Supreme Court: No referendum at Hacienda Luisita
The Supreme Court has clarified that it did not order a “referendum” among farmworker-beneficiaries of Hacienda Luisita when it revoked the stock distribution plan of the sprawling sugar plantation owned by relatives of President Benigno Aquino III.
Jose Midas Marquez, Supreme Court administrator and spokesperson, said that contrary to initial interpretations, the high court’s July 5 ruling did not require the 6,296 farm workers to vote on a common mode by which to pursue their ownership claims over the hacienda under the government’s agrarian reform program.
According to Marquez, the order penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. allowed each farm worker-beneficiary (FWB) to choose whether they wanted to own actual land or remain a stockholder in Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI).
“A majority vote is not required since the choice of an FWB would not affect the choice of other FWBs,” Marquez said.
“This means that if some FWBs prefer to remain stockholders, the other FWBs could still get their portions of the agricultural land subject to the (agrarian reform program),” he explained.
Marquez made the clarification amid reports that some groups opposed to the tribunal’s ruling had been claiming that the high court had directed the FWBs to choose by majority vote whether or not they wanted to hold titles to land or shares of stock in HLI.
In a news conference announcing the court’s July 5 decision, Marquez himself had used the term “referendum” in explaining the tribunal’s ruling in the decades-old land dispute.
But in a subsequent press briefing, the court officer corrected himself, saying that the magistrates did not order the farm workers to take a new vote on the issue of land or stock distribution.
In its 90-page order, the court directed the Department of Agrarian Reform to “immediately schedule meetings with the farm workers and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choices.”
Secret voting
It said the farm workers “will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot.”
The term “referendum” was not mentioned in the text of the decision.
Since parties involved had filed their respective motions for reconsideration, Marquez said “it would be best if we all wait for the final resolution of the motion which is forthcoming anyway.”
While 10 justices of the high court upheld the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council’s 2005 decision to revoke HLI’s stock distribution plan (SDP), they also voted 6-4 to order a new vote.
SDP unconstitutional
A majority of the justices said the high tribunal could not “turn a blind eye” to the overwhelming number of farm workers who voted in favor of the SDP during a 1989 referendum.
Of the magistrates who participated in the deliberations, only Chief Justice Renato Corona upheld the argument of a faction of FWBs that said the stock distribution plan was unconstitutional.
In its ruling, the court said: “Of the 6,296 FWBs, he or she who wishes to continue as an HLI stockholder is entitled to 18,804.32 HLI shares and, in case the HLI shares already given to him or her is less than 18,804.32 shares, HLI is ordered to issue or distribute additional shares to complete said prescribed number of shares at no cost to the FWB within 30 days from finality of this decision.”
In 2005,the Department of Agrarian Reform canceled the 16-year-old stock distribution option agreement of Hacienda Luisita after a drawn-out labor strike marred by violence and the death of at least seven protesters.
The stock distribution option was included in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) passed in 1988 during the term of President Corazon Aquino.
Then Agrarian Reform Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman had said he adopted the recommendation of Task Force Luisita and a special legal team to revoke the SDP on the ground that it had failed to improve the lives of more than 5,000 farmer beneficiaries.
