Hacienda Luisita farmers seek reversal of Supreme Court decision to settle land row

MANILA, Philippines—Hacienda Luisita farmers asked the Supreme Court to reverse its earlier decision that allowed them to hold a referendum to settle the issue of ownership of the sugar plantation.

In a 76-page motion for reconsideration filed Wednesday, the Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (Ambala) urged the high court to order land distribution instead of a referendum.

The high court, in its July 5 decision allowed the 6,296 original farmer-beneficiaries to have the option to remain as stockholders of Hacienda Lusita Incorporated (HLI) or to opt for land distribution.

Although it has revoked the stock distribution plan (SDP) which allowed a stock distribution option agreement (SDOA) in 1989, the high court still ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to administer a secret voting among the 6,296 qualified farm-worker beneficiaries who will choose between land and shares of stock.

But Ambala, in its appeal said the high court itself has already revoked the SDP.

The group added that the very reason why farmers petitioned to revoke the SDOA was because those who were previously given stocks were not given any dividends.

“They remained the minority stockholders. They have no control on the use and disposition of the assets of the corporation including the land,” said Ambala.

The land becomes mere investment of the farmers and will still be owned by the corporation which is in violation of Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), it added.

The group noted the Section 31 of CARL that allows corporations owning agricultural land to give farmer beneficiaries right to own stocks instead of land is contrary to the provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

Ambala pointed out that under Section 4, Article 13 of the Constitution, “the law should undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of the farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless to won directly or collectively the land they till.”

“It does not include a situation where the farmers are mere stockholders of a corporation and their equity is only limited to the extent of the value of the agricultural land they bought from the corporate landowner,” the group said.

“There is no more reason therefore, for the continued operation of the said scheme. The land should now be distributed to the farmworkers. In the first place, this sprawling agricultural estate rightfully, legally, morally and historically belongs to them,” the group added.