Association de Agricultores Agricultore s vs.Talisay vs.Talisay Silay Milling Co. February 19, 1979 FACTS: On FACTS: On June 1952, Republic Act 809 was enacted for the purpose of addressing the necessity to increase the share of planters and laborers in the incoe deri!ed fro the sugar industry" industry" #aid act was to regulate the relations aong the persons engaged in the sugar industry" industry" $nder #ection 1 thereof, it was pro!ided that in the absence of written illing agreeents between the a%ority of planters and the illers of sugarcane in any illing district in the &hilippines, the unre'ned sugar produced in that district fro the illing by any sugar central of the sugar cane of any sugarcane planter or planter owner, as well as all byproducts and deri!ati!e thereof, shall be di!ided between the depending on the a(iu actual production" p roduction" )he higher the rate of production, the bigger the percentage gi!en to the planters" )he Association de Agricultores Agricultores de )alisay!#ilay *nc" and si( sugarcane sugarcane planters +&A-).R#/ 'led a petition to the #ecretary of abor, praying that the latter declare the applicability of the RA 809 to the )alisay #ilay ill istrict +.-)RA/ for e!ery crop year starting fro 195231942" .-)RA .-)RA alleged that RA 809 was in!alid and unconstitutional and e!en if it was !alid, the planters had written illing contracts with the at the tie the said act went into eect, and the planters who entered into said contracts did so !oluntarily and those !oluntary contracts ay not be altered or odi'ed without infringing the constitutional guarantee on freedo of contracts and non3ipairent clause of the onstitution" .-)RA .-)RA also alleged that the law !iolates the e6ual protection clause since bigger illing districts should pro!ide bigger shares than saller ones" ISSU: 7hether ISSU: 7hether RA 809 would !iolate the non3ipairent clause of the onstitution and infringe the onstitutional guarantee on freedo of contracts if applied to the )alisay #ilay ill istrict" And whether RA 809 !iolates the e6ual protection clause"
!"#: $o. %A &'9 is a social (ustice and )olice )o*er +easure or t-e )ro+otion o labor conditions in sugar )lantations. ence, )lantations. ence, whate!er rational degree of constraint it e(erts on freedo of contract and e(isting contractual obligation as is constitutionally perissible" )he said act was concerned and enacted as a social legislation designed priarily to aeliorate the condition of the laborers in the sugar plantation" a!ing in !iew its priary ob%ecti!e, to proote the interests of the laborer, it can ne!er be possible that the #tate would be bereft of constitutional authority to enact legislations of its ind" #ection 5 of Article ** of the onstitution of 19:5, under the aegis of which the law in 6uestion was enacted, ade it one of the declared principles to which the people coitted thesel!es that ;t-e ;t-e )ro+otion o social (ustice to insure t-e *ellbeing and econo+ic security o all t-e )eo)le s-ould be t-e concern o t-e State. ore State. ore speci'cally in regard to labor, there was also #ection 4 of Article <*<, to the eect that t-e State s-all a/ord )rotection to labor ... and s-all regulate t-e relation bet*een . . . labor and ca)ital in industry and in agriculture.
7ith regard to e6ual protection, the Republic Act did not !iolate such clause" )he ob!ious standard used by the legislature is the aount of production in each district" -aturally, the planters adhered to the bigger centrals should be gi!en bigger shares, considering that the ore a sugar central produces, the bigger its argin of pro't which can be correspondingly cut for the purpose of enlarging the share of the planters" $nderstandably, the saller centrals ay not be able to aord to ha!e their shares reduced substantially, which is e!idently the reason why the law has not been ade applicable to centrals ha!ing a production of less than 150,000 piculs a year" year"
