Philippine Constitutional Law Digests A site for digests of landmark Constitutional Law cases in the Philippines.

Home

Privacy Policy

Musings on Law

All That Matters

Monday, November 28, 2011

Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), et al., G.R. No. 171101, November 22, 2011

R E S O L U T I O N

VELASCO, JR., J.:

I. THE FACTS

On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to DISMISS/DENY the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the resolutions of the PARC revoking HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands in Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government.

The Court however did not order outright land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court noted

that there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which the Court cannot validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP must, by application of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original 6,296 qualified farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or [choose actual land distribution]. It thus ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to “immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names.” The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court decision. II. THE ISSUES

(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this case? (2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional? (3) Can’t the Court order that DAR’s compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the full 6,443

hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLI’s SDP?

(4) Is the date of the “taking” (for purposes of determining the just compensation payable to HLI) November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI’s SDP?

(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 lapsed on May 10, 1999 (since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP coverage through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989), and thus the qualified FWBs should now be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, whether they have fully paid for the lands or not?

(6) THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered? III. THE RULING [The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the motions for reconsideration of respondents PARC, et al. with respect to the option granted to the original farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita to remain with petitioner HLI, which option the Court thereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. It reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, and UNANIMOUSLY directed immediate land distribution to the qualified FWBs.]

1. YES, the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case.

[The Court maintained its stance that the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case since, contrary to the suggestion of the minority, the doctrine is not limited only to invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or the administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the nullification or recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences that must be respected. It is on this score that the operative fact doctrine should be applied to acts and consequences that resulted from the implementation of the PARC Resolution approving the SDP of HLI. The majority stressed that the application of the operative fact doctrine by the Court in its July 5, 2011 decision was in fact favorable to the FWBs because not only were they allowed to retain the benefits and homelots they received under the stock distribution scheme, they were also given the option to choose for themselves whether they want to remain as stockholders of HLI or not.]

2. NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 NOT unconstitutional.

[The Court maintained that the Court is NOT compelled to rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the resolution thereof is not the lis mota of the case. Moreover, the issue has been rendered moot and academic since SDO is no longer one of the modes of acquisition under RA 9700. The majority clarified that in its July 5, 2011 decision, it made no ruling in favor of the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but found nonetheless that there was no apparent grave violation of the Constitution that may justify the resolution of the issue of constitutionality.]

3. NO, the Court CANNOT order that DAR’s compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the

full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLI’s SDP.

[Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of the SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then the Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land.Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the agrarian reform law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural lands originally held by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were supposedly covered by RA 6657.

However since the area to be awarded to each FWB in the July 5, 2011 Decision appears too restrictive – considering that there are roads, irrigation canals, and other portions of the land that are considered commonly-owned by farmworkers, and these may necessarily result in the decrease of the area size that may be awarded per FWB – the Court reconsiders its Decision and resolves to give the DAR leeway in adjusting the area that may be awarded per FWB in case the number of actual qualified FWBs decreases. In order to ensure the proper distribution of the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita per qualified FWB, and considering that matters involving strictly the administrative implementation and enforcement of agrarian reform laws are within the jurisdiction of the DAR, it is the latter which shall determine the area with which each qualified FWB will be awarded.

On the other hand, the majority likewise reiterated its holding that the 500-hectare portion of

Hacienda Luisita that have been validly converted to industrial use and have been acquired by intervenors Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), as well as the separate 80.51-hectare SCTEX lot acquired by the government, should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC resolution. The Court however ordered that the unused balance of the proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare land used for the SCTEX be distributed to the FWBs.]

4. YES, the date of “taking” is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI’s SDP.

[For the purpose of determining just compensation, the date of “taking” is November 21,

1989 (the date when PARC approved HLI’s SDP) since this is the time that the FWBs were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be precise, these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on November 21, 1989. Such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory acquisition. On the contention of the minority (Justice Sereno) that the date of the notice of coverage [after PARC’s revocation of the SDP], that is, January 2, 2006, is determinative of the just compensation that HLI is entitled to receive, the Court majority noted that none of the cases cited to justify this position involved the stock distribution scheme. Thus, said cases do not squarely apply to the instant case. The foregoing notwithstanding, it bears stressing that the DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final and conclusive upon the landowner. The landowner can file an original action with the RTC acting as a special agrarian court to determine just compensation. The court has the right to review with finality the determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.]

5. NO, the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 has NOT

lapsed on May 10, 1999; thus, the qualified FWBs should NOT yet be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties.

[Under RA 6657 and DAO 1, the awarded lands may only be transferred or conveyed after

10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent (EP) or certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). Considering that the EPs or CLOAs have not yet been issued to the qualified FWBs in the instant case, the 10-year prohibitive period has not even started. Significantly, the reckoning point is the issuance of the EP or CLOA, and not the placing of the agricultural lands under CARP coverage. Moreover, should the FWBs be immediately allowed the option to sell or convey their interest in the subject lands, then all efforts at agrarian reform would be rendered nugatory, since, at the end of the day, these lands will just be transferred to persons not entitled to land distribution under CARP.]

6. YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to

remain as stockholders of HLI should be reconsidered.

