Rejoinder to Ocampo’s columns on Hacienda Luisita


Mr. Satur Ocampo has written a series of opinion pieces on the issue of agrarian reform on Hacienda Luisita, the latest of which saw print in the January 4, 2014 issue of The Philippine STAR. In response thereof and in the spirit of journalistic fair play and objectivity to which the STAR adheres to, kindly publish this rejoinder so the people may be provided with factual information from which they could draw their own conclusions.

As we’ve said in a petition that had been filed before the Supreme Court against the process undertaken in distributing land to farmer-beneficiaries in Hacienda Luisita, everyone has the legitimate right to advocate causes that they believe in. But before advocating causes, it is but prudent that such advocacy be premised on correct and validated facts and not on fabricated and slanted premises.

What are the facts:

On April 24, 2012, the Supreme Court released a Decision directing the DAR to distribute 4,915.75 hectares of agricultural land of Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to 6,212 farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs). Activist group Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) has been constantly challenging the procedure implemented by the DAR in carrying out this directive.

Apart from its speculative and baseless claims, AMBALA’s personality to sue and represent the FWBs is lacking, as it represents only 194 or roughly 3% out of the 6,212 FWBs.

As published in the Official Gazette on Sept. 30, 2013, the DAR confirmed that “the Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) of some 5,800 of the 6,212 beneficiaries have already been registered with the Register of Deeds.” The remaining CLOAs have not been distributed to the FWBs in view of their refusal to sign their Application to Purchase and Farmers Undertaking (APFU). To date, the DAR has caused the cancellation of HLI’s titles and issued new titles to the FWBs, while HLI has yet to receive just compensation for these lands.                                                                               

Response to claims of agrarian reform advocates and activist groups:

1. Lottery system was the most practical, equitable and systematic procedure to allocate lots to the FWBs.

AMBALA claims that under the law, the FWBs should be awarded lands in the place where they reside.

In the case of HLI, it should be noted that in 6 out of the 10 barangays, the total area of each barangay is insufficient to accommodate the 6,600 sqm. land that each FWB was entitled to receive. Thus, the DAR implemented a lottery system in awarding the lots. The FWBs who were not awarded lots in their own barangays were awarded lots in other adjacent barangays, if practicable. 

Due to the disproportional ratio of FWBs vis-à-vis the total area in the barangays, the implementation of the lottery or tambiolo system by the DAR was the most practical, equitable and systematic procedure of lot allocation to the FWBs. This process of distribution was also confirmed under RA. 9700, which states that “the land to be awarded may either be a contiguous tract of land or several parcels of land, so long as the aggregate area does not exceed the retention limit of three (3) hectares for each FWB.”

2. Farm workers’ “disqualification” for refusal to sign Application to Purchase and Farmers Undertaking (APFU) is in accordance with law.

The DAR has explained that the execution of the APFU is a “means employed to ensure that the FWBs will comply with the mandatory legal requirements for beneficiaries of agricultural lands under CARP.” APFU is a mere reiteration of the said provisions of the law and a restatement of the obligations of the FWBs, specifically their undertaking to pay for the 6,600 sqm. land to be awarded to each FWB as mandated under Section 26 of R. A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.” Said section requires the FWBs to pay to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in 30 annual amortizations for lands awarded under the CARP. The FWBs’ signature on the APFU is a pre-requisite to the generation and registration of their respective CLOAs.

It is false to assume that the FWBs are already owners of the lands they cultivate, hence, justifying their refusal to sign the APFU. Ownership over the agricultural lands is vested on the FWBs only upon the issuance and registration of the CLOA in their favor, its registration with the Register of Deeds and annotation on the certificate of title. The FWBs only possess an inchoate rather than an actual right over the property, contingent upon the FWBs’ compliance with the procedures under the CARP.

3. Even non-agricultural lands of TADECO were placed under CARP by the DAR

On December 17, 2013, the DAR published a Notice of Coverage (NOC) in Philippine STAR, placing the 358.2243-hectare property of TADECO under CARP. This property has been classified as residential per tax declarations since 1985. It has also been recognized in the decisions of the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 171101 dated July 25, 2011, as reiterated in subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court dated November 22, 2011 and April 24, 2012). These properties are not agricultural and any plantings thereon were made by illegal settlers without obtaining the owner’s consent.

Following the publication of the NOC, the DAR posted signs on TADECO-owned lands in Barangays Balete and Cutcut on December 23, 2013 to this effect and to inform the public that any trespasser will be disqualified as beneficiary of the land. This is now subject of a Protest Against Coverage to be filed by TADECO with the DAR to protect its right as a landowner as provided under the CARP Law.

Since the TADECO land in Barangay Cutcut and Balete is not part of the HLI land to be distributed to FWBs under the Hacienda Luisita decision, TADECO has the legitimate right to protect its property from the so-called farmers who are illegally trespassing into TADECO land, which remains private property.

4. Choice of auditing firm has not yet been resolved by the Supreme Court

In its Comment to AMBALA’s Urgent Omnibus Motion dated September 13, 2013, the DAR clarified that due to the failure of the parties to arrive at a consensus on the auditing firm to be selected, it sought before the Supreme Court on May 23, 2013 the “modification of the arrangement prescribed for the selection of the auditing firm by referring said task to an appropriate government agency/body or third party.”

 On July 23, 2013 the Supreme Court directed all contending parties to submit a list of 10 preferential audit firms for the conduct of a special audit. HLI submitted such list on August 13, 2013. To date, there has been no auditing firm designated by the Supreme Court to conduct the audit.

5. Alleged militarization

TADECO land is private property. It has the right to protect its land from trespassers and outsiders who have been trying to invade the land in order to bolster their claim over TADECO’s land. Like any other landowner, it has the constitutional right to take such measures to defend its property. The presence of the security guards was necessitated by the repeated attempts to invade TADECO private property by bogus FWBs and strangers. Presence of security guards in factories, offices or warehouses to protect private property has never been labeled militarization.

6. Arrest of advocates

Trespassers to TADECO land, which is private property, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Calling the bogus FWBs and strangers who invade TADECO land, “land reform advocates” will not legitimize these bogus FWBs and strangers. In the eyes of the law, people who invade private property are trespassers and are subject to prosecution under the law. The mere coverage of a land by a Notice of Coverage from the DAR does not ipso facto make such land public or government land. There is a procedure to be followed. The period for filing a protest to the coverage is still effective. TADECO will file its protest to the coverage. TADECO is confident it will succeed in defending its rights over its land long declared residential.

Farmers’ support

Everyone has the legitimate right to advocate causes that they believe in. Before advocating causes, it is but prudent that such advocacy be premised on correct and validated facts and not on fabricated and slanted premises. The petition is a prime example of advocacy premised on erroneous facts. — Atty. Christine R. Santos, Roxas de los Reyes Laurel Rosario & Leagogo Law Offices
19/F BDO Plaza, 8737 Paseo de Roxas
Makati City