MANILA, Philippines – Farmers of Hacienda Luisita can either opt for stock distribution or land distribution, the Supreme Court has ruled.
In a 93-page decision penned by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the high court, voting 6-4, affirmed with modification the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) Resolution No. 2005-32-01 issued on Dec. 22, 2005 that allowed 6,296 original farmer-beneficiaries to have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI or to opt for land distribution.
The high court said the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is ordered to conduct a referendum once the decision is attained with finality. DAR is required to submit a compliance report to the Supreme Court.
“Six justices are of the view that there must be referendum by DAR [Department of Agrarian Reform] to determine who among beneficiaries would like to stay with the corporation and who would like to get actual land while four other justice said the entire land holdings must be subjected to land reform,” high court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez told a press briefing Tuesday.
The high court said the 6,296 (Farm worker beneficiaries) FWBs who wishes to continue as an HLI stockholder would be 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, the HLI is ordered to issue or distribute additional shares to complete the prescribed number of shares at no cost to the FWB within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision.
Those opting for land distribution shall get a land equivalent to their 18,804.32 shares, the high tribunal said.
“Other FWBs who do not belong to the original 6,296 qualified beneficiaries are not entitled to land distribution and shall remain as HLI shareholders. All salaries, benefits, 3% production share and 3% share in the proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare converted land and the 80.51-hectare SCTEX lot and homelots already received by the 10,502 FWBs, composed of 6,296 original FWBs and 4,206 non-qualified FWBs, shall be respected with no obligation to refund or return them,” the high court said.