Luisita farmers ask SC to stand by ruling

MANILA, Philippines - Farmers of Hacienda Luisita asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to stand by its decision in November last year ordering the distribution of the 4,915.75-hectare sugar estate owned by the family of President Aquino in Tarlac.

In a 27-page comment, members of Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Luisita (Ambala) asked the high tribunal to dismiss the motion for clarification and reconsideration filed by Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) last month and to order the immediate implementation of land distribution to the original 6,296 farmer-beneficiaries.

Through lawyer Jobert Pahilga, the farmers argued that the appeal of HLI holds no merit and is only meant to delay the distribution process. “Their appeal is a rehash aimed to cause setback, delay and ultimately derail Luisita’s distribution designed in accordance with the Chief Justice’s impeachment trial,” Ambala said in its comment.

Supporters of Chief Justice Renato Corona have claimed that the high tribunal’s decision on the HLI case is one of the reasons why the Aquino administration wants him impeached.

“The motion of HLI should be considered a second motion for reconsideration proscribed by the Rules of Court and should be denied outright,” Ambala argued.

Pahilga said the only issue raised by HLI in its appeal of the July 5 ruling was whether the farm workers have the option to choose between actual land distribution and stocks.

“However, in the 22 November 2012 resolution, the Supreme Court unanimously resolved to discard the option to choose and ordered the actual distribution of land to the farmworkers,” he stressed.

Ambala agreed with the ruling of the SC that the farmers would never have control over these agricultural lands as long as they remain as stockholders of HLI. “During the operation of HLI, the farm workers were not given any dividends. They remained the minority stockholders. They have no control on the use and disposition of the assets of the corporation including the land. They have no say in the corporate business ventures,” according to Ambala.

“Their hours of work were dictated by the corporation. In short, they were at the mercy of the petitioner-movant,” it said.

“In an agrarian reform program, control over agricultural lands must always be in the hands of the farmers,” the group added.

Ambala also reiterated its stand that HLI is not entitled to just compensation because it “has yet to account for the P1.333-billion price for the sale of 500 hectares to RCBC and LIPCO and 80.51 hectares used for SCTEX.”

The group added that HLI has not yet proven that it had already paid the loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Central Bank in 1958, which it used in acquiring the land through Tarlac Development Co. But if the SC orders just compensation to HLI, Ambala said, “the value of the land should be pegged at the date of taking which is 21 November 1989, the date when HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) was approved by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).”

The group also claimed President Aquino’s “incessant wordplay respecting the court’s decision is an outright lie.”

“This is high time SC proved that it is not backing away from its decision because they are afraid of the impeachment trial,” the group added.

The Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura, mother organization of Ambala, also asked the justices not to be affected by the developments in the impeachment trial of Corona in resolving the farmers’ case with finality.

The group described HLI’s earlier petition for Corona’s inhibition on the case as “a farce and vain attempt to overturn the Supreme Court decision opting for the distribution of Hacienda Luisita.”

“The SC is a collegial body, even if the Chief Justice inhibits himself, still there are 13 more justices. We urge them to stay in the path of justice by affirming their collective decision last Nov. 22 ordering the distribution of Hacienda Luisita and dismissing HLI’s motion for clarification and reconsideration,” UMA stressed.

“It is only meant to sabotage the eventual distribution of Hacienda Luisita to its farm worker beneficiaries, their motion is nuisance,” it added.

“We call on the high magistrates to stand by their decision on Luisita and oppose the bullish posturing of the present administration to the judiciary,” it said.

The HLI, in its appeal on the November SC decision, sought clarification on the amount to be paid to the farmers and asked the high tribunal to give individual farmer-beneficiaries the option to remain as HLI stockholders.