Land to the tiller. This is the core of Chief Justice Renato Corona's dissenting opinion, where he argued that the option to give farmers shares of stock instead of land is unconstitutional. Corona said that Section 31 of Republic Act No. 6657 — commonly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 — goes against the 1987 Constitution. Section 4 of the Charter mandates the State to "encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands" and to "undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the rights of farmers and regular farmers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the land they till." Meanwhile, Section 31 of RA 6657 allows corporations owning agricultural lands to give qualified farmer beneficiaries the right to own stocks in the corporation instead of receiving actual land. In Corona's dissent, he said that Section 31 of RA 6657 is a "grave violation of the Constitution" and "runs roughshod over the language and spirit" of the Charter. "Unless there is land distribution, there can be no agrarian reform. Any program that gives farmers or farm workers anything less than ownership of land fails to conform to the mandate of the Constitution. In other words, a program that gives qualified beneficiaries stock certificates instead of land is not agrarian reform," said Corona.
Click here to view full screen Section 31 of RA 6657 allowed the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI), via an agreement in 1989, to give their farmers shares of stock instead of land.
What the majority says Corona is considered a dissenter because he was outnumbered by 10 justices, who declined to rule on the constitutionality of Section 31 of RA 6657 because the matter is not the
lis mota (the cause of the suit) of the Hacienda Luisita case. The 10 also agreed to uphold the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council's (PARC) resolution to revoke the stock distribution plan (SDP) of the HLI. The stock distribution plan allowed for the stock distribution option (SDO) agreement that was forged between HLI and farmer beneficiaries in 1989. Under the deal, farmers can choose whether they want to receive land or shares of stock from the corporation. But of the 10 justices, six voted to order the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to administer a new voting where 6,296 qualified farmer beneficiaries can opt to remain as HLI shareholders or receive land. The remaining four justices said that land should be distributed following the revocation of the SDP. The six justices, led by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, then formed the SC's majority. [See:
Stocks or land? SC calls for new Luisita referendum] In the majority's decision, the high court said Section 31 of RA 6657 is not violative of the 1987 Constitution. "Sec. 31 is constitutional as it simply implements Sec. 4 of Art. XIII of the Constitution that land can be owned collectively by farmers. Even the framers of the l987 Constitution are in unison with respect to the two (2) modes of ownership of agricultural lands tilled by farmers––direct and collective," the SC said. The majority decision also said that it will pass upon the constitutionality of Section 31 because it lacks the
lis mota aspect in the Hacienda Luisita case. "The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue must be the very
lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The
lis mota aspect is not present, the constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the resolution of the case," the SC stated.
Corona: Court must exercise judicial review But in his dissent, Corona said the Court must not shirk its duty to exercise judicial review. "While the sword of judicial review must be unsheathed with restraint, the Court must not hesitate to wield it to strike down laws that unduly impair basic rights and constitutional values," the chief justice said. "Hacienda Luisita has always been viewed as a litmus test of genuine agrarian reform. Furthermore, the framers emphasized the primacy of the right of farmers and farmworkers to directly or collectively own the lands they till. The dilution of this right not only weakens the right but also debases the constitutional intent thereby presenting a serious assault on the Constitution," he added. He then ended his dissenting opinion with a criticism of how the majority of his colleagues decided on the Hacienda Luisita case: "History will be the unforgiving judge of this Court. We cannot correct a historical anomaly and prevent the eruption of a social volcano by fancy legal arguments and impressively crafted devices for corporate control," the chief justice said.
— RSJ, GMA News 
GMA Brandtalk
Tracking
Archives
