Luisita farmers ask SC to junk compromise agreement

A faction of a farmer's group in Hacienda Luisita asked the Supreme Court (SC) on Monday to junk the compromise agreement entered into by the corporation and other farmer-beneficiaries early this month. Some members of the Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA), through their counsel Jobert Pahilga, filed before the high court “a comment and opposition with motion to expunge the compromise agreement" that the HLI (Hacienda Luisita Inc.) submitted to the SC for approval on August 12. The group alleged that the compromise deal was illegal because it was signed even before the high court could rule on the validity of the stock distribution option (SD)), one of the two choices offered by HLI to the farmers in the agreement. The other choice was land distribution. “The resolution of the main issue in this case should take precedence over the issue of the validity of the alleged compromise agreement. Inversely, the validity of the compromise agreement depends on the validity of petitioner’s stock distribution plan and memorandum of agreement," the group said in the 30-page petition. On August 6, the HLI management entered into a compromise agreement with persons claiming to be representatives of the sugar plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries. HLI gave the farmers two options: to receive parcels of the hacienda’s land or retain their stocks in the corporation. The move came weeks before the SC’s schedule for hearing the oral arguments on the pending case before the high court to determine whether the SDO scheme, implemented in 1989, should be revoked and the 6,453-hectare land be distributed to its workers. Pre-empting the SC The faction of AMBALA told the SC in its opposition that the compromise agreement was allegedly a means of preempting the high court’s decision on the SDO. “It [HLI] is also attempting to pre-empt the decision of the honourable court against hope to supplant the forthcoming decision with the alleged compromise agreement, for the petitioner very well knew that it has a very low chance of having the resolution revoking its SDO plan declared null and void," it said. The compromise deal also violates several provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Act (Republic Act 6657), and its amended version (RA 9700), according to AMBALA. The group also claimed that certain provisions in the agreement “deprives the farm workers the right to sue the petitioner for any violation of the agreement." “The (agreement) makes the farm workers virtual slaves, with no right whatsoever. This is void for being contrary to public policy," the petition read. Signatories have no authority In its opposition, the farmers’ group also questioned the authority of the signatories in the agreement who claimed that they were representatives of the plantation’s farmer-beneficiaries. The group said that Noel Mallari, who signed the deal as vice-president of AMBALA, allegedly “had long been ousted (from the group) for acts inimical to the interests of farm workers." “Mallari therefore has no personality to represent the members of Ambala because he never was the president of AMBALA... Moreover, he was not given any authority to negotiate the agreement for and in behalf of the farm workers," the group said. AMBALA also said the Eldifonso Pingol, another signatory to the deal and Vice-President of the United Luisita Workers’ Union (ULWU) allegedly “has no authority to represent the union as he was not conferred such authority." The farmers’ group maintained that the compromise agreement was allegedly just HLI’s way of evading agrarian reform and maintaining its control over the controversial sugar plantation. “Clearly, by this agreement, petitioner [HLI] is subverting or intends to subvert the law to maintain their control and ownership of hacienda Luisita and evade agrarian reform," the group said. – VVP, GMANews.TV