Contact Details

Rm. N-411, House of Representatives, Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines
+63 2 931 5497, +63 2 931 5001 local 7370

P-Noy must prevail upon his kin to transfer Hacienda Luisita to the beneficiaries

Press Statements
  • Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
  • 12 July 2011
  • Cell No. 09166406737

 

          If President Aquino truly wants Hacienda Luisita distributed to covered landless farmworkers, then he must prevail upon his kin to transfer ownership of the controversial landholding to the agrarian beneficiaries, instead of instructing government officials to interpose a reconsideration of the Supreme Court directive for the holding of another referendum.

           It is only when the President refuses or fails to convince his relatives that a motion for reconsideration should be seasonably filed.

           The Supreme Court’s recent decision does not prohibit or deter the Aquino landlords from complying with the constitutional mandate on the distribution of all agricultural lands to the landless tillers.

           Land distribution is the only constitutional and available mode of implementing agrarian reform in Hacienda Luisita.

           No amount of referendums can validate and enforce the stock distribution option in the sugar plantation for the following reasons:

           (1) No less than the Supreme Court in its decision declared that the stock distribution option has been repealed by R. A No. 9700 or the CARPER which has limited after June 30, 2009 land acquisition for agrarian beneficiaries to only two modes, namely (a) voluntary offer to sell and; (b) compulsory acquisition. Thus, the Supreme Court ruled that “for all intents and purposes, the stock distribution scheme under Sec. 31 of Republic Act 6657 is no longer an available option under existing law.” Consequently, stock transfer has ceased to be an option;

           (2) The stock distribution option under Sec. 31 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) had likewise elapsed for failure of Hacienda Luisita to adopt a viable stock distribution plan (SDP) within the two year prescriptive period from the approval of CARL on June 10, 1988, as in fact the Supreme Court confirmed the scrapping by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) of the SDP for being onerous against farmer beneficiaries; and

           (3) Most importantly, under Sec. 4 or Article XIII of the Constitution, no other mode or option is constitutionally authorized or recognized except actual land distribution.