MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed its 2007 decision upholding the ruling to include sugar lands in the coverage of the government’s Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
In a minute resolution released last May 20, the Court denied with finality the appeal filed by large sugar-producing companies against the SC decision issued on March 10, 2007 that affirmed the legality of Republic Act 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), which included sugar lands in CARP.
The Court ruled: “No substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision.”
Among the petitioners is the Confederation of Sugar Producers Association Inc. (Confed), which includes Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac, owned by the family of presidential frontrunner Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III.
Hacienda Luisita, a 6,453-hectare sugar plantation, is subject of a pending case in the Court.
The orders of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the distribution of the plantation to the farmers and nullification of the stock distribution option offered by the Cojuangco-Aquino clan have been under a temporary restraining order (TRO) since June 2006.
Aside from Confed, other appellants include the National Federation of Sugarcane Planters Inc., United Sugar Producers Federation of the Philippines Inc., Panay Federation of Sugarcane Farmers Inc., First Farmers Holding Corp., National Congress of Unions in the Sugar Industry of the Philippines and the League of Municipalities of the Philippines Negros Occidental Chapter.
The SC upheld its earlier ruling that dismissed for lack of merit the petitioners’ argument against the manner in which land reform is being implemented in sugarcane plantations.
The late President Corazon Aquino, mother of Senator Aquino, signed RA 6657 into law on June 10, 1988 and the law became the legal basis for the implementation of CARP.
It was the late president who brought sugar lands into CARP in 1988. CARP only covered rice and corn lands from 1963 to 1988.
In its 2007 decision, the SC ruled that it is not within its power to pass upon or look into the wisdom of the inclusion by Congress of sugar lands in the coverage of RA 6657.
“It is basic in our form of government that the judiciary cannot inquire into the wisdom or expediency of the acts of the executive or the legislative department, for each department is supreme and independent of the others, and each is devoid of authority not only to encroach upon the powers or field of action assigned to any of the other departments, but also to inquire into or pass upon the advisability or wisdom of the acts performed, measures taken or decisions made by the other departments,” the SC stressed.
The petitioners then sought the issuance of a TRO enjoining the DAR, Land Bank of the Philippines and the Land Registration Authority from considering their sugarcane farms as part of eminent domain or placing them under compulsory acquisition without filing the necessary expropriation proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court and without the conformity of a majority of the regular farm workers.
They also asked that paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) of Section 16 [1] [5] of RA6657, be nullified for being unconstitutional.
In their petition, the sugar producers claimed that the DAR, without consulting regular farm workers on whether or not they want to exercise their right to own the land they till, indiscriminately sent notices of coverage and acquisition to practically all the planters and “left the matter of identifying and convincing the prospective beneficiaries later.”
They said that the DAR in collusion with non-government organizations and other “instant” farmer organizations, designated as “beneficiaries” non-tillers, non-regular farmers and outsiders of the land and other unqualified groups to eject and replace the regular farm workers and later on install these “beneficiaries” on the sugar lands, with the assistance of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police.
The petitioners also claimed that the LRA canceled the Certificates of Title of the landowners on the mere directive or request by DAR, without asking landowners to surrender their owner’s duplicate of title or even notifying them.
Named as respondents in the petition were the DAR, LBP and LRA.
The LBP urged the court to dismiss the petition since it had already upheld the constitutionality of RA 6657 in its ruling on the Association of Small Landowners case.
The SC then ruled that it did not have power to look into the wisdom of Congress’ decision to include sugar lands in the coverage of CARP.
It also stressed that the petitioners’ allegations remained as such, because they were unsupported by any evidence.
“The allegations require de novo appreciation of factual questions. No trial court has had the opportunity to ascertain the validity of these factual claims, the appreciation of which is beyond the function of this court since it is not a trier of facts,” the Court explained.
The SC held that the sugar planters failed to show that they belonged to a different class and were entitled to different treatment. –Edu Punay (The Philippine Star)
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
