1.a. What is the foundation of the agrarian reform program under the 1987 Constitution? Who are the direct beneficiaries of the program?
The 1987 Constitution enunciates in Article II as one of the state policies that the State shall promote comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”
In Article XII of the Constitution, in dealing with the national economy and patrimony, it is also stated that “the State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform.”
Then in Article XIII of the Constitution, in dealing with social justice and human rights, there is this provision, among others: the state shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of framers and regular farm – workers, who are landless, to own directly or workers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the state shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining the retention limits, the state shall respect the right of small landowners. The state shall further provide incentives for voluntary landsharing.”
Taken together, the above provisions could be considered as the foundation of the agrarian reform program.
Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
1. agricultutral lessees and share tenants; 2. regular farmworkers;
3. seasonal farmworkers; 4. other farmworkers;
5. actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
6. collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and 7. others directly working on the land.
R
ed
N
ot
es
in
L
ab
or
L
aw
45The children of landowners, who are qualified to be awardees of not more than three hectares, shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents. Actual tenant tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
Beneficiaries under PD 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of or abandoned their land are disqualified to became beneficiaries under the CARP.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the CARP.
If, due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number o tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under the CARL, at the option of the beneficiaries.
Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distributions of lands from the public domain.
1.b. Distinguish just compensation under the CARL of 1988 form just compensation under the Bill of rights? How it is determined under the former?
In the Bill of Rights it is provided that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
In the provisions of the 1987 constitution on agrarian reform, it is provided that in the just distribution of all agricultural lands, the same shall be subject, among others, to the payment of just compensation.
The concepts of just compensation in the Bill of Rights and in agrarian reform are similar in the sense that in both situations, the person who is deprived of his property should be given the fir and full equivalent value of the property that is taken from him. In both situations, ultimately, it is the courts, which may determine ultimately just compensation.
Under the CARL, however, the Land Bank of the Philippines shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may agreed upon by the landowner and the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the Philippines.
Also, under the CARL, compensation could be in cash and in government financial instruments like Land Bank of the Philippines bonds. At the option of the landowner, the compensation may be in shares of stock in government owned and controlled corporations, or in tax credits. The CARL provides that in determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use of income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by the government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-owners and by the government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. TOPIC: LABOR STANDARDS; CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT. LABOR RELATIONS; ILLEGAL
DISMISSAL.
SUMMARY OF THE RULE: Any woman who is permitted or suffered to work, with or without
compensation in any nightclub, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar or other similar establishment, under the effective control and supervision of the employer for a substantial period of time as determined by the Secretary of Labor shall be considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation.
Pregnancy is not a valid cause for dismissal because, as provided under the Code, it shall be unlawful for an employer to discharge a woman employee on account of her pregnancy.
Club Paris is an entertainment entity that operates a night club along Roxas Boulevard. The club provides food and drinks which are served by women who are dressed like Playboy Bunnies. In the employment contract of each woman, the ff. provisions appear:
“Compensation -- All tips, commissions and other forms of payment received from customers minus 10%
S
an
B
ed
a
C
ol
le
ge
o
f
La
w
Hours of work – 6 pm to 3 am, daily, including Sundays and Holidays
Other conditions – Must remain single; marriage or pregnancy is valid cause for
dismissal.”
Bituin applied and was hired by the Club. She signed the employment contract, containing the aforesaid provisions. 6 months later, she asked for a maternity leave with pay. Instead of granting her maternity leave, the management of the club fired her. Bituin sued the Club for illegal dismissal, backwages, OT pay, and holiday pay. Decide.
Bituin is an employee of the Club. Under Art.138, “ any woman who is permitted or suffered to work, with or without compensation in any nightclub, cocktail lounge, massage clinic, bar or other similar establishment, under the effective control and supervision of the employer for a substantial period of time as determined by the Secretary of Labor shall be considered as an employee of such establishment for purposes of labor and social legislation.”
Bituin was illegally dismissed. Pregnancy is not a valid cause for dismissal because, as provided under the Code, it shall be unlawful for an employer to discharge a woman employee on account of her pregnancy.
She is entitled to backwages. The compensation given to Bituin was “all tips.” These can’t be considered compensation, at most, they could be considered as service charges which Bituin can keep. She is thus entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage.
Since her working hours are from 6 pm to 3 am, She works 9 hours a day. She is also entitled to OT pay, and also from 10 pm, to a night differential pay. She is also entitled to premium pay since she works 7 days a week, and thus, works on her weekly rest day, and also on regular holidays. For the latter, she should be paid at 200% of her basic rate.