Must gov’t go to SC on issue of auditing HLI? | Inquirer Opinion

Must gov’t go to SC on issue of auditing HLI?

/ 10:45 PM June 07, 2013

We cannot help it, but the latest attempt of the Department of Agrarian Reform to bring to court the auditing process required in the distribution of Hacienda Luisita to almost 6,300 farmer-beneficiaries has raised our eyebrows. Just a few days ago, Agrarian Reform Secretary Virgilio delos Reyes and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed a motion asking the Supreme Court to break the deadlock between the DAR and the farmers regarding the issue of which accounting firm should audit the P1.33-billion proceeds that Hacienda Luisita Inc. received from the earlier sale of three lots.

We wonder why the government thinks that this issue needs to be elevated to the Supreme Court when the DAR can simply give in to the farmers and just allow them to choose the auditing firm they deem fit to audit the money. Are we not just wasting taxpayers’ money by using the very busy OSG lawyers just to defend this issue in the Supreme Court? And is it not that the government (the DAR and the OSG included) must be on the side of the farmers and not on the side of the erstwhile owners of the hacienda?

The high court had already, repeatedly, ruled that the hacienda rightfully belongs to the farmers. What the government should do is to expedite the distribution of the land, not to delay it.

Article continues after this advertisement

—ALBERTO MANALILI,

[email protected]

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our daily newsletter

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

TAGS: agrarian reform, DAR, department of agrarian reform, hacienda luisita

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.
Your subscription has been successful.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

By providing an email address. I agree to the Terms of Use and acknowledge that I have read the Privacy Policy.

© Copyright 1997-2024 INQUIRER.net | All Rights Reserved

This is an information message

We use cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more here.