Government receptive to Luisita compromise deal

MANILA, Philippines - The government appears receptive to the compromise agreement between Hacienda Luisita Inc. and farmer-beneficiaries earlier this month.

The deal seeks to resolve the long-standing dispute over the vast sugar plantation owned by the family of President Aquino in Tarlac.

Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz said the compromise deal submitted by HLI to the Supreme Court last Aug. 11 could be valid if subjected to review by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and approved by the court-created alternative dispute resolution (ADR) panel.

He said during oral arguments at the High Court that the deal forged by HLI, Tarlac Development Corp., which owns majority interest in the company; and over 70 percent or 7,441 of the 10,502 farmer-beneficiaries “is something that can be explored.”

“My submission is that the parties must come up with an agreement which is not contrary to law, not contrary to public policy, not contrary to morals, and should be freely agreed upon by both parties. And I think that is something that can be explored,” he told the justices.

Cadiz, who claimed that he was not instructed by President Aquino to speak in favor of HLI, said the government is willing to explore the compromise agreement “with the help of the Court.”

“If we could hammer out — with the help of the Court — a compromise agreement acceptable to all parties and acceptable to the law, then I think the parties should be given a chance to be able to come up with something which is agreeable,” he replied to a query from Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, the Court’s expert on land dispute cases.

The chief government lawyer, however, stressed that the PARC has to be consulted and its input taken into account.

“ADR is ingrained in our system of settlement of disputes, and I personally participated in the settlement of disputes. I think that is something that can be explored,” Cadiz told Justice Velasco.

Still, the solicitor general defended his position revoking the memorandum of agreement on May 11, 1989 wherein the parties had chosen stock distribution option (SDO) as an alternative arrangement instead of land distribution in compliance with CARP.

Cadiz argued that there were legal bases for the orders of PARC and DAR stopping an earlier agreement between HLI and its beneficiaries.

First, he said the 10-percent dividend has not been distributed to farmworkers. He stressed that the beneficiaries were not given a hand in the management of the land, so the claim of HLI that it was losing money does not hold water.

“I don’t think you have to tie down the farmers to this uneven relationship when the management of the corporation is vested in those people who hold the 67 percent shares in the corporation,” he stressed.

Citing lack of proof on a contrary claim of HLI, he also lamented how three percent of the gross income has not been fully distributed as agreed upon.

“It is so stated in administrative order number 10 series of 1998, that the economic condition of the farmers must improve, it’s been 20 years hence, the farm workers are still poor, the farm worker is still deprived, the farm worker is still ignorant,” Cadiz said.

The oral arguments on the case ended last night with lawyers of the beneficiaries opposing the compromise agreement.

Jobert Pahilga, who represents some farmer-beneficiaries belonging to Alyansa ng mga Mangagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA), said the settlement is not valid because it requires SDO that has already been declared illegal by the government.

Pahilga added that the referendum conducted by HLI undermined the authority of the SC over the case. They said the management should have asked the court’s permission to conduct the survey among farmers.

In the last hearing of the SC on the case, HLI, through lawyer Gener Asuncion, argued that the SDO was legal.