In a 44-page motion, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (Parc) through the Solicitor General, have asked the Court to direct the Hacienda Luisita Inc. to implement actual distribution of land to the farmer- beneficiaries.
They asked the Court to fully adopt PARC’s 2005 resolution which revoked the stock-distribution option (SDO) agreement that gave farmers in 1989 the choice between owning shares of stock in HLI or land in the sugar estate.
The OSG argued that the Court erred in applying the doctrine of “operative fact” to the case considering that no law has been invalidated for being unconstitutional.
“There is no law or rule which has been invalidated on the ground of unconstitutionality. And the doctrine is a rule of equity which may be applied only in the absence of a law. In this case, there is a positive law which mandates the distribution of the land as a result
of the revocation of the stock distribution plan,” Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz said.
“In this case, the principle of equity cannot justify the option given to the FWBs [farm-worker beneficiaries] which would obviously be advantageous to the position of HLI. Having committed a number of violations in the implementation of the SDP-SDOA [stock distribution plan-stock distribution option agreement] in relation to the Constitution, CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) law and pertinent rules, the HLI should not be given another opportunity to defeat the agrarian-reform policy mandated under the Constitution and the CARP law,” he added.
In its July 5 ruling, the Court affirmed the validity of the order issued by the PARC, which revoked the stock-distribution option plan that have been offered to the original 6,296 farmer-beneficiaries of the more than 6,000 hectare Hacienda Luisita in lieu of land distribution which is mandated under the CARP.
But, the Court affirmed with modification Court PARC Resolution 2005-32-01 issued on December 22, 2005, by allowing the original farmer-beneficiaries to choose to remain as stockholders of HLI or get the land due them.
The DAR and PARC also agreed with the position of Chief Justice Renato Corona that Section 31 of Republic Act 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, is unconstitutional as it allows stock distribution in lieu of land distribution.
The said agencies said Section 31 had violated Section 4, Article XIII of the Constitution which states: “The State shall, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of the farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till, or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.”
The government also noted that the Court may have overlooked some problematic issues, “such as in pegging the number of qualified farm-worker beneficiaries at 6,296.”
“An initial study of the 1989 list seems to indicate, however, that there are several persons who are listed therein more than once. As such, it is entirely possible that the actual FWBs of HLI back in 1989 [are] actually less than 6,296. If this is the case, then the number of shares and area size per FWB will necessarily change,” said the two bodies.
