Let's distribute Hacienda Luisita lands – govt asks SC

The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) want the Supreme Court to order the land distribution of the Hacienda Luisita sugar estate to farmer beneficiaries of the Cojuangco-owned Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI). In a 44-page motion for partial reconsideration filed on Friday, the two agrarian reform bodies asked the high court to remove from its decision the portion giving farmer-beneficiaries the option to remain as HLI stockholders. Top officials of DAR and PARC have adopted the “land to the tiller" position of their predecessors under the administration of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. In their joint appeal, DAR and PARC asked the Supreme Court to fully adopt PARC’s 2005 resolution which revoked the stock distribution option (SDO) agreement that gave farmers in 1989 the choice between owning shares of stock in HLI or land in the sugar estate. [See related: Hacienda Luisita Timeline] After finding that the stock option made farmers’ lives worse, the council ordered compulsory land distribution of Hacienda Luisita to the farmers. In a landmark decision last July 5, 10 magistrates agreed to uphold the PARC resolution that revoked HLI’s stock distribution plan (SDP) which allowed an SDO agreement. [See: Stocks or land? SC calls for new Luisita referendum] However, six of the 10 justices voted that the DAR should facilitate secret voting among the 6,296 qualified farmer-worker beneficiaries (FWBs) who will choose land or stocks. The remaining four justices in the majority said land should be distributed following the revocation of the SDP. But in his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Renato Corona said that “a program that gives qualified beneficiaries stock certificates instead of land is not agrarian reform." Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno also dissented, pointing out that, “Our system of laws will be turned on its head by the application of the ‘doctrine of operative fact’ in this case." Operative fact doctrine The SC’s majority decision, written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, noted that despite the revocation of HLI’s stock distribution plan, it cannot turn a blind eye on the fact that in 1989, 93 percent of the farmer beneficiaries chose the stock distribution option. The SC used the “operative fact doctrine" to justify its mandate to call for a new referendum because, even with the revocation of the SDP, the 6,000 farmers who had availed of the stock option have “rights [that] should be respected". The SC defines the operative fact doctrine as follows: “In declaring a law or executive action null and void, or, by extension, no longer without force and effect, undue harshness and resulting unfairness must be avoided." But in their appeal, DAR and PARC said the high court erred in invoking that doctrine in calling for a new voting among farmers. “It is respectfully submitted that the doctrine of operative fact does not apply to this case. There is no law or rule which has been invalidated on the ground of unconstitutionality," the two bodies said. They further stressed, “The operative fact doctrine is a rule of equity. As such, it must be applied as an exception to the general rule that an unconstitutional law produces no effects. It can never be invoked to validate as constitutional an unconstitutional act." ‘Problematic issues’ The SC may have overlooked some “problematic issues," the DAR and PARC noted. They said the court may have erred in pegging the number of qualified farm-worker beneficiaries at 6,296. “An initial study of the 1989 list seems to indicate, however, that there are several persons who are listed therein more than once. As such, it is entirely possible that the actual FWBs of HLI back in 1989 [are] actually less than 6,296. If this is the case, then the number of shares and area size per FWB will necessarily change," said the two bodies. They added that the SC also erred in coming up with 0.6885-hectare the area size of the landholding each farmer who decides to have land will get; and fixing to 18,804.32 the number of shares guaranteed each of the qualified beneficiaries who will vote to stay as HLI stockholders. They also noted that if all 6,296 farm-worker beneficiaries choose land, there will be a deficit of 0.5004 hectares. “As to the formula used by the Honorable Court for land distribution, it should be pointed out that if all the FWBs opt for land distribution, there will be a deficit of 0.5004 hectares. In such scenario, there are 6,296 FWBs, each to be given 0.68865 hectares and the total area should be awarded is 4,335.7404" DAR and PARC argued. "However, the area size distributable to FWBs is only 4335.24 hectares (4915.75 hectares minus 50 hectares + 80.51 hectares) or 0.5004 hectares less than the supposed area to be distributed," they said. “Imposing the formula in the decision clearly creates an unfair situation for the FWBs," said the DAR and PARC. — MRT/ELR/VS, GMA News