Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL No. 20921

Introduced by Anakpawis Partylist Representative RAFAEL V.
MARIANO, Bayan Muna Representatives TEODORO A. CASINO and
NERI J. COLMENARES, Gabriela Women’s Party Representatives
LUZVIMINDA C. ILAGAN and EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS,
Kabataan Partylist Representative RAYMOND V. PALATINO, and
ACT Teachers Partylist Representative ANTONIO L.TINIO

EXPLANATORY NOTE

ars ago, in November 2004, peasant unrest erupted at Hacienda
Luisita, more than 6,457 hectares of agricultural lands owned by the
Cojuangco-Aquinos, the family of current Philippine President Benigno
“Noynoy” Aquino III. Thousands of farmers and farmworkers, including their
families, launched a strike demanding, among others, the revocation/ recall
of the Stock Distribution Option (SDO) scheme under Republic Act No. 6657
or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, as amended,
implemented at the sprawling sugar estate in 1989.

On November 16, 2004, state security forces violently dispersed the strike
and opened-fire against the farmers and farmworkers. Seven farmers and
farm workers instantly died on that fateful day which is now known as the
Hacienda Luisita massacre.

The peasant strike and the massacre of Hacienda Luisita farmers has put on
the stage of national debate the CARP’s stock distribution option scheme as
an alternative to land acquisition and distribution, In December 2005, the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC] revoked/recalled the SDO plan
in Hacienda Luisita stating, among others, that: “the policy of no-work, no-
shares of stock is contrary to law and public policy; the setup under the
1989 memorandum of agreement is one-sided in favor HLI; the farm workers
remain ordinary farmers and the land remain under the full ownership and
control HL; and, the farmworkers’ economic conditions become onerous
and has miserably deteriorated.”



Immediately after the PARC’s revocation of the SDO in 2008, the Cojuangco-
Aquinos ran to the Supreme Court in 2006 and managed to secure a
temporary restraining order.

The High Court has yet to decide with finality on the Hacienda Luisita_
agrarian dispute pending before it. Despite the existing and standing order
of the PARC revoking/nullifying the SDO, the Cojuangco-Aquinos hatched a
so-called compromise agreement maintaining the SDO. The “compromise
agreement” was widely criticized by farmers, agrarian reform advocates and
constitutional experts as a move to pre-empt the Supreme Court case and
as another maneuver to evade land distribution.

Relatedly, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, a constitutional law expert, in an article in
the Philippine Daily Inquirer titled “Focus on Hacienda Luisita” published on
July 12, 2010, wrote:

“The mandate for agrarian reform is founded on “the right of farmers
and regular farm workers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to
receive a just share of the fruits thereof.” xxx

“It will be noticed that the Constitution makes a distinction between
what it calls “farmers who are regular farm workers” and “other farm
workers.” “Farmers who are regular farm workers” are those who at
the time of the enactment of the Constitution had a tenancy relationship
with the landowners. They are given the right to own the land they till
or its equivalent. The purpose of granting such farmers the right to own
the land they till is to abolish tenancy relationship. This reflects the
thinking that tenancy relations have been a source of many inequities.”

As to “other farm workers,” e.g., seasonal workers, what is assured
them is not the right to acquire ownership but a just share in the
proceeds from the land.”

It should be noted that Fr. Bernas’ piece clarified the intent of the 1987
Constitution on agrarian reform that is, “to abolish tenancy relations which
have been a source of many inequities,” and distinguished and clearly
defined the agrarian reform beneficiaries.

The SDO in Hacienda Laisita did not abolish tenancy relations. More than
fifteen years before the PARC rendered its resolution revoking/nullifying the
SDO and up to now, feudal relations continue to exist in the Hacienda. The
Cojuangeo-Aquinos continuously acts as feudal lords and treat farmers as.
their serfs that can be forced to do and sign anything, including a sham deal
that retains the onerous SDO and the Cojuangco feudal lords’ ownership
and control over the lands.

Data from Department of Agrarian Reform shows that thirteen (13)
farmlands were placed under Stock Distribution Option scheme, with a total


of 7,703 hectares and mostly big sugar landholdings which includes the
4,916 hectares of Hacienda Luisita. Of these, nine are from Negros
Occidental, two from Iloilo, and one in Davao and Tarlac. The landholdings
where SDO was implemented are the following:

Corporation Province Crop ‘Area
= (Has)
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. __| Tarlac Sugarcane 4,916 _
Archie Fishpond, Inc. Negros Sugarcane 102
Occidental
Archie Al Acuna Agricultural ‘Sugarcane los”
cl _ “Sugarcane | 113
Development Corp. Occidental -
[Ma, Clara Marine Ventures, | Negros Sugarcane 38
Ine. Occidental _
Palma Kabankalan Negros Sugarcane 219
| Agricultural Corp. | Occidental
Tabigue Marine Ventures, Inc. | Negros Sugarcane 50
Occidental
Ledesma Hermanos Negros Sugarcane 1,024
Agricultural Corp. Occidental _
Hernandez Sugar Plantation, | Hoilo | Sugarcane 231
Inc.
Negros Industrial By-Prod and | Negros Sugarcane 438
Proc., Inc. Occidental
Wuthrich Hermanos, Inc. Tloilo Sugarcane 174
SVJ Farms, Inc Negros Sugarcane 170
| Occidental
Asia Agro-Industrial Services | Davao del Sur__| Coconut 100
TOTAL 7,703 |

