A highly politicized Supreme Court

BACKBENCHER
Rod Kapunan
7/16-17/2011



The people have often referred the Supreme Court as the court of last resort. Their reference to it is not really for what it means, but more importantly that they expect it to resolve their disputes with finality.

But in the recent ruling of the country’s most controversial land case, the Supreme Court instead created issues, thereby reopening old wounds which the parties believe could have been by their submission to its the jurisdiction. Such was the case of Hacienda Luisita. Instead of resolving the issues, it ordered the re-holding of a referendum. For that the highly politicized Supreme

Court practically acted like Pontius Pilate. By the washing of its hands, it threw back the problem to the litigants.

As pointed out by many, had it simplified the problem by taking cognizance of the original agreement to distribute the lands to the tenants after 20 years —as the hacienda overlords promised with the GSIS when they obtained the loan to purchase their property from Tabacalera, a promise which has now been translated to a decision by then Tarlac Judge Bernardo Pardo—the problem could have been a closed case by now.

Rather, the Supreme Court’s order for the owners of the 2 healed 6,443 hectares Hacienda Luisita to conduct another referendum to an estimated 6,296 farm workers on whether they favor land distribution or stick to their old decision in favor of a stock distribution option (SDO), became another of its infamous decisions.

It was political rather than a judicial decision to scrap the result of the referendum in 1990 where the farm workers of Hacienda Luisita already voted in favor of SDO instead of a piece of land they could till as their own.

It was irregular because there was no allegation of fraud for the court to validly set aside the result of the earlier referendum. All that was raised by those who were against the giving of those worthless SDOs is it did not improve their economic condition. Effectively, the decision ignored the real issues that the giving of stocks as substitute to land reform was unconstitutional and illegal.

It will not even suffice for the Supreme Court to reopen the case on the ground that those who voted in favor of SDO changed their mind. Unless and until the earlier referendum was characterized by massive fraud resulting in their being shortchanged, the decision by the alleged majority could no longer be disturbed. As the saying goes, they have to swallow the bitter pill of their own decision.

But having immersed itself deeply in politics, the Supreme Court derailed the case altogether. Instead of rectifying the issues, it validated an option not found in the constitution.

The people expected the Supreme Court, as the final interpreter of the Constitution and of the laws, to declare Republic Act No. 66573 as unconstitutional. To paradoxically restate what that “tantrumatic” Senator Miriam Santiago said to PCSO chairwomen Margie Juico, all that was needed was for one to know how to read, and literally he could rightly interpret the Constitution beginning with the elementary procedure of looking for that word “stocks” in the provision.

Up to now people wonder how the Supreme Court voted to the idea of reholding another referendum when there is nothing in Section 4, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution which says about stock distribution. Instead of striking out R.A. No. 6657 as unconstitutional, it rode on the crest of a questionable law enacted by highly partisan pro-Aquino followers who stupidly inserted stocks as an option to land reform.

The justices too, had their amnesia that the whole concept of agrarian reform is focused on how to redistribute the agricultural lands to the tillers of the soil, which has become a mandate after it was incorporated into the Constitution. Even if the legality of the SDO was not directly raised, it was its emblematic judicial duty, or as lawyers would put it muto proprio, to annul the agreement, it being rooted on an unconstitutional law.

Critics also argue that the prime portions of the hacienda had already been converted to an industrial park; that a mall had already been constructed; and that an exclusive hideaway subdivision complete with an 18 hole golf course and a country club had been built. This has effectively reduced the original land area to 4,915 hectares with the Supreme Court arbitrarily reducing it further to 44,334.55 hectares without elaborating whether this is the area what would be subjected for referendum. In other words, the farmers were all left out in the sharing of the proceeds of those portions that were sold.

The question is, if ordinary land owners are prohibited from selling in whole or in part the property which is the subject of land reform, then how come the owners of Hacienda Luisita were allowed to dispose those prime portions of the land leaving those considered of less value to be included in the referendum?

Assuming they could no longer be recovered, still the Supreme Court failed to order the accounting of the proceeds in the sale of those prime portions of the hacienda to give the aggrieved farmers the cash equivalent of what they lost. It cannot be denied that aside from having acted in bad faith, the owners of the hacienda managed to rake, and continue to rake in, much profit from the sale and lease of their properties now classified as out of reach for land distribution or for partnership with the farmers through that much-hooted SDO.

Indeed the decision has given the public clarity on how the magistrates acted miserably; that they could not be wrong in accusing them of playing footsy with politics. the judgment was not on how to realign the issues with what the law provides, but on something that would ensure their future accommodation with the President. ingratiate themselves as a bounty awaits them after retirement.

(rodkap@yahoo.com.ph)