Marquez noted that contrary to the views of some concerned sectors, the Court did not order the conduct of a referendum among the 6,296 beneficiaries in its July 5, 2011 ruling.
Instead, Marquez said the Court specified that it would be up to the farmer-beneficiaries to decide whether they want to remain as stockholders or acquire pieces of the agricultural land.
Furthermore, Marquez explained that a majority vote is not required since the choice of a farmer-worker beneficiary would not affect the other FWBs.
“This means that if some FWBs prefer to remain as stockholders, the other FWBs would still get their portions of the agricultural land subject to CARP [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program],” he said.
“In any case, this decision is not yet final since a motion for reconsideration is still pending, and it would be best if we all wait for the final resolution of the motion which is forthcoming anyway,” he added.
Several motions for reconsideration have been filed before the Court but the latter has yet to act on them.
In a ruling written by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. issued on July 5, the Court affirmed the validity of the order issued by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) which revoked the stock-distribution option plan that have been offered to the original 6,296 farmer-beneficiaries of the sugar plantation in lieu of land distribution which is mandated under the CARP.
But, the Court affirmed with modification 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 to them.
With the ruling, the SC directed the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to “immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballots, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names.”
In the ruling, the Court noted that the distribution of agricultural lands to famer-beneficiaries does not guarantee a successful implementation of the agrarian-reform program of the government.
Contrary to the view of some justices and concerned sectors that there can be no agrarian reform unless the land is distributed to the intended beneficiaries, the Court noted that there were instances that its implementation failed despite actual distribution of land.
He cited for example the practice of some farmer-beneficiaries to sell the awarded land to nonqualified persons and in violation of the prohibition period provided under the law.
“Thus, at the end of the day, there is still no successful implementation of agrarian reform to speak of in such a case,” the Court said.
