Farmers appeal ruling on Luisita

MANILA, Philippines - A group of farmers from Hacienda Luisita yesterday filed a motion for reconsideration of the July 5 ruling of the Supreme Court (SC) that revoked the stock distribution plan (SDP) and ordered a new referendum on land distribution or stock option among farmers.

The Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (Ambala) asked the SC to reconsider its July 5 ruling, which affirmed with modification an order of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) in December 2005 that had allowed the distribution of the 4,915.75-hectare land to 6,296 farmer-beneficiaries.

 The farmers, agreeing with the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Renato Corona, argued that Section 31 of RA 6657 (Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) – which allowed stock distribution – violated Article XIII Section 4 of the Constitution and that the majority of the justices may have just misread the provision.

“It (Article XIII Section 4) provides that the law should undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of the farmers and regular farm workers who are landless to own directly or collectively the land they till. It means that only the farmers or landless regular farm workers themselves can collectively own the lands they till,” the group said in the 76-page motion.

 “It does not provide that the farmers or regular farm workers who are landless can own the land together with other persons, much more the original landowner who [does] not till the same,” it added.

 The farmers also questioned the SC’s order to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in its ruling last July 5 to conduct a new referendum among farmer beneficiaries to choose between SDP and land distribution scheme. “The majority of the members of the honorable court, with due respect, erred in applying the doctrine of operative facts and in making the farm worker-beneficiaries choose to opt for actual land distribution or to remain as stockholders of Hacienda Luisita Inc.,” the group said. “The doctrine of operative facts is inapplicable. There is no legal basis in making the farm worker- beneficiaries choose to opt for actual land distribution or to remain as stockholders of HLI,” it added.

Six justices comprised the majority vote of the high court and agreed to the conduct of another referendum among farmers. Justice Presbiterio Velasco was joined by associate justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Jose Perez and Roberto Abad.

Four others – associated justices Arturo Brion, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Catral Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes Sereno – dissented, believing that the contested land should be placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) with its landholdings distributed directly to the farmers.

 Chief Justice Corona submitted a separate opinion saying Section 31 of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 was unconstitutional in the first place.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio inhibited from the case while Associate Justice Diosdado Peralta was on official leave during the voting.

 In August last year, the SC held oral arguments on the case. It also created a mediation panel to end the dispute between Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) and its farmer-beneficiaries through amicable settlement. Mediation was suspended after parties failed to reach an agreement after six meetings within the 30-day period prescribed by the court. The panel, chaired by retired SC justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, has left to the SC the decision to resume the mediation, considering the refusal of a faction of farmers from Ambala to participate in the proceedings.

Last year, 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 opted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they received minuscule amounts.

Ambala, however, asked the SC to junk the compromise deal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option.

The council of Tarlac City, meanwhile, has issued a resolution favoring land distribution to farmer-beneficiaries. The council said a “referendum will only obfuscate the real objective of land reform” which is to give land to the tillers. – With Ding Cervantes