Filtered By: Topstories
News

Stocks or land? SC calls for new Luisita referendum


(Updated 8:41 p.m.) The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the revocation of the stock distribution plan (SDP) that gave farmers shares of stock in Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) instead of land in the sprawling sugar estate in Tarlac. Ten of the justices voted to uphold the order of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) in 2005 to revoke the SDP, according to SC spokesman and court administrator Jose Midas Marquez at a press briefing. "PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 dated December 22, 2005 and Resolution No. 2006-34-01 dated May 3, 2006 are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the original 6,296 qualified FWBs [farm worker beneficiaries] shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI," said the high court's 92-page decision. However, there was disagreement among the justices regarding the disposition of the Hacienda Luisita estate. Six of the justices voted to call for a referendum facilitated by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) that will allow the qualified 6,296 farm-worker beneficiaries to select between shares of stock or land once again. "DAR shall immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 [farm worker beneficiaries] and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names," the SC majority decision said. The high court's ruling was written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Teresita De Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Roberto Abad, and Mariano del Castillo. Although they upheld the revocation of the SDP, four of the justices — Associate Justices Arturo Brion, Maria Lourdes Sereno, Martin Villarama and Jose Catral Mendoza — voted for the distribution of land to the farmers instead of a new referendum. Chief Justice Renato Corona did not take part in the deliberations because he is of the opinion that "land reform means giving of actual land, not giving shares of stock." Associate Justice Antonio Carpio inhibited himself from the case, while Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta was absent in Tuesday's en banc (full court) session. DAR is mandated to submit a compliance report six months after the decision is rendered final. Asked why the DAR is mandated to hold another referendum despite the revocation of the SDP, Marquez said that farmers should still be given the opportunity if they still want to be HLI stockholders. 'Deceptive' and 'confusing' Akbayan Party in a statement condemned the SC decision as “deceptive" and “confusing." The party also called it a “travesty of justice." “While the Supreme Court has nullified the SDO, the accompanying decision to call for a referendum is out-and-out deception since it only allows the estate’s elite incorporators to salvage their plans to keep Hacienda Luisita and to end any chances of the land ever being distributed," Akbayan spokesperson Risa Hontiveros said. The SC decision will split the land beneficiaries between “those who want to be free [from] feudal bondage and those who prefer to keep [it], deceived by the false promises of the SDO," she said. “The law is clear on the matter — land distribution is the only option, no ‘ifs or buts.’ The CARP clearly said that the SDO is not part of it and only distribution is warranted as the genuine avenue of agrarian reform," Hontiveros said. The SC decision is tantamount to “usurping the powers of Congress," Akbayan Representative Kaka Bag-ao added. “Republic Act 9700 or the CARPER Law specifically removed the alternatives to land distribution, such as an SDO. The high tribunal’s decision resuscitates the SDO contrary to the spirit of the CARPER Law," Bag-ao said. The decision also depicts how the landed elite “can derail agrarian reform," according to Bag-ao. “The planned referendum serves as a lifeline for those who will benefit the most from an undistributed Hacienda Luisita," she said. What is the stock distribution plan? In 1989, the PARC approved the stock distribution plan presented by the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita Inc. which allowed farmers to choose whether they want to receive stocks or land through a stock distribution option (SDO) agreement. [See related: Hacienda Luisita Timeline] "The SDO agreement is enforced pursuant to SDP," said Marquez. But because the SDP has been revoked, the SDO deal forged in 1989 "has no leg to stand on anymore," he added.
HACIENDA LUISITA, BY THE NUMBERS
Based on the Supreme Court's decision: * There are 6,296 qualified farm-worker beneficiaries (FWBs) in Hacienda Luisita. * Each qualified beneficiary who wishes to continue as an HLI stockholder is entitled to 18,804.32 HLI shares. If the number of shares already given to the beneficiary is less than this number, the HLI is ordered to distribute additional shares to complete the prescribed number of shares at no cost to the beneficiary within 30 days from the final promulgation of the SC decision. * Farm-workers who are not qualified beneficiaries numbering 4,206 are not entitled to land distribution and shall remain as HLI shareholders. * The current Hacienda Luisita has an area of 4,334.55 hectares. The sugar estate used to occupy 6,435 hectares but over the years, portions of land have been sold to industrial companies. * All salaries, benefits, 3-percent production share, and 3-percent share in the proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare converted land and the 80.51-hectare SCTEX [Subic Clark Tarlac Expressway] lot and homelots already received by all the 10,502 qualified and non-qualified farm-workers in Hacienda shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them.
SC lifts TRO on PARC revocation order Hacienda Luisita is a 6,435-hectare sugar estate in Tarlac owned by the Cojuangcos, the family of President Benigno Aquino III's late mother, former President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino. The SDP has been in place since 1989, when HLI forged an agreement with thousands of farmers who preferred stocks instead of land. But in December 2005, during the term of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the PARC ordered the revocation of the SDP for its alleged failure to fulfill the 1988 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law's thrust of social justice and improved lives for farmers. HLI challenged the PARC order in the Supreme Court, saying the revocation of the SDP violated the 1987 Constitution. HLI also said the PARC has no authority to cancel the plan. In February 2006, the SC issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) which prevented the PARC from ordering land distribution. In its decision on Tuesday, July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court said that it is lifting the TRO it issued in 2006 because it is upholding the PARC's findings.
August 2010 compromise deal is invalid In August 2010, HLI and factions of farmers' groups signed a new compromise agreement giving the farmers the chance to remain as HLI stockholders or receive their share of Hacienda Luisita land. Many voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts. A faction of the farmers' groups, on the other hand, asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the SDO. The rival faction also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement to represent the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries. The new compromise deal was forged only days before the Supreme Court opened the oral arguments for the case. The oral arguments were held for the first time since the land dispute was brought to the court's doorstep in 2006. In Tuesday's briefing, Marquez said that the high court's new ruling nullifies the compromise deal. "This decision repeals all other agreements and circumstances on this particular case. This decision supersedes [the compromise deal]," said Marquez. Reactions HLI lead counsel Gener Asuncion, when contacted by GMA News Online, said they would issue an official statement once they receive a copy of the SC's decision. But according to HLI spokesperson Antonio Ligon, they will comply with any ruling from the high court. “We believe in the rule of law. Itong referendum naman na ito ay hindi na bago, maliban na lang sa bilang ng participants at sa coverage," Ligon said in a separate phone interview. He said the HLI is still considering its legal options on the case. Ligon said he thinks Luisita farmer-beneficiaries will still opt for shares of stocks once the DAR facilitates a referendum in the estate. “I cannot speak for them, but I don’t see any reason why the results will be different from the results of the referendum last year," he said. Meanwhile, farmers' groups based in Hacienda Luisita criticized the SC for ordering another referendum. “We have already junked the referendum in August last year when the Cojuangco-Aquinos desperately pushed for the anti-farm worker compromise deal. It is totally condemnable that the justices have towed the Cojuangco-Aquinos' line," said Rodel Mesa, Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Luisita (AMBALA) spokesperson, in a statement. “It (decision) signals the start of a more intense struggle of Hacienda Luisita farm workers. Hacienda Luisita farm workers are now bound to assert their rights to own the lands," added Mesa, who is also secretary general of the Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (UMA). Jobert Pahilga, counsel for farmer groups AMBALA and United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU), said the SC’s ruling “is not beneficial" to the farmers and added that they would ask the court to reconsider its decision calling for a new referendum. “There is no basis sa pagre-referendum kung nirevoke mo na iyong stock distribution plan… Bakit mo papiliin ang mga magsasaka ng stocks na issued pursuant to a plan that has already been revoked? Ano ang sense noon?" he said in a phone interview on Wednesday. — With Andreo C. Calonzo/Paterno Esmaquel II/KBK/VS, GMA News
Holding on: A Hacienda Luisita timeline from the Spanish to the Noynoy eras As Cuba could not supply all of the sugar requirements of the United States (US), they turned to the Philippines. Before World War II, Hacienda Luisita supplied almost 20% of all sugar in the US.
LOADING CONTENT