This, as the Tarlac City government has reportedly reclassified some 3,290 hectares of the Cojuangco-owned sugar estate, said Danilo Carranza, land tenure improvement specialist of the Philippine Ecumenical Action for Community Empowerment (PEACE) Foundation Inc.
According to Carranza, the Tarlac City government reclassified that huge portion of the hacienda between 1995 and 1996 from agricultural to non-agricultural use such as residential, commercial or industrial.
"This issue has not been raised, but this could have a big effect on the decision to scrap the (SDO scheme) and distribute the land to the farmers," said Carranza, who has conducted studies on the SDO scheme in Hacienda Luisita and in 10 other haciendas in Negros.
Under Section 20 of the Local Government Code, a city or municipality "may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition" in certain cases.
These include cases "when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture" or "where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the Sanggunian concerned…"
If the Hacienda Luisita management pursues this reclassification in a bid to retain control of the landholding, Carranza said, "Only (a small portion) of the 4,915 hectares could be distributed to the hacienda’s farmworker-beneficiaries."
Carranza, however, said the 1,625 hectares could possibly be reduced further since the total reclassified portion of the sugar estate and sugar mill does not include the 500 hectares earlier converted to industrial and commercial uses.
The converted area will be one of the issues to be tackled by the legal team of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which has been tasked to study the implications of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) Resolution No. 2005-32-01 recalling Hacienda Luisita’s SDO scheme.
Carranza, however, argued that the reclassification of the 3,290 hectares and the conversion of the 500 hectares should be considered violations of the SDO agreement.
"A land could still appear as a farm even if under the law, it has already been reclassified into industrial land," he said.
"Conversion is the actual change in the use of the land. Reclassification is just a preparation for (conversion)... reclassified lands will soon be converted into other forms. The DAR should still cover the reclassified land because reclassification is still a violation (of the SDO)," he added.
The DAR echoed Carranza’s views, pointing out that the reclassification of a large portion of Hacienda Luisita took place after the 1988 passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
DAR Undersecretary for Field Operations Narciso Nieto said the reclassification of the area would be considered null and void because it was made years after the CARL’s approval.
"Sugar lands can no longer be reclassified after that year (1988). Rice lands, on the other hand, could still be reclassified until 1992," Nieto said.
"Since Hacienda Luisita is a sugar land, the deadline (for reclassification) was June 15, 1988," he added.
Nevertheless, Carranza expressed fear that the Hacienda Luisita management would use the issue as a last resort to maintain control over the vast landholding and delay its distribution to the farmer-beneficiaries, or even avoid coverage of the sugar estate under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
"This issue of reclassification could be legally problematic for DAR because the management could use this to evade CARP coverage," he said.