FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa
(The Philippine Star)
Updated January 07, 2012 12:00 AM
The UST has denied allegations that it bent its rules to give Chief Justice Corona a Doctor of Laws degree. It came out as the headline of Inquirer, the self-proclaimed top newspaper in the country.
This is not the first time that the newspaper banners a clearly partisan and inaccurate news story.
“There is no truth to the allegation that the University of Santo Tomas broke its rules to favor Chief Justice Renato Corona who graduated with the degree of Doctor of Laws from the University,” the UST replied. Corona “enrolled in all requisite subjects for the doctorate and complied with academic requirements, including delivering a ‘scholarly treatise’ for his dissertation in a public lecture.”
The false accusations come from Rappler.Com a newly launched website. (It doesn’t look like a very auspicious start). It was written by Marites Lopez-Vitug, a well known investigative reporter. The key words that allowed the Inquirer to publish the story are the words “may have”. Vitug said that UST “may have broken its rules” in granting Corona a doctorate in civil law and qualifying him for honors. Without verifying their story or at least getting the side of UST, it ran to the safety of probability. Vitug writes that “UST did not reply to questions.”
So why make headlines out of it? We already know the position of the Inquirer with regard to the Corona impeachment. If you rely on media to be informed then I am afraid you are as much a victim of this biased journalism. Shoot first before you ask. The distinction between opinion and news is once again blurred. The headline on Corona purports to be news.
One can understand slips in editorial discretion but if the newspaper concerned makes a habit of it then something is terribly wrong. If we let it go at that, then we would be remiss in our duty as journalists. Their cause of fighting against impunity in government becomes a farce.
* * *
Perhaps one of the most memorable slips like the Corona story was the Inquirer headline on Ed Manalac, PNOC president. It was announced in a headline that he was Senator Ping Lacson’s secret witness in the NBN-ZTE hearing. There was absolutely no truth to the story, Manalac told Inquirer. “How can I be the secret witness when I do not even know Senator Lacson much less talked to him in any form, shape or manner. It was clearly an invented story.
He was so incensed that Inquirer had to deny their own story. Granted that they were unsure of the story why did they make it into a headline?
Immediately after the false headline, Inquirer promised an investigation into how it happened. In ANC’s program Media Focus, Isagani Yambot, publisher of Inquirer repeated the promise and said that the investigation will be made public. Solita Monsod, Inquirer columnist was also in the panel. During the discussion, Monsod said that should satisfy critics since it is now being investigated and the results to be released to the public. What else do we want? So far no release has been made.
In the talk show, Yambot, when a panelist asked the source of the story replied the story came from a public relations firm that they trust and did not have any reason to doubt the story. This was heard by thousands of television watchers. Their stories were usually reliable added Yambot. Is it so difficult to name this public relations firm? If this is true then it will tell us the raison d’tre of Inquirer’s editorial policy.
However, the editorial board did meet, Yambot said. It was a collegial decision. There may have been disagreement about the story and whether or not it should be the banner story. The editor overruled the objections and got the story printed as a headline.
The Manalac case is worth recalling because it has happened again this time with the UST-Corona story. Sources said Manalac’s case was more than just irresponsible journalism. It had more to do with his role in the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU), an agreement among the PNOC, China National Offshore Oil Co., and PetroVietnam to jointly gather seismic data in some areas of South China Sea. That makes him a target for geopolitical intrigues. These are then made out to be merely local politics to hide its true intent. Once again the NBN-ZTE issue is being resurrected, but today Manalac is out of it.
His answer to those who would tar the Joint Marine Seismic Undertaking (JMSU) is straightforward. He justifies the JMSU as an “integral part” of the government’s energy independence agenda “to find and develop new indigenous petroleum reserves as a hedge against our country’s high dependence on imported petroleum, and the concurrent rise in the prices of oil.” It was part of a strategic alliance to promote regional energy security and to lessen dependence on imported oil.
* * *
06 January 2012
Mag-ingat sa tv, radyo at dyaryo
“Mag-ingat sa tv, radyo at dyaryo, baka masuklam ka sa mga ina-api, at mapamahal sa mga nang-aapi.” Restatement ng salita ni Malcolm X
01 January 2012
Q&A on the Aquino administration
The Manila Times
Published : Wednesday, December 28, 2011 00:00
Written by : EFREN L. DANAO
Q: What are the biggest achievements of the Aquino administration?
