Palace open to talks with bishops over Luisita

Malacañang is open to a dialogue with Catholic church leaders to explain why President Benigno Aquino III can't intervene in the Hacienda Luisita controversy involving his maternal relatives, Palace spokesman Edwin Lacierda said Tuesday. In a press briefing, Lacierda said the Palace is willing to explain why the president can't meddle in the compromise deal between Hacienda Luisita Inc. and farmer-beneficiaries, which gives farmers the option to keep stocks in HLI or get a parcel of a designated 1,400-hectare portion of the 6,453-hectare plantation. Lacierda made the statement after Manila Auxiliary Bishop Broderick Pabillo, head of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines' National Secretariat for Social Action, urged Aquino to pressure his family to "give what is due" to farmers under the existing Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). "We can discuss that, yes of course. We'll be more than happy to discuss his situation with the bishops, with Bishop Pabillo who's a good friend," said Lacierda. Pabillo was one of the advocates of the extension of the CARP, which was ultimately extended in 2009 for another five years. (See: Arroyo signs CARP extension bill into law) Sticky situation Lacierda said the president is caught up in a sticky situation where he will be "branded" whatever position he takes. Since Hacienda Luisita is owned by the Cojuangcos, meddling in the controversy would look like the president is trying to exert his influence to favor his family, in an issue that is already pending in the Supreme Court, Lacierda said. Lacierda reiterated that Aquino was not involved in the negotiations for a compromise agreement in the first place, and was only informed of the settlement “in broad strokes." "It's beyond his control because it has already been signed and it's now up to the Supreme Court to decide on the matter," he said. Terms of the compromise deal Under the agreement, farmers who will opt for land distribution will get their parcel of the plantation “for free and clean of any encumbrances" and will surrender their shares to the corporation to the stocks’ original owner, the Tarlac Development Corporation. The agreement also allows the farmer-beneficiaries who will opt for land distribution to keep monetary and non-monetary benefits, such as the home lots and production shares given to them under the SDO agreement. Aside from these, the 12,000 farmer-beneficiaries are also entitled to P150 million in “financial assistance" from the HLI in settlement of all claims — P20 million of which will be given upon signing of the agreement as a sign of “good will." The remaining P130 million will be given to the farmers if and when the agreement is approved by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez earlier said the fate of the impending oral arguments on the Hacienda Luisita case will depend on the manifestations to be submitted by both parties after the agreement was signed last Friday. (See: Hacienda Luisita farmers, owners sign 'compromise') HLI said Monday that 70 percent of farmers have so far voiced that they want to retain their stocks in the corporation. HLI provided a copy of an August 6 to 8 census report which showed that of 7,441 farm workers who joined the census, 7,302 preferred the stock distribution option (SDO) in the hacienda that had been hammered out in 1989. Only 139 farmers voted for land distribution. (See: 70% of farmers prefer stocks — Hacienda Luisita Inc) Militant farmer leaders, however, slammed the compromise agreement as a sham deal meant to preempt the Supreme Court decision on the issue. In December 2005, Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser Pangandaman and the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) issued an order revoking the SDO agreement between HLI and the farm workers. The same directive ordered that the property be parceled out among the workers. In 2006, however, the Supreme Court stopped Pangandaman and the PARC from distributing the land to the workers after it granted the Cojuangco family's petition for a TRO. The case is up for oral arguments before the Supreme Court in one week.—Jam Sisante/JV, GMANews.TV