SC to mediate Luisita land dispute

Continuing the hearings on the Hacienda Luisita case, the Supreme Court listened last Tuesday to the oral arguments presented by the solicitor-general and the farmworkers, both sides assailing the controversial stock distribution option under the agrarian reform program. On Aug. 18 lawyers of Hacienda Luisita Inc. had argued to uphold it.

Again, for over five hours, the justices posed sharp questions. Towards the end, Chief Justice Renato Corona indicated two ways by which the Court could resolve the dispute.

The first and primary way is through the Court ruling for, or against, the hacienda management’s petition to set aside the revocation in 2005 by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council of the 1989 SDO agreement and ordering the Department of Agrarian Reform to distribute the land to the farmworkers. Exactly 5,339 farmworkers had sought to junk the scheme because over 15 years it has worsened, not improved, the quality of their lives.

The other way is for the SC to mediate the dispute through a special committee formed for the purpose. The way I understand it, any mediated outcome should fall within the framework of the Court’s decision whether for or against the SDO.

It seems that the justices are not keen to let the case drag on any further (like countless others). Thus the contending parties were given 30 days without extension to submit their written arguments. The attempt to settle the issue would then center on the mediation process.

It was Solicitor-General Joel Cadiz who suggested that the Court can exercise its “ascendancy and moral suasion” to forge an agreement among the parties that hews to the law and public policy. But, he hastened to add, “not based on the SDO that violates the CARP.” 

The lawyers for two groups of the farmworkers - Jobert Pahilga for AMBALA and Christian Monsod for FARM -thought so too. The SDO must not be used as the framework for mediation, they emphasized, or even included among the modes of resolution to be explored.

A member of the Commission that drew up the 1987 Constitution, Monsod asserted that the SDO “has no basis or authority in the Constitution.” This is because by taking this option, in the end the farmworkers still will not own the land, while the landlords continue holding on to it. Monsod’s point buttressed CJ Corona’s reminder during the Aug. 18 hearing that the state policy on agrarian reform, in pursuance of social justice, is that the land should belong to the tiller.

What can be reasonably expected from the resolution of this case?

First, the SC ruling on the HLI petition and the direction that the mediation will pursue must run on parallel lines. Both must lead to the fulfillment of the mandate of the State under the Constitution to “undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of the farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.” Collectively pertains to a plan by which the farmworker-beneficiaries can organize themselves into a cooperative to jointly cultivate and manage their pooled farmlots for maximum benefit to all. If the mode is not immediate land distribution, it must result in the palpable improvement in the quality of the farmworkers’ lives.

Second, any agreement resulting from the Supreme Court’s mediation must not contain these lopsided conditions contained in the SDO that is being implemented today in Hacienda Luisita: a) the farmworkers get only one-third of the 4,915 hectares of lands covered by the SDO, equivalent to their 33 percent share in the HLI stocks, two-thirds being retained by the HLI; b) the farmworkers get no benefit other than their wages. Asked what benefits the farmworkers had received from the SDO in the last 15 years, the HLI lawyer replied: “They got P115 billion in salaries.” He did not say (assuming that the amount is correct), how much of that went to the salaries of supervisors and foremen, and how much to the individual farmworkers whose wages varied from week to week, and for whom there were fewer and fewer working days in those 15 years.

Third, the Court’s ruling will impact on the 10 other petitions pending before the PARC to revoke similar SDOs covering agricultural lands in other parts of the country. These petitions show that the HLI dispute is not an isolated case.

As briefly reviewed historically in this space last week, the persistence of the dire situation in HLI and presumably in the 10 other areas where the SDO is being applied speaks resoundingly of how hard it has been to attain social justice. The Luisita farmworkers are determined to assert their right to own the land. With the Supreme Court’s mediation their perseverance and sacrifices may at last be rewarded.

How the Supreme Court will resolve the dispute could prove to be a defining moment for CJ Corona and his associate justices, or it could reinforce lingering doubts about their independence. The concerned public awaits the Court’s call.