A: The detention of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Q: Explain the reason for such choice
A: The President had said that GMA would be in prison by December, and he is a man of his word. He has also relentlessly pursued the impeachment of CJ Corona and got the wholesale cooperation of 188 congressmen, most of whom signed the Articles of Impeachment without reading them. These two achievements are roundly approved by the people, based on surveys by the Social Weather Stations and so they enhanced the President’s popularity.
Q: How has the President progressed in his fight against corruption?
A: The President considers the arrest of GMA the crown jewel of his fight against corruption. He also deems CJ Corona the main stumbling block to his war against corruption. Once CJ Corona is found guilty by the Senate, you may expect the fight against corruption to gain much headway.
The administration has also ordered a slowdown in spending despite budget authorization to lessen corruption and budget deficit. Public works are among the main causes of corruption. The fewer the public works projects launched, the fewer the incidence of corruption.
Q: Jueteng and drugs are still rampant. Jueteng and drugs are said to be the root causes of corruption. Do GMA and CJ Corona have anything to do with these?
A: None, but the Aquino administration can focus only on one thing at a time. Once he is through with his two top enemies, he can concentrate on the lesser enemies like illegal numbers game and illegal drugs.
Q: During the campaign, the President correctly said that Filipinos should not be working abroad, and criticized the economy’s reliance on remittances from OFWs. What has he done to ensure the employment of OFWs who decide to return?
A: None. He said he wanted them to work here but did not say he would give them work. This might come later. In the meantime, the Philippine economy remains reliant on remittances of OFWs.
Q: The President showed he would not countenance incompetence among public servants when he fired the chief of PAG-ASA for not correctly predicting the path of a disastrous typhoon. Why hasn’t he fired PAG-ASA officials who also were off-mark in their predictions, and the bumbling DILG officials involved in the Luneta hostage fiasco?
A: Malacanang said the time for finger-pointing is over. What’s more, those DILG officials are his appointees. And why should he fire his appointees? They could not do wrong. And if they do something wrong, why, keep them off the public radar to keep the outcry for their heads from boiling over.
Q: The President said “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Surveys showed there are now more poor and hungry people than in the GMA administration. Does this mean corruption has increased under the Aquino administration?
A: No, not at all! Poverty has increased because of the worldwide recession and not because of mis-steps by the current administration in its drive against corruption. In fact, it has ordered the arrest of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona.
Q: What has the administration done to reduce poverty?
A: It has increased the number of recipients of its Conditional Cash Transfer program. This is the main cog of the administration’s strategy to minimize poverty. The more people receiving government dole-outs, the fewer remain poor.
Q: The Philippine economy is falling. In fact it did better under the much-maligned GMA administration. What has the Aquino administration done to improve the situation?
A: It has ordered the arrest of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona.
Q: Isn’t that begging the question?
A: Well, the administration has been trying to keep itself from discussing the economy. At the forum organized by Makati businessmen, President talked not about the economy but about the stumbling blocks posed by CJ Corona and the Supreme Court.
Q: Why should it be afraid to discuss the economy?
A: The people have not been complaining about the economy anyway. So, why should the administration talk about something where it would be placed on the defensive? What’s more, any discussion of the issue might make the people realize that they are now worse off despite the detention of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona.
Q: What will happen in the coming year?
A: The administration will continue to harp on the arrest of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona until year-end. It could even wage a “shame” campaign” to force CJ Corona to resign without undergoing impeachment trial. Then, it could put a cap to its glorious campaign against corruption in government and win big in the May 2013 election.
efrendanao2003@yahoo.com
Published : Wednesday, December 28, 2011 00:00
Written by : EFREN L. DANAO
Q: What are the biggest achievements of the Aquino administration?
A: The detention of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Q: Explain the reason for such choice
A: The President had said that GMA would be in prison by December, and he is a man of his word. He has also relentlessly pursued the impeachment of CJ Corona and got the wholesale cooperation of 188 congressmen, most of whom signed the Articles of Impeachment without reading them. These two achievements are roundly approved by the people, based on surveys by the Social Weather Stations and so they enhanced the President’s popularity.
Q: How has the President progressed in his fight against corruption?
A: The President considers the arrest of GMA the crown jewel of his fight against corruption. He also deems CJ Corona the main stumbling block to his war against corruption. Once CJ Corona is found guilty by the Senate, you may expect the fight against corruption to gain much headway.
