In the days leading up to the Easter season, the “coco levies” landed on the front page (of another major daily newspaper). While discourse on matters of national significance are always welcome, sadly, in the course of this discussion, instead of enlightenment, some quarters’ press releases tend to obfuscate. During times when “no comment,” left at the disposal of idle minds, is silly putty for the devil, it is important to feed the mind with facts and give food for thought.
Much has already been said about the coco levies, but much confusion remains — quite simply, because it is not a simple matter.
* * * *
Stumbling blocks. The coco levy case, Civil Case No. 0033, was subdivided by the Sandiganbayan into eight cases (33-A to 33-H). Each case represents separate transactions. However, it is Civil Case No. 0033-F, involving the acquisition of the controlling 51% San Miguel Corporation shares, that has been the focus these past 12 months. These shares are divided into three main blocks: 4%, 20%, and 27%.
The (4%) block was earlier awarded to the Government in a decision rendered by the Supreme Court way back September 14, 2000. Then PCGG Chairperson Haydee Yorac’s efforts to have the order of the Court implemented, demanding the prompt delivery of the said shares, remained unheeded. On 27 June 2011, the new PCGG filed a pleading with the Supreme Court asking that the latter direct the delivery of those shares. This matter remains pending.
The (20%) block was the subject of an April 2011 Decision where, a divided Supreme Court, voting 7-4-4 (in favor-against-abstention) decided that these shares properly belonged to Ambassador Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. Notwithstanding valiant efforts to reverse the same, on 27 March 2012, the PCGG received Notice of an Entry of Judgment, i.e. that this Decision has become final and executory.
The (27%) block was the subject of the Court’s January 2012 Decision where, voting unanimously (11-0), it was resolved that the said block is “owned by the Government to be used only for the benefit of all coconut farmers and for the development of the coconut industry.” (Note that the 27% ownership was diluted to 24% since the government was unable to subscribe to an increase in SMC’s authorized capital stock. In September 2009, these common shares were converted to preferred shares effectively pegging their price at 75/share. The wisdom of such move will not be tackled in this column).
* * * *
Hurdling obstacles. The opposing party in the 24% case, COCOFED, filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated 14 February 2012. And so, until the Court resolves this latter incident, the decision is not final and executory.
Nevertheless, the victory in this last block represents a tremendous potential infusion that can prop up the coconut industry, as a whole, and improve the lives of our country’s small coconut farmers, specifically. The decision is clear, and so it is important to ensure that the integrity of this fund’s purpose remains intact and safeguarded.
If there is anything that can be taken from the long journey towards recovering this ill-gotten wealth, it is that we should not allow it to be taken by anyone or for any purpose other than that and for whom they have been recovered: the coconut farmers and the coconut industry.
These levies became “ill-gotten,” precisely because and “through the issuance, promulgation and/or implementation of decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or special interests.” Such piecemeal decrees and orders represented only half-truths, so much so that, despite their announced intention of being for the benefit of the coconut farmers and their industry, when all the pieces finally fell: the complete picture left them out of the frame.
Learning from that experience, it is important that we harmonize and institutionalize our policies.
Real and lasting development is possible only through strong, dependable, and credible institutions. Under our more democratic times, it is Congress that can provide the much-needed stability — by institutionalizing through legislation — that will secure the long-term policy of developing the entire coconut industry and uplifting the lives of our coconut farmers.
* * * *
There is a real urgency, when one considers the fact that the coconut industry is made up of 3.5 million coconut farmers who, together with their families, represent about 20 million Filipinos. And who, sadly, stand among the poorest of our country’s poor. The tragedy of their situation is made more unfortunate by the fact that these levies were collected from the sweat of their brow, upon the premise and promise that it was going to be used for their collective benefit.
If we are to serve the ends of justice, then we must do justice to the people who have been denied and deprived of it for so long. This cannot be done through a dispassionate engagement dispossessed of the greater social context — that is, to approach this, not just as a question of justice and fairness, but in response to the prescriptions of social justice.
In the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: “A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”
The fight for these coco levies is far from over. The victory in the 24% case is not yet complete. Even then, in the face of such victory, recovering them is only the beginning of the bigger struggle: of making up for lost time — and making sure that, this time, we will get it right by doing what is right.
* * * *
“Justice is truth in action.” - Benjamin Disraeli
* * * *
E-mail: deanbautista@yahoo.com