housing projects. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the orders were constitutional, as the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was simply implementing existing laws regarding land conversion. It also found the memorandum temporarily suspending conversions was constitutional as it was issued on the President's instruction to address uncontrolled conversion of agricultural land amid a rice shortage.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2010 regarding the constitutionality of certain Department of Agrarian Reform administrative orders and memorandums around land use conversion. The petitioner claimed the orders were unconstitutional as they slowed down housing projects. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the orders were constitutional, as the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was simply implementing existing laws regarding land conversion. It also found the memorandum temporarily suspending conversions was constitutional as it was issued on the President's instruction to address uncontrolled conversion of agricultural land amid a rice shortage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    838 views2 pages

    Case Digest (CREBA vs. THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM)

    Uploaded by

    Pearl Go
    This document summarizes a Supreme Court case from 2010 regarding the constitutionality of certain Department of Agrarian Reform administrative orders and memorandums around land use conversion. The petitioner claimed the orders were unconstitutional as they slowed down housing projects. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled the orders were constitutional, as the Secretary of Agrarian Reform was simply implementing existing laws regarding land conversion. It also found the memorandum temporarily suspending conversions was constitutional as it was issued on the President's instruction to address uncontrolled conversion of agricultural land amid a rice shortage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE AND BUILDERS

    ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA) vs. THE SECRETARY OF


    AGRARIAN REFORM
    G.R. No. 183409 June 18, 2010

    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.

    You might also like