The administration has also ordered a slowdown in spending despite budget authorization to lessen corruption and budget deficit. Public works are among the main causes of corruption. The fewer the public works projects launched, the fewer the incidence of corruption.
Q: Jueteng and drugs are still rampant. Jueteng and drugs are said to be the root causes of corruption. Do GMA and CJ Corona have anything to do with these?
A: None, but the Aquino administration can focus only on one thing at a time. Once he is through with his two top enemies, he can concentrate on the lesser enemies like illegal numbers game and illegal drugs.
Q: During the campaign, the President correctly said that Filipinos should not be working abroad, and criticized the economy’s reliance on remittances from OFWs. What has he done to ensure the employment of OFWs who decide to return?
A: None. He said he wanted them to work here but did not say he would give them work. This might come later. In the meantime, the Philippine economy remains reliant on remittances of OFWs.
Q: The President showed he would not countenance incompetence among public servants when he fired the chief of PAG-ASA for not correctly predicting the path of a disastrous typhoon. Why hasn’t he fired PAG-ASA officials who also were off-mark in their predictions, and the bumbling DILG officials involved in the Luneta hostage fiasco?
A: Malacanang said the time for finger-pointing is over. What’s more, those DILG officials are his appointees. And why should he fire his appointees? They could not do wrong. And if they do something wrong, why, keep them off the public radar to keep the outcry for their heads from boiling over.
Q: The President said “kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” Surveys showed there are now more poor and hungry people than in the GMA administration. Does this mean corruption has increased under the Aquino administration?
A: No, not at all! Poverty has increased because of the worldwide recession and not because of mis-steps by the current administration in its drive against corruption. In fact, it has ordered the arrest of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona.
Q: What has the administration done to reduce poverty?
A: It has increased the number of recipients of its Conditional Cash Transfer program. This is the main cog of the administration’s strategy to minimize poverty. The more people receiving government dole-outs, the fewer remain poor.
Q: The Philippine economy is falling. In fact it did better under the much-maligned GMA administration. What has the Aquino administration done to improve the situation?
A: It has ordered the arrest of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona.
Q: Isn’t that begging the question?
A: Well, the administration has been trying to keep itself from discussing the economy. At the forum organized by Makati businessmen, President talked not about the economy but about the stumbling blocks posed by CJ Corona and the Supreme Court.
Q: Why should it be afraid to discuss the economy?
A: The people have not been complaining about the economy anyway. So, why should the administration talk about something where it would be placed on the defensive? What’s more, any discussion of the issue might make the people realize that they are now worse off despite the detention of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona.
Q: What will happen in the coming year?
A: The administration will continue to harp on the arrest of GMA and the impeachment of CJ Corona until year-end. It could even wage a “shame” campaign” to force CJ Corona to resign without undergoing impeachment trial. Then, it could put a cap to its glorious campaign against corruption in government and win big in the May 2013 election.
efrendanao2003@yahoo.com
19 December 2011
IBP: No to Impeachment; Defend the Institution
This is the Statement of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines issued at a press conference held at the IBP Boardroom, 3rd floor IBP Building, on 14 December 2011 regarding the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato C. Corona.
NO TO IMPEACHMENT, DEFEND THE INSTITUTION
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the official organization of lawyers, expresses its grave concern over the breakneck impeachment of the Chief Justice based on grounds that subvert the constitutional allocation of powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and arbiter of judicial disputes as enshrined in the Constitution.
The impeachment has placed on trial not only the Chief Justice but the entire Supreme Court. The grounds invoked to impeach the Chief Justice refer to collegial decisions of the Supreme Court involving interpretations of law in actual disputes elevated for review, particularly the following:
a) The invalidation by the Supreme Court of the Executive Order creating the Truth Commission;
b) The upholding by the Supreme Court of the laws enacted by Congress and the Senate involving the creation of the province of Dinagat Island, the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities, and creation of a new congressional district in Camarines Sur;
c) The issuance by the Supreme Court of a status quo ante order in the impeachment proceedings against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez;
d) The issuance by the Supreme Court of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Watchlist Order preventing the travel abroad of the former President under a travel authority issued by Congress for medical reasons.
In all of the cited cases, the record shows that the Chief Justice was not the ponente but merely concurred in the majority or minority opinion. Neither did the Chief Justice flip‐flop or change his position in any of these cases. The decisions were reached by the Supreme Court pursuant to its processes and subjected to reconsideration proceedings. They all involve interpretation of what the law is.
