Hacienda defends deal before Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines - Hacienda Luisita Inc., owned largely by the family of President Aquino, defended before the Supreme Court yesterday its distribution to farmers of stocks covering one-third of its vast sugar plantation in Tarlac.

The HLI, through lawyer Gener Asuncion, argued before the magistrates in full-court hearing that the stock distribution option (SDO) accepted by 7,302 of the total of 10,502 beneficiaries in a compromise agreement forged earlier this month is legal.

It asked the High Court during oral arguments to grant its petition filed in 2006 for the voiding of the revocation by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the SDO in favor of distribution of the agricultural land to the farmers under government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

Asuncion argued that PARC did not have the authority to revoke a tri-party memorandum of agreement dated May 11, 1989 in which the parties had chosen SDO over land distribution in compliance with Republic Act 6657 (Agrarian Reform Law). He said only the judiciary has an authority to review or revoke contracts.

He said the SDO had been approved and reviewed by the government, meaning “conditions for approval were met under the CARP law.”

“The revocation is judicial in character so it’s up to the courts. I can proceed from the premise that this SDO has ascended to the level of a contract after its approval and implementation,” he said.

“Any breach of contract is judicial in character and recognizable by regular courts,” he explained.

But Associate Justice Roberto Abad questioned Asuncion’s claim, saying the HLI has yet to comply with the conditions provided under Section 31 of the CARP Law and has not been awarded a certificate of compliance by PARC.

The non-issuance of a certificate of compliance to HLI has led Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin to think that the case could not be ripe for judicial review.

He said that the SDO remains an administrative matter, which falls under the jurisdiction of PARC.

“Everything is administrative because you were not issued certificate of compliance, meaning you don’t have to go to the court of law yet,” he said.

Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, the Court’s expert on land dispute cases, described the deal as “unique.”

“Your SDO agreement is unique because the farmers will get share if they will work. It will be dependent on the work to be performed,” he said.

“Why did the company propose that? Why did you not just distribute the stocks based on the 33-percent shareholdings to the acknowledged 6,000 plus workers as of the date of the signing of the MOA?” he asked.

Upon questioning by Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, it was found that at least 233 hectares have been cut from the agricultural land to be distributed to the farmers.

In the original deal signed in 1989, a total of 4,915 hectares of land had been set for distribution. The HLI only gave the farmers 4,102 hectares in the recent compromise deal.

The HLI explained that the 233-hectare disparity in the land area was a result of “conversion to residential land and cemeteries and eroded portions.”

Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta also asked HLI why it set the implementation of the deal within 30 years when the law says the land should be distributed three years after an agreement has been signed. He said it could be a valid ground for the PARC to revoke the SDO.

In response, HLI corporate secretary Eufrocino dela Merced Jr. told the Court that “financial crisis” and “increasing number of farmers and workers” should be considered in the delay in the distribution of the land.

But Velasco said the approval of the agreement would depend on the finding of the court regarding the legality of the SDO.

“The court looks at compromise agreement as the most acceptable and expeditious way of settling dispute, but it would still depend on a finding that the agreement is not unconstitutional or contrary to any existing law,” he pointed out.

Associate Justice Jose Perez noted that the compromise agreement “assumes that the SDO is valid,” which is in line with the HLI’s claim that PARC does not have authority to revoke it.

“I see the point of telling us that at this point the SDO is already beyond question so that the compromise agreement proceeds on the assumption that the SDO is valid, which is the issue before us,” Perez said.

“When you submitted the compromise agreement, does that not open the SDO issue before us? In asking our approval for the compromise agreement which is based on the SDO, does that give us the authority to look into the SDO also?” he asked.

Newly appointed Associate Maria Lourdes Sereno joined the hearing on her second day in office. She had the most number of questions on issues but requested lawyers to answer them in memoranda due to time constraints.

The Luisita Industrial Park Corp. and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. had also been questioned on the issue of innocent purchaser for value as transferees of a portion of the land. Lawyers of both firms said they should not be included in the dispute because they had purchased the subject portions legally.

The oral arguments ended at around 7:15 p.m. In the next hearing on Tuesday, the Office of the Solicitor General will take the podium to defend PARC and DAR.

The second issue tackled in the hearing was whether the SDO conformed to section 31 of RA 6657 and its implementing rules set by Department of Agrarian Reform.

Chief Justice Renato Corona ordered a review of the case in response to appeals from farmers’ groups.

The SC chief earlier received a letter from farmers asking him to act on the case and review the four-year-old temporary restraining order on the distribution of the plantation to farmers under CARP.

The groups lamented that the TRO remains in effect for almost four years now when it should only be temporary.

It was Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, now retired, who issued the TRO.

Farmers Mobilize

Hundreds of farmers and their supporters marched from the Department of Agrarian Reform central office in Quezon City to the Supreme Court which held oral arguments on the Hacienda Luisita dispute.

“A just resolution favoring the farmworkers is what we seek. The Supreme Court will be in a position to pave the way for the realization of social justice for thousands of farmers. The SC can help end half a century of land monopoly in this part of the Philippines,” said Renato Reyes, secretary-general of the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan.

“With the SC decision, we can either go forward with land reform or be set backwards even further than before,” he said.

Protestant groups have also expressed solidarity with the farmers and asked President Aquino to give land to the farmers and junk the stock distribution option.

“Distribute to the all farmers the land that they are tilling since this is also the promise made by your mother (former President Corazon Aquino), which you have failed to fulfill. Give your Hacienda Luisita land to the farmers. You do not need the land, the poor farmers need it more,” said Bishop Solito Toquero, former resident bishop of the United Methodist Church, in a six-page handwritten open letter to the President.

Fr. Rex Reyes Jr., executive secretary of the National Council of Churches in the Philippines (NCCP), said they hosted breakfast and prayed with the farmers at the Iglesia Filipina Independiente Church on Taft Ave., to show solidarity with them.

“President Aquino had often said that he is for the tuwid na daan (straight path) but it seemed that he is still for the dating daan (old path). He also said that the people are his boss. Now the farmers are crying out to him, but he says that he is ‘hands off’ on the issue,” Fr. Reyes lamented.

He said the Cojuangco family “should share the land – that is social justice.”

He expressed belief that if he declares his rejection of SDO, the people will support him just as they did when he ordered sirens and blinkers banned.

The NCCP said the SDO was a circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL.

The group also cited the reported failure of the SDO to uplift the lives of the HLI workers. “In effect, the Cojuangco-Aquino used the SDO scheme to perpetuate slavery.” With Rhodina Villanueva and Evelyn Macairan