If the Supreme Court had decided the Hacienda Luisita land dispute last July the way it did on Nov. 22, 2011, would President Aquino have questioned it?
Reacting to the tribunal’s recent decision calling for the total distribution of the Cojuangco-Aquino-owned estate to its farmworkers, P-Noy said: “You comply when the Supreme Court makes an order. That should be the case. They decide on a question of law, there should be compliance. I don’t think that’s optional,” he said.
In July, the Court issued a ruling scrapping the stock distribution option (SDO) under which farmers were given shares of stocks instead of lots. However, the decision also gave the farmers the option to retain their shares of stocks through a referendum among themselves. Many observers viewed the decision to be contradictory—for while the court scuttled the SDO, meaning the farmers should be given lots, it also allowed them to opt for shares of stocks through a vote.
A group of farmers who wanted lots instead of shares of stocks filed a petition questioning the Court’s July ruling. It was that petition that the tribunal deliberated on last Nov. 22, resulting in its second ruling.
The decision has provoked many people to ask why the Court took this long to take up the farmers’ petition and rule on it. Was the decision made as a way of hitting back at P-Noy in light of the conflict between the tribunal and the executive branch over the right of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to travel? Some people can’t help but ask this question.
Arroyo had sought from the tribunal the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) on a watch-list order (WLO) issued by the Department of Justice, which barred her from leaving the country. The Court ruled in Arroyo’s favor, but this was nullified when the Pasay City regional trial court issued a warrant for her arrest on a charge of electoral sabotage.
If the Court’s intention in issuing the TRO was to spite the President, then it had failed. P-Noy has asked his family to obey the Court’s order while defining the function of agrarian reform, which is to achieve two things—not only “to empower the farmers” but also to ensure that landowners are “justly compensated.”
All that the President desires is fairness for both labor and capital in determining the final terms and conditions to be followed in the implementation of the Court’s decision.
—LENALEE GOMEZ, lenaleegomez@ymail.com