HACIENDA LUISITA: Agrarian reform and social justice issue! - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

hacienda luisita agrarian reform and social justice issue n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
HACIENDA LUISITA: Agrarian reform and social justice issue! PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
HACIENDA LUISITA: Agrarian reform and social justice issue!

play fullscreen
1 / 27
HACIENDA LUISITA: Agrarian reform and social justice issue!
319 Views
Download Presentation
gareth
Download Presentation

HACIENDA LUISITA: Agrarian reform and social justice issue!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. HACIENDA LUISITA:Agrarian reform and social justice issue! Sentro Para saTunaynaRepormangAgraryo

  2. Background • May 11, 1989, Memorandum of Agreement (“MOA”, for brevity) was executed by Tarlac Development Corporation (“Tadeco), Hacienda Luisita Inc and farm workers • MOA institutionalized SDO in Luisita • Sharing 67% Cojuanco; 33% farm worker • 4,950 hectares land share of farmers, where placed under SDO

  3. MOA • Farmers are entitled to 119 million shares for P1.00/share • Shares will be distributed in 30 years according to mandays • persons appearing in yearly payroll will be considered beneficiaries and entitled to share of stocks • No work, no share • 3% production share • 240 sq.m. homelots

  4. Why FWs have only 33% share • Agricultural land undervalued (P40T/hectares) • Other lands and assets of Tadeco overvalued • Homelot valued at P1,006,877,540.00 or P550/hectare • Other assets

  5. FWs filed petition to revoke SDO • October 2003 - Supervisors filed petition with DAR • Dec. 2003 - 5339 Ambala filed case with DAR • Lives became miserable • Violations of conditions of SDO • No dividends given • No share in profit • No share in production • Land use conversion • Given only 3% of more than P2B pesos sale of 500 hectares

  6. Strike • 300 leaders illegally dismissed • CBA negotiations failed • Terms and conditions of employment unjust • SDO revocation • Same arguments with petition to revoke SDO

  7. Massacre • November 16, 2004 – 7 persons killed on the spot • More than 100 others fatally injured • More than 100 illegally arrested detained • The incident triggered national and international outrage and condemnation

  8. DAR Investigation • As a result of the massacre and mass outrage, DAR was forced to conduct investigation • DAR validated the grounds in the petition for revocation of SDO • Recommended revocation of SDO to PARC

  9. PARC revoked SDO • December 5, 2006 PARC approved DAR recommendation • Declared that SDO is contrary to public policy • Found out violations committed by Cojuancos • Declared that SDO made FWs lives miserable • Ordered actual distribution of land to FWs

  10. HLI petition to SC • HLI filed certiorari to SC ascribing grave abuse of discretion on PARC and DAR • HLI asked SC to issue TRO to prevent DAR/PARC from implementing the resolution to revoke SDO and to distribute lands to the FWS • SC issued TRO

  11. Bungkalan • FWs started planting rice • Supervisors planted sugar cane • HLI started negotiating with supervisors and Mallari group

  12. 2008 Deal of HLI and Mallari and Supervisors’ group • P200M financial assistance • 2,000 hectares to be given to farmers • 30% of proceeds of sale of 500 hectares • But the farm workers rejected the agreement of HLI and Mallari group. • Demanded the whole of agricultural land be distributed to the FWs

  13. SC Ordered Oral Argument • October 2009, case submitted for decision • July 2010 SC First Division transferred case to en banc • En banc ordered oral argument on August 3 and reset to August 18

  14. “Compromise Agreement” • 6 August 2010 - HLI entered into a purported compromise agreement with the farm workers • 12 August 2010 – HLI submitted Joint Submission and Motion for Approval of the Compromise Agreement with the compromise agreement in Tagalog and English to the Supreme Court. • The compromise agreement seeks continue the stock distribution plan and the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

  15. DEAL INVALID • Lack of authority of Mallari et al to negotiate and bind the farm workers • The SDO from where the agreement is based was declared void for being contrary to law and public policy • The compromise agreement is worse than the SDO plan and the Memorandum of Agreement • The agreement contained stipulations which are contrary to law

  16. Lack of authority of Mallari, et al The supposed farmers’ representatives who signed the agreement are without authority to bind the farm workers. Mallari has never been president of Ambala. He was ousted from the group. He organized and was the president of FARM but was also left the organization He is a paid-agent of Cojaunco-Aquino to muddle the issue

  17. Lack of authority of Pingol PcontiniungPingol has no authority to represent the union (ULWU). Union president Rene Galang manifested his continuing objection to SDO and is against the compromise agreement Pingol is a member of PepengCojuanco’s yellow army

  18. Supervisors could not bind farmworkers The supervisory group is only 169 members They have no authority to bind the members of AMBALA and the farmworkers They are recipient now of large tracts of land from the Cojuangco-Aquinos

  19. The referendum is invalid It undermined the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, of DAR and of PARC HLI has no power to call for referendum since SDO is already revoked Only DAR has the power to conduct referendum The choice in the referendum are both bad choices

  20. SDO vs. 1336 hectares • The agreement violates section 4 of Republic Act 6657 as amended by Republic Act 9700 • All lands covered CARP unless exempted or excluded • Landowner is entitled to just compensation • Landowner is entitled only to 5 hectares retention • HLI could not retain 1336 hectares but only 5 hectares

  21. Waiver of opposition to land conversion illegal Section 65 of Republic Act 6657 as amended by Republic Act 9700 prohibits the landowner from applying for the conversion of the lands covered by the agrarian reform program. Land covered by CARP are not eligible for conversion except in certain instance

  22. Right of first refusal contrary to law Sec. 27 (CARP) - Lands acquired under CARP shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries The children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years

  23. Waiver of all claims – contrary to public policy Par. 7 CA effectively stripped the farm workers the right to question illegal and unjust acts of HLI. It deprives the farm workers the right to sue HLI for any violation, past or future, It deprives farmowkers to sue or claim from the previous sale and conversion of the agricultural lands.It effectively insulates HLI from any case.

  24. Oral Argument • August 18 and 24 • HLI argued for retention of SDO • Solgen, SENTRA, Monsod argued for affirmation of PARC’s resolution • SC ordered for the creation of mediation panel • Parties required to file memorandum until September 24

  25. Mediation • HLI showed its color: • Has no intention to give up land • Will do everything to retain SDO • Demanded P1M/hectare • Pushed for referendum

  26. AMBALA’s stand No mediation Walked out of mediation hearing No referendum Implement PARC’s decision Revoke TRO

  27. Case ready for resolution SC should decide the case All parties have submitted their evidence and arguments SC should not allow continued machinations and maneuvers of HLI to delay case resolution SC should junk other options than land distribution