SC decision on coco levy: still unimplemented

The coconut levy funds have put the Supreme Court at the center of the coconut farmers’ watch. But since the Supreme Court’s January 2012 decision declaring the 24-percent CIIF-SMC shares as public funds—a sure victory for the poor coconut farmers and government—the status of the funds, amounting to some P71 billion in cash, is unfortunately still uncertain. And an entry of judgment has yet to be heard of.

Glaringly, the Court was reckless and swift in finalizing an April 2011 decision favoring Eduardo Cojuangco Jr. in an identical case involving the other 20 percent of the SMC shares. The Court decided in favor of Cojuangco against the benefit of millions of poor coconut farmers even though the 20-percent SMC block was acquired using the same source, the coconut levies (Coconut Industry Investment Fund) of the Marcos regime collected from every first sale of copra. According to the Court, Cojuangco was not proven to be a crony of the former dictator Ferdinand Marcos, and there was no previous law defining ill-gotten wealth.

This April 2011 decision was the biggest joke to hit the century, then Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales said in a dissenting opinion. On top of that, the Court expunged all motions for reconsideration thereafter and made an entry of judgment, making the decision final, by March 2012—in less than a year. Another fact to consider is that the vote was 7-4-4: seven in agreement, four dissenting and four in abstention.

Both blocks of shares were under one case, Civil Case No. 33-F, obviously for the reason that the shares were acquired using the coconut levies. The decision favoring Cojuangco had to come first before the coco levies were declared public in nature, which the January 2012 decision had so affirmed. One case, same source (CIIF), but opposing decisions. The April 2011 decision cited no law defining ill-gotten wealth while the January 2012 decision was based on such existing laws defining ill-gotten wealth. But on the case of the 24-percent shares, all motions for reconsideration were entertained. Worse, even the opinion of lawyer Estelito Mendoza, who himself claimed to have no involvement, was said to have been recently discussed by the Supreme Court en banc.

The decision on the 24-percent was unanimous, 11-0—no dissenting opinion at all. Yet it has stayed for almost a year and a half without finality. In the meantime, the Court has changed hands because of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Some of the associate justices have retired and new ones have been appointed to take their place. There are only six left of the seven who voted to grant Cojuangco the right to the 20-percent SMC shares. But still nothing is final when it is for the benefit of the millions of impoverished coconut farmers.

The way it appears, our justice system makes it easier to wrong a right than it is to right a wrong.

—JOEY FAUSTINO,

executive director,

Coconut Industry Reform (COIR) Movement Inc.,

[email protected]