Even the two other grounds cited in the impeachment – failure to submit the SALN and account for the JDF and SAJ collections – also involve the assertion by the Supreme Court of its fiscal autonomy. Pursuant to a 1992 SC Resolution, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices are filing their SALN directly with the Clerk of Court ‐‐ and not with any other government unit ‐‐ in keeping with its independent status. It has also exercised its authority over the SAJ and JDF collections in keeping
with its fiscal autonomy, which the Commission on Audit has not disallowed.
By impeaching the Chief Justice based on decisions issued by the Supreme Court now claimed to be unconstitutional, the House is in effect arrogating unto itself the power to interpret the law over and above the Supreme Court. Such an impeachment has transformed the House of Representatives as the higher interpreter of what the law is, a clear encroachment on the prerogatives exclusively vested by the Constitution
in the Supreme Court itself.
If the exercise of judicial review by the Supreme Court to pass upon the acts of other departments of government and to interpret the applicable laws could warrant congressional impeachment – despite the absence of any allegations of financial or illegal consideration ‐‐ then the great constitutional doctrines of separation of powers and judicial supremacy on matters of interpretation of the law would completely crumble and fall apart.
While we support the reform agenda of the President, its implementation must respect – and not subvert ‐‐ the constitutional allocation of powers. Of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the weakest. It does not have the powerful sword of the President or the awesome purse of Congress. Its only weapon is the passive power of judicial review.
If that constitutional weapon is despoiled, then its effectiveness as the protective mantle against potential excesses of power by the President and Congress would be defanged and rendered inutile. If the Supreme Court is emasculated by partisan actions, to whom shall the people turn to against excesses by those who are in power? The lessons of the past should be learned.
As sentinel of freedom and democracy, the IBP considers the breakneck and high‐handed impeachment delivered by the House as a menace and an open subversion of the constitutional prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and the arbiter of rights.
Thus, the IBP, cognizant of its institutional mandates, calls upon the stakeholders and the pillars of the justice system to rally behind and defend the Supreme Court as an institution of democracy and the Rule of Law.
ROAN I. LIBARIOS
National President &
Chairman of the Board
DENIS B. HABAWEL
Governor for Northern Luzon
OLIVIA V. JACOBA
Governor for Central Luzon
DOMINIC C.M. SOLIS
Governor for Greater Manila
VICENTE M. JOYAS
Governor for Southern Luzon
LEONOR L. GERONA-ROMEO
Governor for Bicolandia
MANUEL L. ENAGE, JR.
Governor for Eastern Visayas
ERWIN M. FORTUNATO
Governor for Western Visayas
ISRAELITO P. TORREON
Governor for Eastern Mindanao
FLORENDO B. OPAY
Governor for Western Mindanao
NO TO IMPEACHMENT, DEFEND THE INSTITUTION
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the official organization of lawyers, expresses its grave concern over the breakneck impeachment of the Chief Justice based on grounds that subvert the constitutional allocation of powers and prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and arbiter of judicial disputes as enshrined in the Constitution.
The impeachment has placed on trial not only the Chief Justice but the entire Supreme Court. The grounds invoked to impeach the Chief Justice refer to collegial decisions of the Supreme Court involving interpretations of law in actual disputes elevated for review, particularly the following:
a) The invalidation by the Supreme Court of the Executive Order creating the Truth Commission;
b) The upholding by the Supreme Court of the laws enacted by Congress and the Senate involving the creation of the province of Dinagat Island, the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities, and creation of a new congressional district in Camarines Sur;
c) The issuance by the Supreme Court of a status quo ante order in the impeachment proceedings against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez;
d) The issuance by the Supreme Court of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Watchlist Order preventing the travel abroad of the former President under a travel authority issued by Congress for medical reasons.
In all of the cited cases, the record shows that the Chief Justice was not the ponente but merely concurred in the majority or minority opinion. Neither did the Chief Justice flip‐flop or change his position in any of these cases. The decisions were reached by the Supreme Court pursuant to its processes and subjected to reconsideration proceedings. They all involve interpretation of what the law is.
Even the two other grounds cited in the impeachment – failure to submit the SALN and account for the JDF and SAJ collections – also involve the assertion by the Supreme Court of its fiscal autonomy. Pursuant to a 1992 SC Resolution, the Chief Justice and Associate Justices are filing their SALN directly with the Clerk of Court ‐‐ and not with any other government unit ‐‐ in keeping with its independent status. It has also exercised its authority over the SAJ and JDF collections in keeping
with its fiscal autonomy, which the Commission on Audit has not disallowed.
