SC justices divided on Hacienda Luisita valuation

Manila, Philippines -  Supreme Court (SC) justices disagreed on the date for pegging the valuation of Hacienda Luisita, with a majority saying that using 1989 rates would expedite land distribution, and the six magistrates who dissented saying the high court overstepped its bounds.

The SC decision to peg the just compensation for the 4,915.75-hectare sugar land estate owned by the family of President Aquino in Tarlac based on the fair market value of the land in November 1989 was meant to expedite distribution to the 6,296 original farmer worker-beneficiaries (referred to as FWBs in the SC ruling).

This was shown in the final and executory resolution released Thursday, or eight days after it was promulgated by the magistrates during their summer session in Baguio City last April 24.

In the ruling penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the high court said it expects the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to “hasten” the process of distribution.

“Even though the compensation due to HLI (Hacienda Luisita Inc.) will still be preliminarily determined by DAR and LBP, subject to review by the RTC (regional trial court) acting as a SAC (special agrarian court), the fact that the reckoning point of ‘taking’ is already fixed at a certain date should already hasten the proceedings and not further cause undue hardship on the parties, especially the qualified FWBs,” the SC stressed.

But six others dissented in the ruling and voted that the valuation for just compensation should be left to DAR for proper determination.

In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin said determining the “time of taking” was beyond the mandate of the high court.

“The Court overstepped its adjudicative boundaries by pegging the taking at a definite date (whether Nov. 21, 1989, or Jan. 2, 2006, or any other date) even without the parties presenting the matter here... It thereby preempts the RTC-SAC from doing so,” Bersamin argued.

The SC justified its use of Nov. 21, 1989 as the date for land valuation, claiming this was when the Cojuangco family’s Tarlac Development Corp. (Tadeco) deprived itself of the ownership over the lands after these were transferred to Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) via stock distribution.

HLI was specifically created to implement a stock distribution scheme so that the family can comply with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

CARP allows landowners to offer stock distribution to farmer-beneficiaries instead of actual land distribution.

In a referendum later in 1989, 92.6 percent of farmers voted in favor of the stock distribution option (SDO).

However, the farmers later asked the SDO be revoked after complaining they had not received any dividends from HLI.

The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) later ordered the distribution of the estate. The SC issued a restraining order until its landmark ruling last year.

“These agricultural lands constituted as the capital contribution of the FWBs in HLI. In effect, Tadeco deprived itself of the ownership over these lands when it transferred the same to HLI,” the high court said in its resolution.

The SC said it could not subscribe to the Jan. 2, 2006 date of taking presented by HLI since this would, “in effect, be penalizing the qualified FWBs twice for acceding to the adoption of the stock distribution scheme.”

HLI said 2006 was the year that its obligations were met for the agricultural portion of the estate to be placed under compulsory acquisition.

The high court also said applying the 2006 valuation “would (make the farmers) pay higher amortizations for the agricultural lands that should have been given to them decades ago at a much lower cost were it not for the landowner’s initiative of adopting the stock distribution scheme ‘for free’.”

‘Injustice’

Seven justices concurred with Velasco’s opinion on the 1989 valuation: Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Martin Villarama.

The six other magistrates led by Bersamin said the DAR should determine the proper valuation of the land.

Bersamin argued the majority decision to peg land valuation at 1989 rates “unduly interferes with the parties’ right of presentation and autonomy.”

He believes it was an “injustice” that could have been committed by the court.

He said the decision on whether to apply the 1989 value or the 2006 value as demanded by HLI should be decided by DAR and Land Bank. The final decision on the issue of just compensation should then be approved by the RTC acting as SAC.

Bersamin explained the determination of just compensation concerned factual matter “expressly within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC-SAC.”

He said just compensation must be based on a property’s fair market value. – With Rhodina Villanueva