Farmers want land distribution, not another referendum

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC)’s decision on Hacienda Luisita drew condemnation yesterday from militant groups.

“The Supreme Court’s cowardly act clearly demonstrates that it is an instrument of deception, oppression and exploitation. It subscribes to the politics of accommodation of the Aquino government,” Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas secretary-general Danilo Ramos said in a statement.

He said a referendum being called by the SC to determine whether farmers would opt for land or stocks is no different from the one staged by the Cojuangco family in 1989 and in August last year.

“It (referendum) forms part of the Cojuangco-Aquinos’ grand plan to evade land distribution,” said Ramos.

“The SC decision is even worse than the Hacienda Luisita massacre because we are talking here of thousands of farm workers grossly deprived of their land and rights,” he said.

“It will not end the more than half-a-century-old agrarian conflict in Hacienda Luisita and would instead fuel agrarian unrest in the sugar estate,” Ramos warned.

Rodel Mesa, spokesman of the Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid sa Asyenda Luisita, said Hacienda Luisita farmers were against a referendum. “We have already junked the referendum in August last year when the Cojuangco-Aquinos desperately pushed for the anti-farm worker compromise deal. The recent decision is totally condemnable,” he said.

“It (decision) signals the start of a more intense struggle of Hacienda Luisita farm workers. Hacienda Luisita farm workers are now bound to assert their rights to own the lands,” he added.

In San Fernando, Pampanga, the Alyansa ng mga Magbubukid sa Gitnang Luson (AMGL) said land distribution is the only acceptable option for farmers.

“There are overwhelming legal bases that the lands were never legitimate and moral properties of the Cojuangco-Aquinos and they were developed through the painstaking work of the farmers inside the hacienda even before it was controlled by the landlord family,” AMGL chairman Joseph Canlas said.

“Do we need to remind the high court again and again of the history of Hacienda Luisita? That the Cojuangcos controlled the lands in 1957 using public lands under the condition of agrarian reform, swindled the government and the farm workers until former president Cory Aquino rose to power and implemented the stock distribution option,” Canlas said.

“There is no debate that SDO (stock distribution option) failed and did not alleviate the poverty of the farm workers, and even pushed them to go on bloody strike on Nov. 6, 2004,” he said.

“After the Hacienda Luisita massacre, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) decided to revoke SDO on Dec. 23, 2005,” but “the Cojuangco-Aquinos blocked the decision at the Supreme Court that issued a temporary restraining order on June 2006.”

The AMGL noted in a statement that during the Spanish period, the estate was controlled by Don Antonio Lopez y Lopez and was named after his wife Luisa Bru y Lassus under the Compania General de Tabacos de Filipinas or Tabacalera.

“Hacienda Luisita was acquired by Tabacalera on Nov. 26, 1881, together with Hacienda Antonio, Hacienda San Fernando and Hacienda Sta. Isabel in Cagayan and Isabela. During this period, the Spanish colonial government’s tobacco monopoly was being taken over by landlords,” the AMGL said.

During the American period, Hacienda Luisita remained with the Tabacalera and supplied 20 percent of sugar demand in the US.

“It upgraded its sugar central and Luisita sugar became popular in the US, especially among Filipino elite migrants,” AMGL said.

“The technological advancement pushed different smaller sugar centrals to merge as what Honorio Ventura, the sugar enterpreneur who paid for Diosdado Macapagal’s education, and the De Leons and Gonzales did, giving birth to Pampanga Sugar Development Corp. (PASUDECO),” the AMGL noted.

In 1957, the Hukbalahap rebellion pushed Tabacalera into disposing of Hacienda Luisita.

The Lopezes, who already owned Meralco, Negros Navigation, Manila Chronicle, ABS-CBN and various haciendas in western Visayas and Pampanga, reportedly tried to acquire the hacienda but were blocked by then President Ramon Magsaysay.

“The Cojuangcos showed intent and the sale pushed through after Magsaysay’s death in 1958 through a loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) and Manufacturers’ Trust of Company of New York, guaranteed by the Central Bank of the Philippines,” the AMLG said. “This was under the condition that the lands would be under agrarian reform in 10 years’ time under the framework of the government’s social justice program,” the AMLG statement read.

‘Deceitful’

Militant lawmakers called the SC decision “deceitful” and “a travesty of justice.”

Anakpawis party-list Rep. Rafael Mariano said the ruling “only favors the landlord administration of President Benigno Aquino III.”

“The SC decision is deceitful and unacceptable. It only allowed the Cojuangcos to continue controlling the use, disposition and benefit from the fruits of the land,” Mariano said.

“The decision shows that the Cojuangco-Aquinos and the President himself have no plans of giving up Hacienda Luisita for land distribution,” he said.

“SC is quickly showing its character as an extension of Malacañang and fast transforming itself as an ‘Aquino Court’ with the series of anti-farmer rulings it issued on controversial cases like the Hacienda Luisita and coco levy funds,” he said.

Akbayan party-list Rep. Arlene Bag-ao also assailed the SC’s decision, particularly its call for a referendum, saying it was a usurpation of the powers of Congress.

“Republic Act 9700 or the CARPER law specifically removed the alternatives to land distribution, such as SDO. The high tribunal’s decision resuscitates the SDO, contrary to the spirit of the CARPER Law,” Bag-ao said.

“The planned referendum serves as a lifeline for those who will benefit the most from an undistributed Hacienda Luisita,” Bag-ao said.

Akbayan party-list Rep. Walden Bello, for his part, said the farmers “were being cooked in their own fat.”

“What is most odious in the erroneous decision is that it will be done under the guise of free and conscious choice of the farmers themselves. A democratic tool will be used to subvert democracy,” Bello said. –-Rhodina Villanueva (The Philippine Star) with Paolo Romero, Ding Cervantes