By impeaching the Chief Justice based on decisions issued by the Supreme Court now claimed to be unconstitutional, the House is in effect arrogating unto itself the power to interpret the law over and above the Supreme Court. Such an impeachment has transformed the House of Representatives as the higher interpreter of what the law is, a clear encroachment on the prerogatives exclusively vested by the Constitution
in the Supreme Court itself.
If the exercise of judicial review by the Supreme Court to pass upon the acts of other departments of government and to interpret the applicable laws could warrant congressional impeachment – despite the absence of any allegations of financial or illegal consideration ‐‐ then the great constitutional doctrines of separation of powers and judicial supremacy on matters of interpretation of the law would completely crumble and fall apart.
While we support the reform agenda of the President, its implementation must respect – and not subvert ‐‐ the constitutional allocation of powers. Of the three branches of government, the judiciary is the weakest. It does not have the powerful sword of the President or the awesome purse of Congress. Its only weapon is the passive power of judicial review.
If that constitutional weapon is despoiled, then its effectiveness as the protective mantle against potential excesses of power by the President and Congress would be defanged and rendered inutile. If the Supreme Court is emasculated by partisan actions, to whom shall the people turn to against excesses by those who are in power? The lessons of the past should be learned.
As sentinel of freedom and democracy, the IBP considers the breakneck and high‐handed impeachment delivered by the House as a menace and an open subversion of the constitutional prerogatives of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the law and the arbiter of rights.
Thus, the IBP, cognizant of its institutional mandates, calls upon the stakeholders and the pillars of the justice system to rally behind and defend the Supreme Court as an institution of democracy and the Rule of Law.
ROAN I. LIBARIOS
National President &
Chairman of the Board
DENIS B. HABAWEL
Governor for Northern Luzon
OLIVIA V. JACOBA
Governor for Central Luzon
DOMINIC C.M. SOLIS
Governor for Greater Manila
VICENTE M. JOYAS
Governor for Southern Luzon
LEONOR L. GERONA-ROMEO
Governor for Bicolandia
MANUEL L. ENAGE, JR.
Governor for Eastern Visayas
ERWIN M. FORTUNATO
Governor for Western Visayas
ISRAELITO P. TORREON
Governor for Eastern Mindanao
FLORENDO B. OPAY
Governor for Western Mindanao
16 December 2011
Wasakin ang Demokrasya
Wasakin ang Simbahan - "pajero Bishops"
Wasakin ang Militar - "pabaon Generals"
Wasakin ang Korte Suprema - "CoronArroyo"
Itatag ang Diktaturya at
Ibalik ang Hacienda Luisita!
Bakit ba yung iilan, di pa rin nai-intindihan?
Wasakin ang Militar - "pabaon Generals"
Wasakin ang Korte Suprema - "CoronArroyo"
Itatag ang Diktaturya at
Ibalik ang Hacienda Luisita!
Bakit ba yung iilan, di pa rin nai-intindihan?
30 November 2011
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, farmers victorious vs Aquino hacienda
Outlook
By: Rigoberto Tiglao
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:36 pm | Wednesday, November 30th, 2011
You’d have to visit Hacienda Luisita to realize how vast it is, why it’s been a symbol not only of elite rule in our country but of its hypocrisy and powers of deceit. It’s the biggest hacienda in the country, with a total area of 64.4 square kilometers—nearly as big as the cities of Manila and Makati combined.
The sugarcane fields as far as the eye can see were a marvel for me when I first visited the hacienda in 1970. It was troubling though to see emasculated sugar workers, their skin blackened by the hot Central Luzon sun, their shoulders nearly buckling under the weight of sugarcane poles, and after that to be served US steak from nearby American Clark Airfield in an air-conditioned hacienda mansion. Class exploitation, class struggle are not ideas but realities in this hacienda, I then felt.
Indeed, it was in this hacienda that the legendary guerrilla Commander Dante, as a teenage cane-cutter, decided to take up arms against the ruling class. Yet it was ironic that it was also in the hacienda that an opposition figure named Benigno Aquino Jr.—who married into the Cojuangco clan that owned the plantation—brokered a historic meeting between Dante and Maoist demagogue Jose Sison, which led to the organization of the New People’s Army. The hacienda until martial law would be a nursery and refuge for the fledgling NPA, which Aquino calculated he could utilize in his fight against Marcos.
