Hacienda Luisita farmers wary of DAR info drive on land distribution
HACIENDA LUISITA, Tarlac City, Philippines—About 200 employees of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) led by Secretary Virgilio de los Reyes were greeted with a mix of suspicion, skepticism and cautious interest when they descended on the 6,000-hectare sugar plantation owned by the family of President Benigno Aquino III on Saturday to conduct an information drive regarding the possible distribution of the land.
It was the first time government representatives had entered Hacienda Luisita since the long and bloody controversy over agrarian reform began decades ago. Many farmers were wary of even signing the attendance sheet, DAR officials said.
De los Reyes and his team, armed with handouts and other materials on the agrarian reform case, said they had come to hold town-hall-style meetings in 11 barangays here to explain to the farmers the nitty-gritty of the November 2011 decision of the Supreme Court that gave them the right to own the land.
Another scheme
Farmers belonging to groups like Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Asyenda Luisita (Ambala) and United Luisita Workers Union (Ulwu), which pursued the case before the high court, suspected the DAR info drive could be “another scheme to mislead the people.”
For the unorganized farmer community, however, DAR’s presence here seemed a welcome move because many of them needed to understand the details of the high court decision and what they were supposed to do should the decision be finally enforced.
The Cojuangco family, owners of the sugar hacienda, are still appealing for reconsideration of the decision that nullified Hacienda Luisita Inc.’s controversial stock distribution option (SDO) in favor of outright land distribution to the farmers who want it.
Lito Bais, acting Ulwu chair, yet suspected DAR’s information drive was “another scheme of the Cojuangco family to distort the facts about the November 2011 court ruling.
In Barangays Balete, Lourdes and Mapalacsiao, some farmers remained suspicious of the exercise and refused to sign the attendance sheets despite assurances by DAR employees that the caucus was meant to inform them about the SC decision and the land distribution process.
Misuse of signatures
Francisco Dizon, a spokesperson of Ambala-Ulwu, one of the farmers’ unions in the estate, claimed government officials in the past used their signatures on attendance sheets without their consent to prove that there were workers at the hacienda who favored the SDO.
To appease the farmers, DAR gave the attendance sheet to a union member in Barangay Lourdes, who promptly tore it apart to the cheers of fellow residents.
De los Reyes said they had wanted the residents’ cell-phone numbers so that DAR could reach them directly. As for the attendance sheets, “these were not important,” he said.
De los Reyes said it was understandable that the farmers were wary of the government since their case had dragged on for years. Despite the wary reaction on the ground, the DAR chief said their exercise was a “good start.”
This was their first encounter with the DAR, said De los Reyes. Hacienda Luisita had never received agricultural interventions from the government, he added.
“This is their first contact with DAR. We will try to answer all their questions,” De los Reyes said.
“Hacienda Luisita is one of a kind. We want to know their opinions and suggestions,” he added.
Corona impeachment
Farmers interviewed by the Inquirer also said they feared the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona would affect their case. One farmer said they feared that Corona’s ouster would pave the way for the reversal of the November 2011 ruling, which is currently under appeal.
Corona, who was appointed to head the Supreme Court by former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was charged with being biased for the Arroyo administration.
Corona, on the other hand, had said the Hacienda Luisita decision may have triggered the President’s ire against him.
De los Reyes dismissed allegations that their consultation with the Hacienda Luisita tillers was a rebuke to Corona’s statement that the campaign to oust him was a ploy to force the SC to reverse its November 2011 decision.
“With all due respect to him, we planned this before he was impeached,” De los Reyes said. He expressed confidence the SC would not make an about-face on its unanimous ruling.
