MANILA, Philippines — Why was Hacienda Luisita chosen as the only privately owned exit out of the 12 toll gates of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx)?

And why did the farmers receive only P2.4 million from the P80 million paid by the Bases Conversion Development Authority (BCDA) for right-of-way purchase of land from the family of Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, the standard-bearer of the Liberal Party (LP)?

Lawmakers from opposing parties and militant groups begged answers to these questions as the House of Representatives Wednesday pursued its inquiry into a P250-million toll way scandal involving Aquino’s family, which owns Hacienda Luisita.

Early in the hearing, Camarines Norte Rep. Liwayway Vinzons–Chato, an LP member, sought to end the discussion on the alleged overprice of a land purchase and construction of a P170-million interchange inside Hacienda Luisita because of its “political overtones.”

Vinzons-Chato also noted that the main subject of the hearing was the overprice of the SCTEx and not specifically the transactions involving Hacienda Luisita.

She was backed by Quezon Rep. Lorenzo Tañada III, Cavite Rep. Emilio Abaya, and Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros (LP spokesperson, secretary general and senatorial aspirant, respectively) and 1-UTAK party-list Rep. Vigor Mendoza.

Vinzons-Chato also claimed that the farmers’ share from the land purchase was an internal matter for Hacienda Luisita and not subject to investigation.

But the oversight committee chair, Quezon Rep. Danilo Suarez, stood his ground.

“We cannot avoid political overtones in our investigation. The fact remains that we are the oversight committee, and since government money was spent for this project, we have to push through with our investigation and see to it that government money was properly disposed of,” Suarez said.

6 times the price

When the hearing resumed, Agrarian Reform Undersecretary Renato Herrera disclosed that the sugar lands cost only P15 to P17 per square meter, or six times the P100-per-sq-m price paid to Hacienda Luisita based on the assessment made by the Development Bank of the Philippines.

Cavite Rep. Crispin Remulla reported that Hacienda Luisita was a special case in the expressway business.

He said it was the only private land owner who was paid to have an interchange built on its property for free, while others in other expressways—such as Asia Brewery-Greenfield, Southwoods, Sta. Elena and Susana Heights—paid for the right to have an easement of the freeway on their property and shouldered the cost of building an interchange.

Abakada-Guro party-list Rep. Jonathan dela Cruz said that while other private land owners were being asked by the BCDA to bid between P10 million and P15 million to build food centers or gas stations along the expressway, Hacienda Luisita was compensated for a project that would lead to a steep appreciation in the value of its property.

Nueva Vizcaya Rep. Carlos Padilla said the “discrimination” in favor of Hacienda Luisita was glaring.

Hauteur

The question and hearing conducted by the oversight committee was intense, with its members reprimanding Hacienda Luisita Inc. lawyer Antonio Ligon for his haughty attitude.

Anakpawis party-list Rep. Rafael Mariano did not appreciate it when, after his series of questions, Ligon shot back: “Are you angry?”

Zambales Rep. Milagros Magsaysay said Ligon had been acting arrogantly during the proceedings with his condescending statements and nasty side comments to questions posed by the congressmen.

Ligon claimed that Aquino and his family were “sensitive” to the issues being raised by the farmers. He said this was why the family would tackle this in a meeting next month.

He also said the Aquinos controlled less than 1 percent of Hacienda Luisita but had yet to come to a final decision on whether to divert their share.

Sarcasm

Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño said the farmers should have been given their proportionate share of the P80-million proceeds from the land purchase because their ownership, based on the land asset, had been reduced with the sale.

But Ligon pointed out that before owners of corporations get their share of an asset sale, the money would first be used to pay off expenses and loans.

He said the management gave the farmers the 3-percent share of the land sale without any cuts as a favor, to which Casiño replied sarcastically: “Then the farmers should be thankful for what they got from management.”

Ligon described the probing question on the dividends as “improper” because “whatever we answer will have a different meaning and there will be an immediate conclusion.”

He also said Vinzons-Chato was correct in questioning the motive of the committee because the inquiry should be held in aid of legislation.

In an interview with reporters after the hearing, Remulla said the deal spoke badly of Aquino’s leadership.

“If he cannot control his family, he cannot control the country,” Remulla said.

Magsaysay said the committee had agreed to conduct an ocular inspection of the interchange at Hacienda Luisita.

Lay off

Elsewhere, Sen. Joker Arroyo called on Malacañang to “lay off” investigating the so-called “Hacienda Luisita massacre” of 2004, saying Palace officials would only be accused of politicking.

“Just lay off any investigation. It’s not nice,” Arroyo told reporters as he questioned why the Palace was getting into the issue in which Aquino was being implicated.

He said he made the suggestion “for the same reason I didn’t like the complaint in the C-5 Road controversy”—which involved Nacionalista Party standard-bearer Sen. Manuel Villar—because it was “politically motivated.”

Arroyo said he was asking the Palace to steer clear of the “massacre” case “so that they will not be accused of any politics.”

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. said the Palace apparently intended to divert the people’s attention to Aquino, who, he pointed out, was “the face of Hacienda Luisita.” With a report from Christine O. Avendaño