HACIENDA LUISITA:HACIENDA LUISITA:Agrarian reform and Agrarian reform and social justice issue!social justice issue!

Sentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang AgraryoSentro Para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo

Background Background

May 11, 1989, Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”, for brevity) May 11, 1989, Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”, for brevity) was executed by Tarlac Development Corporation (“Tadeco), was executed by Tarlac Development Corporation (“Tadeco), Hacienda Luisita Inc and farm workers Hacienda Luisita Inc and farm workers

MOA institutionalized SDO in LuisitaMOA institutionalized SDO in Luisita

Sharing 67% Cojuanco; 33% farm workerSharing 67% Cojuanco; 33% farm worker

4,950 hectares land share of farmers, where placed under SDO4,950 hectares land share of farmers, where placed under SDO

MOAMOA

Farmers are entitled to 119 million shares for Farmers are entitled to 119 million shares for P1.00/shareP1.00/share

Shares will be distributed in 30 years according Shares will be distributed in 30 years according to mandaysto mandays

persons appearing in yearly payroll will be persons appearing in yearly payroll will be considered beneficiaries and entitled to share considered beneficiaries and entitled to share of stocksof stocks

No work, no shareNo work, no share 3% production share3% production share 240 sq.m. homelots240 sq.m. homelots

Why FWs have only 33% Why FWs have only 33% shareshare

Agricultural land undervalued Agricultural land undervalued (P40T/hectares)(P40T/hectares)

Other lands and assets of Tadeco Other lands and assets of Tadeco overvaluedovervalued

Homelot valued at P1,006,877,540.00 or Homelot valued at P1,006,877,540.00 or P550/hectare P550/hectare

Other assetsOther assets

FWs filed petition to FWs filed petition to revoke SDOrevoke SDO

October 2003 - October 2003 - Supervisors filed petition with Supervisors filed petition with DARDAR

Dec. 2003 - 5339 Ambala filed case with DAR Dec. 2003 - 5339 Ambala filed case with DAR Lives became miserableLives became miserable Violations of conditions of SDOViolations of conditions of SDO No dividends givenNo dividends given No share in profitNo share in profit No share in productionNo share in production Land use conversionLand use conversion Given only 3% of more than P2B pesos sale of 500 Given only 3% of more than P2B pesos sale of 500

hectares hectares

StrikeStrike

300 leaders illegally dismissed 300 leaders illegally dismissed CBA negotiations failedCBA negotiations failed Terms and conditions of employment Terms and conditions of employment

unjustunjust SDO revocationSDO revocation Same arguments with petition to revoke Same arguments with petition to revoke

SDO SDO

MassacreMassacre

November 16, 2004 – 7 persons killed on November 16, 2004 – 7 persons killed on the spotthe spot

More than 100 others fatally injuredMore than 100 others fatally injured More than 100 illegally arrested detainedMore than 100 illegally arrested detained

The incident triggered national and international The incident triggered national and international outrage and condemnation outrage and condemnation

DAR InvestigationDAR Investigation

As a result of the massacre and mass As a result of the massacre and mass outrage, DAR was forced to conduct outrage, DAR was forced to conduct investigationinvestigation

DAR validated the grounds in the petition DAR validated the grounds in the petition for revocation of SDOfor revocation of SDO

Recommended revocation of SDO to Recommended revocation of SDO to PARC PARC

PARC revoked SDOPARC revoked SDO

December 5, 2006 PARC approved DAR December 5, 2006 PARC approved DAR recommendationrecommendation

Declared that SDO is contrary to public policyDeclared that SDO is contrary to public policy Found out violations committed by CojuancosFound out violations committed by Cojuancos Declared that SDO made FWs lives miserableDeclared that SDO made FWs lives miserable Ordered actual distribution of land to FWsOrdered actual distribution of land to FWs

HLI petition to SCHLI petition to SC

HLI filed certiorari to SC ascribing grave HLI filed certiorari to SC ascribing grave abuse of discretion on PARC and DARabuse of discretion on PARC and DAR

