ART II .Section 10.

The State shall promote social justice in all phases of national

development.


ARTICLE XIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures that protect and
enhance the right of all the people to human dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities,
and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and disposition of property and its
increments.
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic
opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance.


Calalang vs. Williams
Facts:
The National Traffic Commission, in its resolution of 17 July 1940, resolved torecommend to the
Director of Public Works and to the Secretary of Public Works andCommunications that animal-drawn
vehicles be prohibited from passing along Rosario Streetextending from Plaza Calderon de la Barca to
Dasmarias Street, from 7:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.and from 1:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and along Rizal
Avenue extending from the railroad crossing atAntipolo Street to Echague Street, from 7 a.m. to 11
p.m., from a period of one year from thedate of the opening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. The
Chairman of the National TrafficCommission, on 18 July 1940, recommended to the Director of Public
Works the adoption of themeasure proposed in the resolution, in pursuance of the provisions of
Commonwealth Act 548,which authorizes said Director of Public Works, with the approval of the
Secretary of PublicWorks and Communications, to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate and
control the useof and traffic on national roads. On 2 August 1940, the Director of Public Works, in his
firstindorsement to the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, recommended to the latter the
approval of the recommendation made by the Chairman of the National Traffic Commission,with the
modification that the closing of Rizal Avenue to traffic to animal-drawn vehicles belimited to the
portion thereof extending from the railroad crossing at Antipolo Street to AzcarragaStreet. On 10
August 1940, the Secretary of Public Works and Communications, in his secondindorsement addressed
to the Director of Public Works, approved the recommendation of thelatter that Rosario Street and
Rizal Avenue be closed to traffic of animal-drawn vehicles,between the points and during the hours as
indicated, for a period of 1 year from the date of theopening of the Colgante Bridge to traffic. The
Mayor of Manila and the Acting Chief of Police of Manila have enforced and caused to be enforced the
rules and regulations thus adopted.Maximo Calalang, in his capacity as a private citizen and as a
taxpayer of Manila, broughtbefore the Supreme court the petition for a writ of prohibition against A. D.
Williams, asChairman of the National Traffic Commission; Vicente Fragante, as Director of Public
Works;Sergio Bayan, as Acting Secretary of Public Works and Communications; Eulogio Rodriguez,
asMayor of the City of Manila; and Juan Dominguez, as Acting Chief of Police of Manila.
Issue:
Whether the rules and regulations promulgated by the Director of Public Works infringeupon the
constitutional precept regarding the promotion of social justice to insure the well-beingand economic
security of all the people.W/N there is an undue delegation of legislative power?
Held:
There is no undue delegation of legislative power. Commonwealth Act 548 does notconfer legislative
powers to the Director of Public Works. The authority conferred upon themand under which they
promulgated the rules and regulations now complained of is not todetermine what public policy
demands but merely to carry out the legislative policy laid down bythe National Assembly in said Act,
to wit, to promote safe transit upon and avoid obstructionson, roads and streets designated as national
roads by acts of the National Assembly or byexecutive orders of the President of the Philippines and
to close them temporarily to any or all

classes of traffic whenever the condition of the road or the traffic makes such action necessaryor
advisable in the public convenience and interest.The delegated power, if at all, therefore, is not the
determination of what the law shall be, butmerely the ascertainment of the facts and circumstances
upon which the application of said lawis to be predicated.To promulgate rules and regulations on the
use of national roads and to determine when andhow long a national road should be closed to traffic, in
view of the condition of the road or thetraffic thereon and the requirements of public convenience and
interest, is an administrativefunction which cannot be directly discharged by the National Assembly.
The promotion of social justice is to be achieved not through a mistaken sympathy towards anygiven
group.
Social justice
is "neither communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy,"but the humanization of laws and
the equalization of social and economic forces by the State sothat justice in its rational and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated.Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of
all the people, the adoption by theGovernment of measures calculated to insure economic stability of
all the competent elementsof society, through the maintenance of a proper economic and social
equilibrium in theinterrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the
adoption ofmeasures legally justifiable, or extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers
underlyingthe existence of all governments on the time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema
lex.Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the recognition of the necessity ofinterdependence
among divers and diverse units of a society and of the protection that shouldbe equally and evenly
extended to all groups as a combined force in our social and economiclife, consistent with the
fundamental and paramount objective of the state of promoting thehealth, comfort, and quiet of all
persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to thegreatest number."





World Development Report 2008

October 19, 2007 World Development Report 2008 calls for greater
investment in agriculture in developing countries.The report warns that
the sector must be placed at the center of the development agenda if the
goals of halving extreme poverty and hunger by 2015 are to be realized.
While 75 percent of the worlds poor live in rural areas in developing
countries, a mere 4 percent of official development assistance goes to
agriculture.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, a region heavily reliant on agriculture for overall
growth, public spending for farming is also only 4 percent of total
government spending and the sector is still taxed at relatively high levels.

For the poorest people, GDP growth originating in agriculture is about
four times more effective in raising incomes of extremely poor people
than GDP growth originating outside the sector.


Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of
business models that provide opportunities for smallholders


By Sonja Vermeulen and Lorenzo Cotula
Published by IIED and FAO
Website: www.iied.org/pubs
2010, 106pp, ISBN 978 1 84369 774 9(Pb), free to download
Renewed interest in agricultural investment has led to a rise in large-scale acquisition
of farmland and subsequently to heated debates over 'land-grabbing'. But little
attention has been paid to alternative, and more inclusive, business models, such as
contract farming schemes, joint ventures, management contracts, and new supply
chain relationships. To address this gap, Making the most of agricultural investments
examines a variety of business models and considers their opportunities and
constraints, and options for scaling up.
According to the authors, none of the business models reviewed emerged as the best
option in all circumstances for smallholder farmers, but the extent to which an
investment shared value with local smallholders was usually more important.
"Depending on its specific terms, contract farming may be a vehicle for providing
support and improving market access for smallholders - or an exploitative relationship
where smallholders are effectively providers of cheap labour, and expected to carry
production risks," the authors explain.
The report does not imply that the alternative business models are preferable to large-
scale plantations in all cases. "In some instances, plantations may be the best option
for the investor, host country and the local community," the report states. "For
example, in areas with very low population densities and little local capacity to
engage in agricultural production, it may be difficult to establish business models that
include local ownership and operation." But the authors observe that many countries
are seemingly approving plantation-based projects without recognising alternatives.
In order for more inclusive business models to work, the authors state that the
willingness of companies to genuinely engage with these models is a key ingredient.
Government policy, secure local land rights and the negotiating power of
smallholders are also important. Moving forward, the report calls for a more thorough
understanding of inclusive business models, national policies and programmes to
promote and support these models, and action at the international level to minimise
negative impacts and maximise opportunities for smallholder farmers.


Association of Small Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, [G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989]


Facts: These are 3 cases consolidated questioning the
constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Act. Article
XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a call
for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform
program. The State shall, by law, undertake an
agrarian reform program founded on the right of
farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless,
to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in
the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share
of the fruits thereof. RA 3844, Agricultural Land
Reform Code, had already been enacted by Congress
on August 8, 1963. This was substantially superseded
almost a decade later by PD 27, which was
promulgated on Oct 21, 1972, along with martial law,
to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private
lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to
specify maximum retention limits for landowners. On
July 17, 1987, Cory issued EO 228, declaring full land
ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and
providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands
covered by the decree as well as the manner of their
payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by PP
131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform
program (CARP), and EO 229, providing the
mechanics for its implementation. Afterwhich is the
enactment of RA 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988, which Cory signed on June 10.
This law, while considerably changing the earlier
mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them
suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent
with its provisions.

In considering the rentals as advance payment on the
land, the executive order also deprives the petitioners
of their property rights as protected by due process.
The equal protection clause is also violated because
the order places the burden of solving the agrarian
problems on the owners only of agricultural lands. No
similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other
properties.

The petitioners maintain that in declaring the
beneficiaries under PD 27 to be the owners of the
lands occupied by them, EO 228 ignored judicial
prerogatives and so violated due process. Worse, the
measure would not solve the agrarian problem
because even the small farmers are deprived of their
lands and the retention rights guaranteed by the
Constitution.

In his comment the Sol-Gen asserted that the alleged
violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar
planters have failed to show that they belong to a
different class and should be differently treated. The
Comment also suggests the possibility of Congress
first distributing public agricultural lands and
scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural
lands later. From this viewpoint, the petition for
prohibition would be premature.

Issue: Whether or not there was a violation of the
equal protection clause.

Held: The SC ruled affirming the Sol-Gen. The
argument of the small farmers that they have been
denied equal protection because of the absence of
retention limits has also become academic under Sec
6 of RA 6657. Significantly, they too have not
questioned the area of such limits. There is also the
complaint that they should not be made to share the
burden of agrarian reform, an objection also made by
the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a
particular class with particular interests of their own.
However, no evidence has been submitted to the
Court that the requisites of a valid classification have
been violated.

Classification has been defined as the grouping of
persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from each other in these
same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the
following requirements:

(1) it must be based on substantial distinctions;

(2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law;

(3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only;
and

(4) it must apply equally to all the members of the
class.

The Court finds that all these requisites have been
met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary and
discriminatory.

Equal protection simply means that all persons or
things similarly situated must be treated alike both as
to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed.
The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a
different class and entitled to a different treatment.
The argument that not only landowners but also
owners of other properties must be made to share the
burden of implementing land reform must be
rejected. There is a substantial distinction between
these two classes of owners that is clearly visible
except to those who will not see. There is no need to
elaborate on this matter. In any event, the Congress is
allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid
classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and
respect by the courts of justice except only where its
discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of
Rights.

There are traditional distinctions between the police
power and the power of eminent domain that
logically preclude the application of both powers at
the same time on the same subject. In the case of City
of Baguio v. NAWASA, for example, where a law
required the transfer of all municipal waterworks
systems to the NAWASA in exchange for its assets of
equivalent value, the Court held that the power being
exercised was eminent domain because the property
involved was wholesome and intended for a public
use. Property condemned under the police power is
noxious or intended for a noxious purpose, such as a
building on the verge of collapse, which should be
demolished for the public safety, or obscene
materials, which should be destroyed in the interest
of public morals. The confiscation of such property is
not compensable, unlike the taking of property under
the power of expropriation, which requires the
payment of just compensation to the owner.

The cases before us present no knotty complication
insofar as the question of compensable taking is
concerned. To the extent that the measures under
challenge merely prescribe retention limits for
landowners, there is an exercise of the police power
for the regulation of private property in accordance
with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such
regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive such
owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of
the maximum area allowed, there is definitely a
taking under the power of eminent domain for which
payment of just compensation is imperative. The
taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the
use of the land. What is required is the surrender of
the title to and the physical possession of the said
excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner
in favor of the farmer-beneficiary. This is definitely an
exercise not of the police power but of the power of
eminent domain.



R.A. No. 2263: An Act Amending Certain Sections Of
Republic Act Numbered One Thousand One Hundred
Ninety-Nine, Otherwise Known As The Agricultural
Tenancy Act Of The Philippines