‘The nine landholdings which were placed under SDO Scheme in Negros
Occidental have a total arca of 2,282 hectares, with 1,728 agrarian reform
beneficiaries, six of these have been in existence since 1991, the other three
since 1992

Hacienda Luisita was exempted from CARP distribution converting sugar
workers into stockholders and daily workers receiving Php 9.50 per day
without any share in the gross sales. Similarly, agrarian reform beneficiaries
of the SVJ Farms complain of low wages and unclear dividends which is
contrary to the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the landowner
and farmworkers. Profit-sharing is not honored. Also, there is neither rice
subsidy nor housing support. Likewise, farmworkers complain of similar
problems in Hacienda Palma. They only receive Php 500 for every person per
year as dividend, at most.


Farmworkers and agrarian reform beneficiaries of Hacienda Palma, Najalin
Agri Ventures, Inc., Ma. Clara Marine Ventures, Inc. and SVJ Farms asked
DAR-Negros for the immediate cancellation of SDO and move instead for
land distribution.

The SDO, embodied in Section 10 of Executive Order 229, PROVIDING THE
MECHANISMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM issued by President Corazon Cojuangco-Aquino on.
July 22, 1987, and in Sections 3 and 31 of RA 6657, were designed for
corporate farms which do not involve actual land transfer but the
distribution of so-called corporate stocks to peasants. It gave leeway to
landowners to evade land distribution, and retain control of the
landholdings.

This bill intends to stop big landlords’ circumvention of agrarian reform and
to correct the centuries-old social injustice inflicted against farmers and
farm workers across the country through the SDO. The implementation of
stock distribution option as a mode of compliance with CARP, the
farmworkers remain impoverished thus necessitates the immediate actual
distribution of lands.

In view of the foregoing, the immediate passage of this bill is earnestly
sought,

FAEL V. fe}
ANAKPAWIS Partylist

~ bo or DS
TEODORO A. CASINO NER]

Bayan Muna Partylist

LUZVIMINDA C. ILAGAN EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS
Gabriela Women’s Party Gabriela Women’s Party

RAYMOND V. PALATINO ‘ON! SINC
Kabaypat

Partylist ACT Teachers Partylist


Republic of the Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon City

FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
First Regular Session

HOUSE BILL NO. _ 2521

Introduced by Anakpawis Partylist Representative RAFAEL V.
MARIANO, Bayan Muna Representatives TEODORO A. CASINO and
NERI J. COLMENARES, Gabriela Women’s Party Representatives
LUZVIMINDA C. ILAGAN and EMERENCIANA A. DE JESUS, Kabataan
Partylist Representative RAYMOND V. PALATINO, and ACT Teachers
Partylist Representative ANTONIO L. TINIO

AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS 3 AND 31 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS AMENDED

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress
assembled:

SECTION 1. Section 3(a] of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, otherwise known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, is hereby further amended to
read as follows:

SECTION 3. Definitions. - For the purpose of this Act, unless the context
dicates otherwise:

(a) Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or
fruits produced, to farmers and regular farm workers who are landless,
irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and
support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries [and
all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands,
such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the
distribution of shares of stock which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just
share of the fruits of the lands they work].

SECTION 2. Section 31 of RA 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended as
follows.

SECTION 31. Corporate Landowners. - Corporate landowners may
voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the
Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified
beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions consistent with this Act, as
they may agrce upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR.



[Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may
give their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the
capital stock of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted
to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company’s total assets,
under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no
case shall the compensation received by the workers at the time the shares
of stocks are distributed be reduced. The same principle shall be applied to
associations, with respect to their equity or participation.

Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their
capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other
qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied
with the provisions of this Act: Provided, That the following condition are
complied with:

{a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks
to dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or
association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants
chosen by the beneficiaries;

(b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association,
the beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the
board of directors, or in a management or executive committee, if one exists,
of the corporation or association;

(c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the
same rights and features as all other shares; and

(4) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void
ab initio unless said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered
beneficiary within the same corporation.

If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock
transfer envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock
distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural
land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the
compulsory coverage of this Act.)

SECTION 3. Repealing Clause. Section 10 of Exccutive Order 229 dated July 22,
1987 is hereby repealed. All laws, presidential decrees, administrative orders, and
rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act
are also hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

SECTION 4, Effectivity Clause. ‘This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its
publication in at least two (2} national newspapers of general circulation.

Approved.