HLI asked SC to issue TRO to prevent HLI asked SC to issue TRO to prevent DAR/PARC from implementing the DAR/PARC from implementing the resolution to revoke SDO and to resolution to revoke SDO and to distribute lands to the FWSdistribute lands to the FWS

SC issued TRO SC issued TRO

BungkalanBungkalan

FWs started planting riceFWs started planting rice

Supervisors planted sugar caneSupervisors planted sugar cane

HLI started negotiating with supervisors HLI started negotiating with supervisors and Mallari groupand Mallari group

2008 Deal of HLI and Mallari 2008 Deal of HLI and Mallari and Supervisors’ group and Supervisors’ group

P200M financial assistance P200M financial assistance 2,000 hectares to be given to farmers2,000 hectares to be given to farmers 30% of proceeds of sale of 500 hectares30% of proceeds of sale of 500 hectares

But the farm workers rejected the agreement of But the farm workers rejected the agreement of HLI and Mallari group.HLI and Mallari group.

Demanded the whole of agricultural land be Demanded the whole of agricultural land be distributed to the FWs distributed to the FWs

SC Ordered Oral SC Ordered Oral ArgumentArgument

October 2009, case submitted for October 2009, case submitted for decisiondecision

July 2010 SC First Division transferred July 2010 SC First Division transferred case to en banccase to en banc

En banc ordered oral argument on En banc ordered oral argument on August 3 and reset to August 18 August 3 and reset to August 18

““Compromise Compromise Agreement”Agreement”

6 August 2010 - HLI entered into a purported 6 August 2010 - HLI entered into a purported compromise agreement with the farm workerscompromise agreement with the farm workers

12 August 2010 – HLI submitted Joint Submission and 12 August 2010 – HLI submitted Joint Submission and Motion for Approval of the Compromise Agreement Motion for Approval of the Compromise Agreement with the compromise agreement in Tagalog and with the compromise agreement in Tagalog and English to the Supreme Court. English to the Supreme Court.

The compromise agreement seeks continue the stock distribution plan The compromise agreement seeks continue the stock distribution plan and the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)and the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

DEAL INVALIDDEAL INVALID

Lack of authority of Mallari et al to negotiate and bind the Lack of authority of Mallari et al to negotiate and bind the farm workersfarm workers

The SDO from where the agreement is based was The SDO from where the agreement is based was declared void for being contrary to law and public policydeclared void for being contrary to law and public policy

The compromise agreement is worse than the SDO plan The compromise agreement is worse than the SDO plan and the Memorandum of Agreementand the Memorandum of Agreement

The agreement contained stipulations which are contrary The agreement contained stipulations which are contrary to law to law

Lack of authority of Lack of authority of Mallari, et alMallari, et al

The supposed farmers’ representatives who signed The supposed farmers’ representatives who signed the agreement are without authority to bind the the agreement are without authority to bind the farm workers. farm workers.

Mallari has never been president of Ambala. He Mallari has never been president of Ambala. He was ousted from the group. He organized and was was ousted from the group. He organized and was the president of FARM but was also left the the president of FARM but was also left the organizationorganization

He is a paid-agent of Cojaunco-Aquino to muddle He is a paid-agent of Cojaunco-Aquino to muddle the issuethe issue

  

Lack of authority of Lack of authority of PingolPingol

Pcontiniung Pingol has no authority to Pcontiniung Pingol has no authority to represent the union (ULWU).represent the union (ULWU).