It wasn’t Marcos who invented behest loans. The hacienda, together with the sugar refinery, was acquired from the European firm Tabacalera in 1958 by the clan led by President Aquino’s maternal grandfather Jose Cojuangco through a P12.9-million loan from the Government Service Insurance System, and through a $2.1 million-loan from the Central Bank of the Philippines. The loan’s condition though was that the hacienda’s agricultural lands would be sold to its tenants at “reasonable” costs.
Because the Cojuangcos rejected the demands made several times by the central bank and the Land Authority starting in 1967 to implement this condition, the government in 1980 filed a case in the Manila Regional Trial Court to compel them to do so. There are no tenants to distribute the land to, the Cojuangcos replied.
The case dragged on for five years until Judge Bernardo Pardo (years later the Comelec chairman and then Supreme Court justice) in December 1985 ruled that the hacienda’s lands should be distributed to the farmers. Persecution by the Marcos regime, the clan claimed, and ran to the Court of Appeals.
Two months later, the Edsa Revolution of February 1986 would save the hacienda for the Cojuangcos. In 1988 during President Cory’s term, the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Central Bank of the Philippines, and the GSIS informed the Court of Appeals that they were no longer interested in pursuing the case to require the Cojuangcos to distribute the lands to the farmers. The Court ruled that the hacienda would instead fall under the provisions of President Aquino’s “comprehensive agrarian reform program.”
Fortunately for the Cojuangcos, that program provided for an option in which, instead of distributing the land, the landlord may issue the farmers papers called stock certificates, representing their supposed minority ownership of shares in the corporation the landlord sets up to own the hacienda.
This scheme made land reform such a farce that only 12 other much smaller haciendas dared use it. Cory though was the saint of Philippine democracy who could do no wrong, and the defiance by her clan’s hacienda of the Constitution’s land-reform mandate receded in the public mind. Starting in the 1990s, parts of the Hacienda would be transformed into a profitable modern complex with an industrial park, a business center, a shopping mall, two hotels, and a world-class golf course.
In November 2004, after the so-called Luisita massacre in which seven striking plantation workers were killed at the picket line—and seven others murdered one by one by assassins later—the DAR, under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, accelerated its investigation over a complaint by the hacienda union that the stock distribution scheme was a farce.
In December 2005, upon recommendation of the DAR, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council—a body Cory set up in 1987, made up of 15 Cabinet members and chaired by President Arroyo—ordered the hacienda’s fake land reform ended, and for the land to be distributed to the farmer-workers.
“Persecution by the Arroyo regime,” the clan then complained.
This time around though, there was no People Power uprising to overthrow the administration that went against them, so they could hold on to the hacienda. The Cojuangcos appealed to the Supreme Court. It is only six years later last week that the Court upheld the Arroyo government’s decision.
The Court’s decision could mean the clan’s bankruptcy. The Court not only ordered the Cojuangcos to immediately distribute 4,915 hectares to the haciendas’ farmer-workers. It also ordered them to pay the farmer-workers P1.33 billion, the proceeds of the sale of hacienda lands that became the industrial and business parks. Agrarian reform laws will peg “just compensation” for the clan at 1989 levels, or just about P200 million. Now I understand why they hate Chief Justice Renato Corona so much.
Arroyo’s critics claim she went against the Cojuangcos to retaliate against Cory’s participation in the July 2005 conspiracy to topple her. The counter-argument could be posed in a question: If Arroyo was overthrown in 2005, would the new DAR and a new Cabinet have ordered real land reform at the hacienda?
Now I understand why they would torment and put a former president in jail on the basis of the say-so of a lone witness implicated in the Maguindanao massacre. “Accountability” and “reckoning” have indeed taken a chilling meaning.
By: Rigoberto Tiglao
Philippine Daily Inquirer
10:36 pm | Wednesday, November 30th, 2011
You’d have to visit Hacienda Luisita to realize how vast it is, why it’s been a symbol not only of elite rule in our country but of its hypocrisy and powers of deceit. It’s the biggest hacienda in the country, with a total area of 64.4 square kilometers—nearly as big as the cities of Manila and Makati combined.
The sugarcane fields as far as the eye can see were a marvel for me when I first visited the hacienda in 1970. It was troubling though to see emasculated sugar workers, their skin blackened by the hot Central Luzon sun, their shoulders nearly buckling under the weight of sugarcane poles, and after that to be served US steak from nearby American Clark Airfield in an air-conditioned hacienda mansion. Class exploitation, class struggle are not ideas but realities in this hacienda, I then felt.
