DEAL OR NO DEAL
(Privilege Speech Delivered by Hon. Edcel C. Lagman
on 23 August 2010 on the Hacienda Luisita Controversial “Stock Distribution Option”)
Mr. Speaker and Distinguished Colleagues:
On 16 January 1986 then presidential candidate Cory Aquino in a major speech in Davao declared: “Land-to-the-tiller must become a reality, instead of an empty slogan.” She further said: “You will probably ask me – will I also apply it to my family’s Hacienda Luisita? My answer is yes.”
On 09 February 2010 or 24 years later, candidate Noynoy Aquino also vowed to “ensure the distribution of Hacienda Luisita’s 4,500-hectare plantation to farmer-beneficiaries by June 2014.”
President Corazon Aquino, a truly beloved and respected leader, redeemed her promise by making agrarian reform the centerpiece program of her administration.
On 10 June 1988, she signed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). However, this milestone legislation was improvidently tarnished by its Section 31 which considered “Stock Distribution Option” as sufficient compliance with the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Consequently, Hacienda Luisita was exempted from the coverage of land distribution. To the Hacienda Luisita agrarian beneficiaries, it was not “land-to-the-tiller” as promised. It was “parchment-to-the-tiller”. And what a piece of paper!
President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino has yet to redeem his campaign promise of having the Hacienda Luisita lands distributed to the tillers.
He recently demurred from answering questions on his said campaign promise by conveniently invoking sub judice which in his estimation precluded him from commenting on an issue involving the validity of Hacienda Luisita’s “Stock Distribution Option” which is pending before the Supreme Court.
All of a sudden, President Aquino has become reticent in his off-the-cuff commentaries. He has found an expedient shield for an ominous silence.
But the cat is out of the bag. No less than presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda revealed in a press conference the President’s position when he said “hopefully the Supreme Court will look with favor on the compromise agreement”, which deal implements the controversial “Stock Distribution Option”.
It would be recalled that it was then Representative Noynoy Aquino of Tarlac who on November 17, 2004 or a day after the Hacienda Luisita massacre, rationalized the carnage by alleging the “clash was triggered by gunfire coming from the ranks of the strikers.”
Given the overriding import and immense gravity of the raging issue, the flexible doctrine of sub judice should neither intimidate nor muzzle the President from speaking out his mind in a fair commentary and making good a campaign promise.
Being the prime leader of the Republic, President Aquino does not only have moral influence over his Hacienda Luisita relatives and co-owners but he has unmistakable ascendancy to convince his family to jettison the dubious “Stock Distribution Option” in favor of land distribution which is the unequivocal mandate of the Constitution which provides:
“The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till x x x To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands x x x.” (Article XIII, Section 4, emphasis supplied).
After two infamous massacres – the Mendiola Massacre where at least a dozen farmers and protesters were killed on 22 January 1987 as they demanded the fulfillment of a campaign promise on land reform, and the Hacienda Luisita Massacre where at least seven farmers and strikers were slain on 16 November 2004 as they demanded better benefits and the abrogation of the “Stock Distribution Option”, it is high time that a definitive closure be made on these bloody and violent agrarian-related episodes. President Aquino must lead his family in complying with land distribution as the heart and soul of CARP.
As Chairman of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), President Aquino has the obligation of sustaining the previous decision of PARC revoking Hacienda Luisita’s “Stock Distribution Option” and placing its lands under compulsory acquisition.
The principal issue before the Supreme Court is not whether the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council has the power to revoke the Hacienda Luisita “SDO”.
The primordial concern is not the validity of the “SDO” relative to the prescriptive period for the distribution of shares of stock to the beneficiaries.
Neither is the main issue the abridgement of a covenant or contract nor the dilution of the farmer-stockholders’ shares.
While these are relevant ancillary issues, the transcendental question is whether “Stock Distribution Option” is a valid and constitutional alternative to land distribution.
Section 31 of the CARL which authorizes “Stock Distribution Option” in lieu of land distribution must be revisited and struck down as unconstitutional. Or if the Supreme Court does not declare it violative of the genuine spirit and precise language of the Constitution, should the Congress not repeal Section 31, albeit belatedly?
The succinct and pointed query of Chief Justice Renato Corona is of utmost relevance: “Is it land reform to just give farmers a piece of paper?”
A compromise deal, orchestrated and contrived as it appears to be, cannot legitimize a “Stock Distribution Option” which is void for being repugnant to the Constitution.
Even if it is argued that an “overwhelming majority” of the farmer-beneficiaries favored the deal, such endorsement is against public policy and the Constitution. It cannot cleanse the Compromise Deal of its basic infirmity.
Aside from being violative of the Constitution, the Compromise Deal is flawed in its other stipulations:
(1) Two provisions are designed to inordinately diminish the agricultural area to the patent detriment of farmer stockholders. These provisions are:
(a) “the parties hereby respect and will no longer question the validity of the conversion of lands to non-agricultural use.”; and
(b) “express support and/or interpose no objection to the further development of HLI (Hacienda Luisita Incorporated) land even for non-agricultural purposes.”
These provisions have programmed the demise of CARP in Hacienda Luisita. The unrestrained conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses will erode the agri-agra base of the “SDO”. Moreover, conversion is an exception to CARP coverage and as such should be strictly construed. Consequently, it is against public policy to covenant a regime of conversion and disallow objections.
(2) Another provision facilitates the take-back by HLI of the distributed lands in the case of farmer beneficiaries who opted for land distribution. It provides:
“give HLI or its assigns the right of first refusal (for 360 days), should they (farmer-beneficiaries) decide to lease, sell, transfer, encumber, convey x x x the land given to them”.
This stipulation inveigles the farmer-beneficiaries to violate the CARL which prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the distributed lands. In case of alienation, the land must go back to the State or be awarded to the next qualified beneficiary. It is not for the landlord to take back.
Moreover, this provision betrays the scheme of the Hacienda Luisita co-owners not to part with the land and consolidate their ownership in violation of CARL.
Whatever landlords conceptualize will always be for the good of the landowners and inimical to the tillers of the land. This is the tragic case of the “Stock Distribution Option” of which the sugar barons of Hacienda Luisita are the principal proponents and self-serving beneficiaries.