Union president Rene Galang manifested Union president Rene Galang manifested his continuing objection to SDO and is his continuing objection to SDO and is against the compromise agreementagainst the compromise agreement

Pingol is a member of Pepeng Pingol is a member of Pepeng Cojuanco’s yellow army Cojuanco’s yellow army

Supervisors could not Supervisors could not bind farmworkersbind farmworkers

The supervisory group is only 169 The supervisory group is only 169 membersmembers

They have no authority to bind the They have no authority to bind the members of AMBALA and the members of AMBALA and the farmworkersfarmworkers

They are recipient now of large tracts of They are recipient now of large tracts of land from the Cojuangco-Aquinos land from the Cojuangco-Aquinos

The referendum is invalidThe referendum is invalid

It undermined the jurisdiction of the It undermined the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, of DAR and of PARCHonorable Court, of DAR and of PARC

HLI has no power to call for referendum HLI has no power to call for referendum since SDO is already revokedsince SDO is already revoked

Only DAR has the power to conduct Only DAR has the power to conduct referendumreferendum

The choice in the referendum are both The choice in the referendum are both bad choicesbad choices

SDO vs. 1336 hectares SDO vs. 1336 hectares

The agreement violates section 4 of The agreement violates section 4 of Republic Act 6657 as amended by Republic Act 6657 as amended by Republic Act 9700 Republic Act 9700

All lands covered CARP unless exempted or All lands covered CARP unless exempted or excludedexcluded

Landowner is entitled to just compensation Landowner is entitled to just compensation Landowner is entitled only to 5 hectares Landowner is entitled only to 5 hectares

retentionretention HLI could not retain 1336 hectares but only 5 HLI could not retain 1336 hectares but only 5

hectares hectares

Waiver of opposition to Waiver of opposition to land conversion illegalland conversion illegal

Section 65 of Republic Act 6657 as Section 65 of Republic Act 6657 as amended by Republic Act 9700 prohibits amended by Republic Act 9700 prohibits the landowner from applying for the the landowner from applying for the conversion of the lands covered by the conversion of the lands covered by the agrarian reform program.agrarian reform program.

Land covered by CARP are not eligible for Land covered by CARP are not eligible for conversion except in certain instanceconversion except in certain instance

Right of first refusal Right of first refusal contrary to lawcontrary to law

Sec. 27 (CARP) - Lands acquired under CARP Sec. 27 (CARP) - Lands acquired under CARP shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries beneficiaries

The children or the spouse of the transferor shall The children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) government or LBP within a period of two (2) yearsyears

Waiver of all claims – Waiver of all claims – contrary to public policycontrary to public policy

Par. 7 CA effectively stripped the farm Par. 7 CA effectively stripped the farm workers the right to question illegal and workers the right to question illegal and unjust acts of HLI.unjust acts of HLI.

It deprives the farm workers the right to sue It deprives the farm workers the right to sue HLI for any violation, past or future, HLI for any violation, past or future,

It deprives farmowkers to sue or claim from It deprives farmowkers to sue or claim from the previous sale and conversion of the the previous sale and conversion of the agricultural lands.It effectively insulates HLI agricultural lands.It effectively insulates HLI from any case. from any case.

Oral ArgumentOral Argument

August 18 and 24August 18 and 24 HLI argued for retention of SDOHLI argued for retention of SDO Solgen, SENTRA, Monsod argued for affirmation Solgen, SENTRA, Monsod argued for affirmation

of PARC’s resolutionof PARC’s resolution

SC ordered for the creation of mediation panelSC ordered for the creation of mediation panel

Parties required to file memorandum until Parties required to file memorandum until September 24September 24

MediationMediation

HLI showed its color:HLI showed its color: Has no intention to give up landHas no intention to give up land Will do everything to retain SDOWill do everything to retain SDO Demanded P1M/hectareDemanded P1M/hectare Pushed for referendumPushed for referendum

AMBALA’s standAMBALA’s stand

No mediationNo mediation Walked out of mediation hearingWalked out of mediation hearing No referendumNo referendum Implement PARC’s decisionImplement PARC’s decision Revoke TRORevoke TRO

Case ready for resolutionCase ready for resolution

SC should decide the caseSC should decide the case All parties have submitted their evidence All parties have submitted their evidence

and argumentsand arguments SC should not allow continued SC should not allow continued

machinations and maneuvers of HLI to machinations and maneuvers of HLI to delay case resolution delay case resolution

SC should junk other options than land SC should junk other options than land distribution distribution