Indeed, it was in this hacienda that the legendary guerrilla Commander Dante, as a teenage cane-cutter, decided to take up arms against the ruling class. Yet it was ironic that it was also in the hacienda that an opposition figure named Benigno Aquino Jr.—who married into the Cojuangco clan that owned the plantation—brokered a historic meeting between Dante and Maoist demagogue Jose Sison, which led to the organization of the New People’s Army. The hacienda until martial law would be a nursery and refuge for the fledgling NPA, which Aquino calculated he could utilize in his fight against Marcos.
It wasn’t Marcos who invented behest loans. The hacienda, together with the sugar refinery, was acquired from the European firm Tabacalera in 1958 by the clan led by President Aquino’s maternal grandfather Jose Cojuangco through a P12.9-million loan from the Government Service Insurance System, and through a $2.1 million-loan from the Central Bank of the Philippines. The loan’s condition though was that the hacienda’s agricultural lands would be sold to its tenants at “reasonable” costs.
Because the Cojuangcos rejected the demands made several times by the central bank and the Land Authority starting in 1967 to implement this condition, the government in 1980 filed a case in the Manila Regional Trial Court to compel them to do so. There are no tenants to distribute the land to, the Cojuangcos replied.
The case dragged on for five years until Judge Bernardo Pardo (years later the Comelec chairman and then Supreme Court justice) in December 1985 ruled that the hacienda’s lands should be distributed to the farmers. Persecution by the Marcos regime, the clan claimed, and ran to the Court of Appeals.
Two months later, the Edsa Revolution of February 1986 would save the hacienda for the Cojuangcos. In 1988 during President Cory’s term, the Department of Agrarian Reform, the Central Bank of the Philippines, and the GSIS informed the Court of Appeals that they were no longer interested in pursuing the case to require the Cojuangcos to distribute the lands to the farmers. The Court ruled that the hacienda would instead fall under the provisions of President Aquino’s “comprehensive agrarian reform program.”
Fortunately for the Cojuangcos, that program provided for an option in which, instead of distributing the land, the landlord may issue the farmers papers called stock certificates, representing their supposed minority ownership of shares in the corporation the landlord sets up to own the hacienda.
This scheme made land reform such a farce that only 12 other much smaller haciendas dared use it. Cory though was the saint of Philippine democracy who could do no wrong, and the defiance by her clan’s hacienda of the Constitution’s land-reform mandate receded in the public mind. Starting in the 1990s, parts of the Hacienda would be transformed into a profitable modern complex with an industrial park, a business center, a shopping mall, two hotels, and a world-class golf course.
In November 2004, after the so-called Luisita massacre in which seven striking plantation workers were killed at the picket line—and seven others murdered one by one by assassins later—the DAR, under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, accelerated its investigation over a complaint by the hacienda union that the stock distribution scheme was a farce.
In December 2005, upon recommendation of the DAR, the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council—a body Cory set up in 1987, made up of 15 Cabinet members and chaired by President Arroyo—ordered the hacienda’s fake land reform ended, and for the land to be distributed to the farmer-workers.
“Persecution by the Arroyo regime,” the clan then complained.
This time around though, there was no People Power uprising to overthrow the administration that went against them, so they could hold on to the hacienda. The Cojuangcos appealed to the Supreme Court. It is only six years later last week that the Court upheld the Arroyo government’s decision.
The Court’s decision could mean the clan’s bankruptcy. The Court not only ordered the Cojuangcos to immediately distribute 4,915 hectares to the haciendas’ farmer-workers. It also ordered them to pay the farmer-workers P1.33 billion, the proceeds of the sale of hacienda lands that became the industrial and business parks. Agrarian reform laws will peg “just compensation” for the clan at 1989 levels, or just about P200 million. Now I understand why they hate Chief Justice Renato Corona so much.
Arroyo’s critics claim she went against the Cojuangcos to retaliate against Cory’s participation in the July 2005 conspiracy to topple her. The counter-argument could be posed in a question: If Arroyo was overthrown in 2005, would the new DAR and a new Cabinet have ordered real land reform at the hacienda?
Now I understand why they would torment and put a former president in jail on the basis of the say-so of a lone witness implicated in the Maguindanao massacre. “Accountability” and “reckoning” have indeed taken a chilling meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)