Referendum not required in Luisita ruling, says Supreme Court

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) clarified that it did not require a new referendum among over 6,000 farmer-beneficiaries in Hacienda Luisita in its ruling last July that allowed stock option in the distribution of the sugar land estate owned by the family of President Aquino in Tarlac.

SC spokesman Midas Marquez said the court, in its decision that is still under appeal, only gave 6,296 original farmer-beneficiaries to decide whether they want to remain stockholders or acquire a piece of the 4,915.75-hectare agricultural land.

Marquez said the SC did not require the conduct of a new referendum where the majority option would prevail, which means the option made by individual farmer would not in any way affect that of another.

“This means that if some (farmer beneficiaries) prefer to remain as stockholders, the others would still get their portions of the agricultural land subject to CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program),” he stressed.

“In any case, this decision is not yet final since a motion for reconsideration is still pending,” he said.

Marquez said it would be best to wait for the final resolution of the motion.

Marquez issued the clarification following the claim from some sectors that the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) was ordered to hold another referendum to resolve the long-standing land controversy.

The SC had ordered Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) to answer appeals of the government and farmer - beneficiaries.

In a one-page resolution, the high court required HLI to answer within a period of 10 days from receipt of notice the motions for reconsideration filed by Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (Ambala) and Farmworkers Agrarian Reform Movement (FARM) and partial motion for reconsideration of the DAR and Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), all seeking distribution of land to the farmers.

Earlier, the DAR and PARC supported the farmers and joined them in appealing the SC ruling. They asked the court to affirm its order in December 2005 for the distribution of the 4,915.75-hectare land to a total of 6,296 original farmer-beneficiaries and delete the portion in the ruling the option for farmers to remain as stockholders in HLI.

The government, through the Office of the Solicitor General, said the SC erred in applying the doctrine of “operative fact” to the case.

FARM and Ambala had appealed the decision and agreed with the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Renato Corona that Section 31 of RA 6657 (Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), which allowed stock distribution, violated Article XIII Section 4 of the Constitution.

The farmers also questioned SC’s order to DAR in its ruling last July 5 for a new voting where farmer - beneficiaries would choose between land and share of stocks.

They said the court should not have applied the doctrine of “operative fact” to the case.

Lastly, the petitioners reiterated their argument that Luisita Industrial Park Corp. and Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) were not “innocent purchasers.”

Six justices comprised the majority vote of the high court and agreed to the conduct of another referendum among farmers.

Four other magistrates made the dissenting opinion in believing that the contested land should be placed under the coverage of CARP and its landholdings distributed directly to the farmers.

Chief Justice Renato Corona submitted a separate opinion saying Section 31 of the CARP law 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 voting.

In August last year, the SC held oral arguments on the case. It also created a mediation panel to end the dispute between HLI and its farmer-beneficiaries through amicable settlement, but which 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, however, has opted to leave to the high court the decision on whether to continue with the mediation considering the refusal of a faction of farmers to participate in the proceedings.

Also 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 voted to retain their stocks and receive cash from HLI, only to complain later that they got minuscule amounts.

The farmers’ group 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. A rival faction also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement to represent the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries.

The compromise agreement was already superseded by the SC ruling.