The Supreme Court decision on Tuesday reaffirming its ruling of November 2011, ordering the redistribution of Hacienda Luisita owned by President Aquino’s family to more than 6,000 farm workers and fixing the compensation for the sugar estate at P196 million on 1989 prices has been described as a “litmus test” of the resolve of the administration to implement the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program launched by the President’s mother, Cory Aquino, in 1987.
It is also a rigorous test of the steadfastness and consistency of the high court in upholding its 14-0 unanimous landmark decision that directed the distribution of 4,915 hectares of the estate to 6,296 farm workers. The court emerged with flying colors from this test.
The decision put on the spot the second Aquino president, as well as the half-hearted social reform legacy of his mother.
It was handed down by the court amid the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the Senate tribunal, a circumstance which has put the court’s independence to the test vis-à-vis the executive branch, which has thrown the enormous weight of presidential powers behind its drive to oust the Chief Justice.
An examination of the recent court decision and the voting illustrates the dilemmas involved in the ruling.
Ramifications
The clarification and ramifications of the decision include the following:
While sustaining its unanimous 14-0 ruling directing the distribution of the estate to its farm workers and canceling Cory’s stock distribution option scheme as an alternative to land distribution, the court, in an 8-6 vote, reaffirmed its ruling of November last year. It based the P196-million value of the estate on 1989 prices to determine “just compensation (for the property).”
The valuation of Hacienda Luisita is at the heart of the dispute over the estate. In a separate ruling on Tuesday, the court held that the amount of compensation should be based not on the 2006 valuation rates sought by Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI).
It rejected HLI’s bid to secure a compensation of at least P5 billion, declaring that the ruling was “final and executory.” It said it would no longer entertain further pleadings and motions for reconsideration on the dispute that has taken 27 years to resolve.
Eight justices voted that the compensation be based on 1989 prices: Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Teresita de Castro, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza and Martin Villarama Jr.—appointees of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Six justices voted to leave it up to Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to determine just compensation. Three of the six dissenters supported the hacienda owners’ demand. They were Justices Lourdes Sereno, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Bernabe—all appointees of Mr. Aquino.
No debt of gratitude
Despite these alignments on issues, the court did not budge on its decision of November 2011. Pro-administration circles gave the decision the spin that “tended to show that the Palace-appointed justices acted independently and did not pay a debt of gratitude to the President, unlike what we saw in the past.”
But Sereno went out of her way, writing lengthy dissenting opinions that are longer than the court’s main decisions in July and September last year. She argued for a 2006 valuation, echoing the position of HLI management.
Whatever deviations were expressed in the majority and dissenting opinions, it is clear that the court did appear to be concerned about possible presidential retaliation as a result of decisions adverse to the economic interests of the Cojuangco clan in Luisita, the family’s political, social and economic power base.
It further appears that despite the mixed composition of the tribunal (Aquino and Arroyo appointees), the majority rose above its fears and cast its lot on the side of land ownership for the tillers as a fundamental principle of a genuine agrarian reform program.
Besides, the justices, whoever appointed them, may have considered that the size of their votes on the decisions would give them security against retaliation.
Palace silence
Malacañang has remained silent on the recent court decision. A Palace spokesperson said it was up to the DAR and the solicitor general to issue comments on the ruling.
The Palace has said the President repeatedly claimed that he had divested himself of his interests in Luisita, although he also said that owners of agricultural lands covered by agrarian reform should be “rightly paid.”
The next battle in the implementation of the court decision is over the value of just compensation to Luisita. In this determination, Land Bank and the DAR will play key roles. It is there where the political will of the Aquino administration will be demonstrated. This will reveal its commitment to social reform and social justice
How the court’s decision would affect the impeachment case of Corona or the independence of the high court is a political issue—as far reaching as the issue of distribution of land to the tillers.