4,000 of 10K+ Luisita farm workers choose stocks

More than a third of the 10,502 farmer-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita Inc. have chosen to retain their stocks in the corporation instead of land parcels as of Saturday afternoon. However, an agrarian reform official warned that the previous government already revoked the stock distribution option (SDO), now the subject of a Supreme Court case. Some 6,000 have yet to make their choice. More than 4,000 farmer-beneficiaries from five barangays in the hacienda have so far chosen to stick with the SDO while only 41 signed up for actual land distribution, according to farmer Eldifonso Pingol. Agrarian Reform Undersecretary Narciso Nieto meanwhile said he was personally “surprised" at the figures apparently showing that more farmers prefer to keep their stocks in the corporation than acquire their own land. “Hindi ba (Didn't) the PARC [Presidential Agrarian Reform Council] order the SDO to be revoked in 2005 because of clamor of the farmers? Then all of sudden, mukhang nanalo ang SDO (it now turns out that SDO won)," he told GMANews.TV in a separate interview. He however declined to comment further on the referendum, saying majority of the farmers have not yet participated in the signing. The PARC issued in 2005 a resolution ordering the revocation of Luisita’s SDO agreement and the distribution of the hacienda’s land to farmer beneficiaries, in response to petitions filed by farmers’ groups. Under the law, the President himself chairs the inter-agency PARC, which is tasked to coordinate the government's agrarian reform efforts. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the PARC order in 2006 after HLI management filed a motion for reconsideration and a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court. The high court will start oral arguments on the case later this month. Choosing land The referendum, which started on Friday and will run until Sunday, was held after representatives of farmers and owners of the 6,453-hectare sugar plantation signed a so-called compromise agreement on Friday offering the farmers these two options. (See: Hacienda Luisita farmers, owners sign 'compromise')
Pingol, one of the signatories in the agreement representing the United Luisita Workers Union (ULWU), said his fellow farmer-beneficiaries might have chosen to stick with the SDO because of lack of equipment to till land. “Ang kinakatwiran nila, wala raw gagamitin sa pagsasaka. Ang gusto raw nila magtrabaho ulit (Their reason was, they didn’t have equipment to farm the land. What they wanted, they said, was to be able to work again)," he told GMANews.TV in a phone interview on Saturday night. Pingol added that although he himself chose to acquire a parcel of Luisita land, he respects the decision of his fellow farmers in the hacienda. “Malaya naman kaming pumipili rito. Desisyon nila ‘yun. Ako mismo, ‘yung lupa ang pinili ko (We are free to choose here. That was their decision. I myself chose to get land)," he said. 'A deception' However, another faction also claiming to represent ULWU led by Lito Bais opposed the compromise agreement with HLI. In a GMA News’ “24 Oras" report by Mariz Umali, Bais said the deal was just a deception because the farmers will only get a small portion whether in the form of land or stocks. Bais also said the process that produced the signed agreement was also illegal because the farmers were not represented by their lawyers. (See: At odds: Farmers’ reps muddle Luisita deal) ‘Farmers to remain hungry’ Still another group of Luisita farmers, however, warned that farmer-beneficiaries will remain “hungry, poor and hopeless" no matter what they choose in the agreement. “Ngayon pa lamang, tinitiyak namin na ang kasunduang ito ang magpapanatiling gutom, mahirap at walang kinabukasan ang mga manggagawang-bukid ng Luisita," Farmworkers Agrarian Reform Movement of Hacienda Luisita (FARM) said in a statement sent to the media on Saturday. (Even now, we are sure that this agreement will keep the Luisita farm workers hungry, impoverished and future-less.) The FARM group also maintained that the compromise agreement is only a way of the plantation’s owners to keep their hold on the land and to preempt the Supreme Court’s scheduled oral arguments. “Kami ay nanindigan na ang kasunduang ito ay bahagi na ng nakasanayang panloloko ng mga Cojuangco para manatili sa kanilang kontrol ang lupa," the group said. (We view this agreement as merely part of the Cojuangcos’ practiced deception to retain their control over the land.) The SC has set oral arguments on the HLI land case on August 18 to determine whether the SDO scheme will be retained, or if the land will be distributed to the farmers under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). SC spokesperson Midas Marquez earlier said the fate of the oral arguments will now depend on the manifestations to be submitted by both parties after the signing of the agreement. ‘SC has final say’ An agrarian reform lawyer, meanwhile, said that the Supreme Court still has the final say whether or not to approve the agreement and the results of the referendum. “Any settlement must comply with the provisions of CARP. Landlords cannot be allowed to evade CARP by the mere expedient of having an agreement with farmers," lawyer Marlon Manuel of the Alternative Law Group said in a text message to GMANews.TV on Saturday. Manuel added that the Luisita case should be treated like labor cases, where compromise agreements “are not favored." “The courts should still look into the contents and determine if it is not against the law or unjust to the worker. The same principle [with labor cases] must apply to agrarian cases, especially since CARP is a social justice legislation," he said. DAR Undersecretary Nieto, for his part, likewise said that the welfare of the farmers should be taken into account. “The contents of the deal should be in accordance with the agrarian reform law and must be beneficial to majority of the farmers. If not, gugulo pa ‘yan lalo (it will turn into a worse mess)," he said. Nieto added that he expects the high court to ask for a position paper on the compromise agreement from DAR as a matter of procedure once the court proceedings on the Luisita case start.—JV, GMANews.TV