ninoy & the hacienda

21 August 2010

sychronicity: ninoy aquino’s 27th death anniversary (the filipino is worth dying for) and the hearing of the high-profile hacienda luisita case (scheme sdo) in the supreme court.

there’s good background stuff on the internet, thanks to gmanews.tv, and there’s lynda jumilla’s report on anc, salamat naman, altho sana sa free tv and mainstream media rin, ‘no?

because it’s interesting, revealing, if not really surprising, how inextricably linked the stories of ninoy and cory are with the hacienda’s masalimuot history.

read howie severino et al’s holding on: a hacienda luisita timeline from the spanish to the noynoy eras

read leloy claudio’s ninoy networked with everyone including the reds

if ninoy had lived, would he have handled the hacienda problem differently?   it would seem so, though it would have meant a major rift split rupturewith the cojuangcos, unless he could have been really creative and come up with a compromise that both cory and the farmers could live with.

now that noynoy is president, and he seems more of a cojuangco than a ninoy aquino — read carlos conde’s aquino is being shrewd about hacienda luisita — looks like the pattern could persist, which bodes ill for the farmers and the nation but bodes good for other haciendas and big landowners who continue to defy the law, what a drag.

here’s a partial list of other families owning vast tracts of land via KMP via mon ramirez:

Hacienda Zobel in Calatagan, Batangas – 12,000 hectares
Hacienda Yulo in Nasugbu, Batangas – 8,650 hectares
Hacienda Roxas also in Nasugbu – 7,813 hectares
Hacienda Yulo in Canlubang, Calamba – 7,100 hectares
Hacienda Luisita – 6,453 hectares
Hacienda Puyat also in Nasugbu, Batangas – 2,400 hectares
Hacienda Agoncillo in Laurel, Batangas – 2,014 hectares

There are more in other provinces and regions.

To get an idea of the size of each hacienda, compare them with the land areas of these four cities:

QC – 16,000 hectares
Manila – 3,955 hectares
Makati – 2,738 hectares
Marikina – 2,150 hectares

7 Responses to ninoy & the hacienda

  1. August 21, 2010 at 2:46 am

    i may not be a fan of his daughter but i always commemorate ninoy’s death with this entry.
    ninoy after his death. http://pinaysaamerika.blogspot.com/2010/08/benigno-aquino-jr-and-my-friend.html

    kung ayaw ninyong maniwala, sabi nga ni noynoy kebs ko.

  2. August 23, 2010 at 12:08 am
    lynda jumilla

    thank you, ms. stuart-santiago, for your comments. the tagalog version of the story on the hacienda luisita loan conditions aired earlier that night on TV Patrol. although the fact that the cojuangcos (arguably) did not honor the loan conditions was academic — meaning, wala nang habol ang creditors dahil bayad na ang utang — i thought it should be brought out just the same to help provide perspective to this long-running debate over hacienda luisita.

  3. August 23, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    hello lynda ;) sorry i missed that tagalog version. i like your work, even catch sro sometimes. i guess it helps that youre more smart than maarte ;)) how about doing a report on the sdo. was just reading fr. bernas in inquirer today. no one’s explaining why farmers were offered 30% lang of stocks, why it was okay that cojuangcos retained 70%. kumbaga sa lupa yan, parang 30% lang ang ipinamahagi?

  4. August 23, 2010 at 3:03 pm
    GabbyD

    @angela

    the answer 2 ur question is in bernas’ column:

    “The pertinent stock option provision says: “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,”

    hence, the share of ag lands in the total capital stock of the corporation is only 30%. the gma7 report on HL prior to the elections gives details on that number. one reason why its so low is that the standing crop is also calculated to be part of the value of HL (but is NOT agri lands)

  5. August 23, 2010 at 3:09 pm

    @gabbyd ;) oops yeah but still, was that deliberate, na over the years, nabawasan na lang nang nabawasan ang agricultural land, so that they wouldn’t be covered by land reform? i’m always coming from the original intent back in 1957 when it was obvious that the land was for distributing to farmers, all 6 thou plus hectares, kaya lang pinagbigyan ang cojuangcos na pagkakitaan muna.

  6. August 23, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Hey angela: Winnie Monsod had an explanation. The SDO assumes that the farmers own all the land (4,400 ha. thereabouts) but they “contribute” that into the capital of HLI. The Cojuangcos contribute “other assets” which include residential land, machinery, etc. The valuation put on the farmers’ land and on the other assets is such that their sharing in the total capital of HLI ends up at 30-70. Winnie complains that if the valuation were more favorable to the farmers, it could have been 50-50 or even 70-30. It depends on the auditing/accounting of the corporate assets, and it will do the Cojuangcos a lot of good will if they allow an independent accountant to review the books of HLI to settle the questions raised by Monsod.

  7. August 23, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    thanks orlando ;) okay, so 4,400 ha. of 6,453 ha. is fair? parang yun ang allowed retention ng pamilya? some 2000 hectares, ‘no. dahil converted na to non-agricultural? but yes to winnie, 70-30 in favor of farmers sounds good. and open books, yes yes yes!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twitter

follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago