Cojuangco family to lose Luisita?

There is a great possibility that former President Corazon Aquino and her family could lose their 5,000-hectare Hacienda Luisita sugar estate to its workers under the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

The possibility loomed as the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) recommended the recall of the stock distribution plan (SDP) or stock distribution option (SDO) of Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI).

Malacañang, meanwhile, dismissed claims that the Palace had a hand in the decision as an attempt to get even with Mrs. Aquino, who has called for President Arroyo to step down.

The SDO recall was recommended by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) who had pointed out the implementation of the HLI-proposed SDP/SDO in the hacienda would warrant the coverage of Luzon’s largest sugar estate under the CARP.

A decision favoring the petition of the 6,000 farm worker-beneficiaries for the cancellation of the SDP/SDO is expected to draw mixed reactions with some quarters already claiming the move to be "politically tainted" since Mrs. Arroyo, the PARC chairman, is politically at odds with Mrs. Aquino.

The former president led various sectors and the opposition in calling for Mrs. Arroyo’s resignation last July 8.

Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP) secretary general Carl Ala said PARC should immediately tackle the agency’s terminal report and sustain the recommendation of the DAR investigating team following the decision favoring the petition made by the Luisita sugar workers.

"There is no more reason not to uphold what the farmers themselves have been telling the government: that the SDO should be scrapped as it, indeed, made life harder for the farmers (rather) than help them," Ala said.

He said the government should immediately install the farm worker-beneficiaries in the hacienda and distribute the lands.

Sources leaked a 19-page terminal report from the DAR’s Task Force HLI and its special legal team.

The report cited violations allegedly committed by HLI in the implementation of the SDP/SDO.

The terminal report was signed by Director Ibra Omar, Al Haj, chairman of the Task Force HLI, and Undersecretary Nestor Acosta, chairman of the legal team.

The same report was submitted the other day to DAR officer-in-charge Nasser Pangandaman, who is supposed to make the results public today.

The announcement of the task force’s decision on the farmer’s petition for revocation of the SDP had been delayed for weeks since August.

The DAR investigating teams pointed out the HLI failed to comply with the guidelines prescribed by the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the farm worker-beneficiaries and the HLI, Administrative Order No. 10, and the law governing the welfare of farm workers.

The terminal report noted that "despite the lapse of 16 years since the SDP was approved in November 1989... the objective and policy of the CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program), (on) acquisition and distribution (herein under Stock Distribution Plan, only shares of stocks) is yet to be fully completed."

"The (farm worker-beneficiaries), instead of the promised/envisioned better life under the CARP (herein, as corporate owner), do still live in want, in abject poverty, highlighted by the resulting loss of lives in their vain/futile attempt to be financially restored at least to where they were before the CARP (SDP) was implemented. While they were then able to make both ends meet, with the SDP, their lives became miserable," the report said.

The same report tackled the alleged non-compliance of the HLI with the provisions of Administrative Order No. 10 providing that the approved SDP should be implemented within three months from receipt by the corporate landowner-applicant and the transfer of the stock shares in the names of the qualified beneficiaries be recorded in the stock and transfer books.

But the DAR findings showed that the SDP submitted a 30-year implementation period in terms of the transfer of shares of stocks to the farm worker-beneficiaries.

To date, the terminal report said, the issuance and transfer of the shares of stocks and the recording of the transfer have yet to be carried out.

"Plainly, pending the issuance of the corresponding shares of stocks, the (farm worker-beneficiaries) remain ordinary farmers and/or farm workers and the lands remain under the full ownership and control of the original owner (HLI)," the report said.

It also alleged the non-compliance with AO No. 10 had increased income and benefits for the farm workers.

The HLI had claimed they had incurred losses but the report noted the alleged failure of the HLI to maintain the agricultural land involved "unfragmented" areas with some 500 hectares of the property carved out following its land conversion to non-agricultural uses.

"(T)he recall of said SDP/SDO of HLI is (therefore) recommended," the report said. "More so, since... it is contrary to public policy."

‘Grossly onerous’

Under Section 2 of the Republic Act 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), the welfare of landless farm workers should be given the highest consideration in the promotion of social justice.

The law also authorized the government to undertake a more equitable distribution and ownership of land and provide farm workers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands.

"The matter of issuance/distribution of shares of stocks in lieu of actual distribution of the agricultural land involved was made totally dependent on the discretion/caprice of HLI," the report added.

It also pointed out that the MOA was "grossly onerous" to the farm worker-beneficiaries.

The number of shares of stocks to be received by the farm worker-beneficiaries depends on the designation of the farm worker, whose status and the number of hours of work had been controlled by the HLI management.

"They can be denied the opportunity to be granted a share of stock by just not allowing them to work altogether under the guise of rotation," the report said.

"Meanwhile, within the 30-year period of bondage, they may already reach retirement or, worse, get retrenched for any reason, then they forever lose whatever benefit (they) could have received as regular agrarian beneficiary under the CARP if only the SDP of HLI were not authorized and approved," it added.

The document likewise noted that the farm worker-beneficiaries did not have participation in the valuation of the agricultural land for the purpose of determining its proportionate equity.

The DAR investigators also noted the sugar lands have been undervalued.

The investigating teams said in their report that the farm worker-beneficiaries have been "misled into believing by the HLI through its carefully worded (proposals)."

The HLI had proposed to include the distribution of the shares of stocks at no cost, the continuance of work on the land with wages and other benefits provided for by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the HLI.

The sugar firm also proposed that each worker was entitled to receive a 10-percent dividend, the payment of the guaranteed 3-percent of gross sales every year, free residential or home lots, and keeping the agricultural land intact and unfragmented to maintain the viability of the sugar operation, among other provisions.

"At the expense of being repetitive, the... sugar-coated assurances were more than enough to (make) them fall for the (stock distribution option) as (the HLI) made (the farm worker-beneficiaries) feel rich as ‘stockholder’ of a rich and famous corporation," it said.

On May 11, 1989, the Tarlac Development Corp. (TADECO), which operates HLI, and the almost 6,000 farmers and farm worker-beneficiaries forged a MOA for the SDP or SDO in lieu of an actual land distribution through the CARP.

But its management deemed it fit to resort to the distribution of shares as a better and equitable mode of compliance with the CARP, and made the proposal considering that the sugar corporation has around 7,000 potential beneficiaries, which would not possibly warrant an equitable division and distribution of land to enable them to improve their lives.

The HLI covers agricultural land that consists of about 5,000 hectares, sprawling in three municipalities of Tarlac province — Tarlac, Concepcion, and La Paz.

The HLI claimed that dividing the agricultural land by the number of potential beneficiaries would result in separate farm lots of 0.78 hectares per individual farm worker-beneficiary — not an economic-sized farm.

The HLI-proposed the SDP/SDO which was subsequently approved by the PARC on the same year.

On Dec. 4, 2003, the Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) filed a petition before the DAR, raising issues on alleged HLI violations in the implementation of the SDP/SDO, and the cancellation of the implementation of the scheme.

They claimed that as farm workers, the system had made their lives even worse.

The protracted resolution of the petition earned the DAR criticism while political issues were being linked in the delay since the largest sugar estate in Luzon is owned by the Cojuangco family.

The decision of the Task Force HLI and special legal team of the DAR on the cancellation of the SDP/SDO is expected to be transmitted to the PARC executive committee for review before the PARC en banc rules on the case with finality.

The DAR decision on the petition for the cancellation of the SDP/SDO came almost two years after it was filed before the agency, during the administration of then DAR Secretary Roberto Pagdanganan.

Malacañang, for its part, distanced itself from the DAR decision to subject Hacienda Luisita to land reform.

Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said it was expected that critics would try to connect the issue with Mrs. Aquino’s moves against the President, but he noted the matter could be decided on the department level.

He said the parties opposed to the DAR decision could always take their case to the courts.

"I can imagine they will exhaust all legal means to reconsider decision of the (DAR)," Ermita said. — With Aurea Calica