7/24/2019 2.) Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay

1/3

Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay-Silay Inc., et al. vs. Talisay-Silay MillingCo. Inc., et al.

GRN L-199!" #e$ruary 19, 19!9

A

R%&'(LIC ACT )*9 IS A S+CIAL 'STIC% AN &+LIC% &+%R M%AS'R% #+RT/% &R+M+TI+N +# LA(+R C+NITI+NS IN S'GAR &LANTATI+NS, /%NC%/AT%0%R RATI+NAL %GR%% +# C+NSTRAINT IT %%RTS +N #R%%+M +#C+NTRACT AN %ISTING C+NTRACT'AL +(LIGATI+NS ISC+NSTIT'TI+NALL2 &%RMISSI(L%.

es3ite very strongly 3ersuasive argu4ents to t5e contrary o6 t5edistinguis5ed la7yers su33orting t5e 3osition o6 t5e centrals, t5e Court 5asarrived at t5e conclusion t5at Re3u$lic Act )*9 7as conceived and enactedas a social legislation designed 3ri4arily to a4eliorate t5e condition o6 t5e

la$orers in t5e sugar 3lantations, and t5e 6act t5at at t5e sa4e ti4e t5e3lanters 7ould also $e $ene8ted $y it does not detract 6ro4 i6 it does not addto suc5 $asic 3ur3ose o6 t5e Act. e do not dee4 it necessary to 4ae 5erean e:tended 5istorical account o6 5o7 t5e statute ca4e into $eing.

&olice &o7er

It is t5ere6ore $eyond cavil t5at dealing as it did 7it5 t5e un6ortunate 3lig5to6 t5e 6ar4 la$orers crying 6or ;ust and urgent a4elioration and con6ronted7it5 t5e usual constitutional o$;ections 75enever contractual relations aresoug5t to $e regulated, Congress ulti4ately availed o6 t5e stateG.R. No. L-?)@9, ec. ??, 19@9, t5is Courtrecogni=ed t5e 3ro3riety o6 e:ercising

7/24/2019 2.) Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay

2/3

contracts can only $e ;usti8ed $y e:ce3tional circu4stancesD, 6or t5e Dtest o6validity today under t5e due 3rocess clause, even in t5e case o6 legislationinter6ering 7it5 e:isting contracts, is reasona$leness, as 5eld $y t5is/onora$le Su3re4e Court in t5e case o6 &eo3le vs. Eeta. In ot5er 7ords,6reedo4 6ro4 ar$itrariness, ca3riciousness and 75i4sicality is t5e test o6

constitutionality.D >3. 1!, (rie6 o6 A4icus Cuiae in (e5al6 o6 Silay-Saravia&lanters< Association, Attys. Taada, Tee5anee and Carreon. And t5ere isnot enoug5 s5o7ing 5ere o6 unreasona$leness in t5e legislation in Buestion.Fuite to t5e contrary, as 7ill $e discussed anon, e 8nd all t5e 3rovisions o6t5e i43ugned act to $e ger4ane to t5e end $eing 3ursued.

Social ;ustice

(ut it is not 3olice 3o7er alone t5at sustains t5e validity o6 t5e statutory3rovision in dis3ute. /aving in-vie7 its 3ri4ary o$;ective to 3ro4ote t5einterests o6 la$or, it can never $e 3ossi$le t5at t5e State 7ould $e $ere6t o6

constitutional aut5ority to enact legislations o6 its ind. /ere, in t5e&5ili33ines, 75enever any govern4ent 4easure designed 6or t5eadvance4ent o6 t5e 7oring class is i43ugned on constitutional grounds ands5ado7s o6 dou$t are cast over t5e sco3e o6 t5e State

7/24/2019 2.) Asociacion de Agricultores de Talisay

3/3

5as $een overe:tended in any given case is not5ing 4ore t5an t5e econo4icvia$ility or 6easi$ility o6 t5e 3ro3osed la7 in 6avor o6 la$or, and certainly nott5e e:istence o6 e:ce3tional circu4stances. In ot5er 7ords, as long as ca3italin industry or agriculture 7ill not $e 6atally 3re;udiced to t5e e:tent o6incurring losses as a result o6 its en6orce4ent, any legislation to i43rove

la$or conditions 7ould $e valid, 3rovided t5e assailed legislation is 4ore orless de4anded as a 4easure to i43rove t5e situation in 75ic5 t5e 7orersand la$orers are actually 6ound. And in t5e case at $ar, t5ere is not even a3retension t5at t5e 8nances o6 t5e centrals 7ould $e any75ere in t5e red asa result o6 t5e en6orce4ent o6 Re3u$lic Act )*9.

In t5e lig5t o6 t5e 6oregoing considerations, e do not 8nd t5e 3osition o6 t5eCentral t5at Section I o6 Re3u$lic Act )*9 inter6eres unconstitutionally 7it5e:isting contracts and t5e 6reedo4 o6 all t5e 3arties concerned in enteringinto ne7 ones to $e suJciently 3ersuasive.

(

T/% ACT +%S N+T 0I+LAT% T/% %F'AL &R+T%CTI+N CLA'S%.

No uneBual 3rotection o6 t5e la7s

It is ne:t argued t5at t5e c5allenged Act denies eBual 3rotection o6 t5e la7sin several 7ays to t5e dierent grou3s o6 la$orers in t5e sugar industry. #orinstance, it is 3ointed out t5at 75ereas it alleviates t5e condition o6 t5e7orers in so4e sugar 3lantations, it does not 3rovide 6or si4ilar treat4entto t5e la$orers in t5e centrals. In 6act, it is stressed, even a4ong t5ose

7oring in t5e sugar 6ar4s, t5ere is uneBual treat4ent, not only $ecauseSection 1 o6 t5e la7 e:3ressly e:cludes 6ro4 its a33lication 4illing districts7it5 centrals 5aving an actual 3roduction o6 less t5an one 5undred 86tyt5ousand 3iculs o6 re8ned sugar, $ut also according to t5e sc5edule3rescri$ed in t5e sa4e section, t5e s5are o6 t5e 3lanters toget5er 7it5 t5eresultant s5are o6 t5e la$orers is 4ade 3ro3ortional to t5e a4ount o63roduction o6 t5e corres3onding 4ills instead o6 $eing uni6or4. So also it isdecried t5at even as a4ong 4illing districts 3roducing not less t5an 1@*,***3iculs, only t5e la$orers 7oring in t5e 3lantations 7it5in t5e districts 75eret5e 4a;ority o6 t5e 3lanters do not 5ave 7ritten 4illing contracts 7it5 t5eres3ective centrals are entitled to t5e $ene8ts ordained $y t5e la7 and not

all t5e la$orers in all 3lantations 75ere t5e 3lanters 5ave $een givenincrease in t5eir s5ares, regardless o6 t5e e:istence o6 suc5 4a;ority.

&etition dis4issed $eing 4oot and acade4ic.