[The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never gain control [over the subject lands] given the present proportion of shareholdings in HLI. The Court noted that the share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just] 33.296%. Thus, even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI stockholders, which is unlikely, control will never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control means the majority of [sic] 50% plus at least one share of the common shares and other voting shares. Applying the formula to the HLI stockholdings, the number of shares that will constitute the majority is 295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI capital shares divided by 2 plus one [1] HLI share). The 118,391,976.85 shares subject to the SDP approved by PARC substantially fall short of the 295,112,101 shares needed by the FWBs to acquire control over HLI.] Posted by Atty. Ed at 12:36 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook Labels: comprehensive agrarian reform program, hacienda luisita, HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011, stock distribution option Location: Cebu City, Philippines

No comments:

Post a Comment Newer PostOlder PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) Blog Archive

► 2012 (26)

▼ 2011 (11)

o ► December (4)

o ▼ November (7)

Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrari...

Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrari...

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Hon. Leila M. De Lima (...

Briccio “Ricky” A. Pollo v. Karina Constantino-Dav...

Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph Ejercito "Erap"...

Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance Secretary Margarito Te...

Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of the Philippine...

Followers

About Me

Edgardo Luardo Jr. View my complete profile

Labels

2011 bar exam results (1)

20th century fox v. CA (1)

3 readings on separate days (1)

349 pepsi crowns case (1)

abadilla 5 (1)

actual case or controversy (1)

alibi (1)

angara v. electoral commission (1)

ARMM elections (1)

arnault v. nazareno (1)

arroyo v. de lima (1)

bar exams (1)

bayan v. zamora (1)

cacho-olivares v. ermita (1)

chavez v. gonzales and ntc (1)

checkpoints case (1)

china bank v. CA (1)

columbia pictures v. flores (1)

combinations and restraint of trade (1)

comprehensive agrarian reform program(2)

constitutionality of checkpoints (2)

contempt power of senate (1)

control test (1)

custodial investigation (1)

david v. arroyo (1)

decision in in re charges of plagiarism v. justice del castillo (1)

delegation of power (1)

dissent of justice ma. lourdes sereno (1)

economic protectionism (1)

election synchronization (1)

equity structure in public utilities (1)

exclusionary rule (1)

filipino first policy (2)

foreign military troops in the phils. (1)

fortun v. arroyo (1)

freedom of expression (1)

freedom of religion (1)

freedom of speech (1)

freedom of the press (3)

gamboa v. teves (1)

general warrant (1)

globalization (1)

GMA TRO (1)

grosjean v. american press (1)

hacienda luisita (2)

hello garci (1)

HLI v. PARC decision july 5 2011 (1)

HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011 (1)

holdover of elected ARMM officials (1)

iglesia ni cristo v. CA (1)

impeachment of cj corona (1)

implied powers (1)

in re garcia (1)

incompatible offices (1)

incorporation clause (2)

ineligibility of the President to run for re-election (1)

inherent powers (1)

investigation in aid of legislation (1)

jose midas marquez (1)

justice mariano del castillo (2)

justice sereno's dissent in in re charges of plagiarism vs. justice del castillo (1)

kida v. senate (1)

kuroda v. jalandoni (1)

laserna v. ddb (1)

liban v. gordon (1)

lis mota (1)

lumanog v. people (1)

maguindanao massacre (1)

mandatory drug testing (1)

manila hotel (1)

manila prince hotel v. gsis (1)

martial law (1)

meaning of the term capital in Sec. 11 Art. XII of the Constitution (1)

monopolies (1)

moot and academic cases (1)

national patrimony (1)

new york times v. U.S. (1)

office search (1)

oil deregulation (1)

one title-one subject (1)

p.s. bank v. senate impeachment court(1)

people v. exala (1)

Philippine National Red Cross (1)

pimentel v. comelec (1)

piracy (1)

plagiarism (3)

police lineup (1)

pollo v. david (1)

pormento v. estrada (1)

power to promulgate rules of procedure(1)

presentation of master tape in piracy cases (1)

president's power to appoint ARMM OICs (1)

prior restraint (3)

privacy of communications and correspondence (1)

probable cause for issuance of warrant of arrest (1)

probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant (1)

RA 9165 (1)

requisites of judicial review (2)

resolution in in re charges of plagiarism v. justice del castillo (1)

review/censorship of religious tv programs (1)

right against self-incrimination (1)

right against unreasonable search and seizure (2)

right of privacy (1)

right to travel (1)

roberts v. CA (1)

search and seizure (4)

search warrant (1)

secrecy of foreign currency deposits (1)

self-executing provision (1)

sjs v. ddb (1)

speedy disposition of cases (1)

stock distribution option (2)

stop-and-frisk (1)

suspension of privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (1)

tatad v. executive secretary (1)

tañada v. angara (1)

terry search (1)

terry v. ohio (1)

treaty (3)

TRO vs. senate impeachment court (1)

university of cebu college of law (1)

valid form of warrantless search (1)

valmonte v. de villa (2)

vinuya v. executive secretary (2)

visiting forces agreement (1)

warrant of arrest (1)

warrantless arrests (1)

warrantless search and seizure (1)

world trade organization (1)

TopBlogs.com.ph

Feedjit

Total Pageviews

37,876

Copyright 2011-2012 by Atty. Ed. Simple template. Powered by Blogger.