Category: land reform

ninoy & the hacienda

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

fear & loathing in/for hacienda luisita

so hacienda luisita inc. has started buying off, i mean, paying off, i mean, distributing initial financial aid to farmers ranging, acc to anc, from 500 to a few thousand bucks.   grabe.   can’t blame the farmers (for caving in) but can’t say the same for the cojuangcos who are clearly defying the law.   mr. president?   hello?

from The Politics of Fear in Hacienda Luisita by Lisandro “Leloy” Claudio:

“Takot ang mga tao dito kaya hindi namin sila ma-organize. Mahirap na pag presidente ang kalaban mo (The people here are afraid, so we can’t organize them. It’s difficult when you’re up against a president),” says Kuya Bembol (pseudonym). Earlier that month, Kuya Bembol tried to take fellow farmers to an apolitical seminar on farming techniques hosted by the Katarungan NGO of Ricardo Reyes, who ran as the LP’s mayoral candidate in Pasig. Nobody took up the offer. They were afraid of any action that could be considered “political.”

This fear is not unwarranted. As I mentioned in my previous piece “Prinsipyo o Caldero: Why Noynoy won in Luisita,” the Liberal Party has the allegiance of the hacienda’s barangay captains. Since formalwork stopped in 2005, farmer-residents have been dependent on the captains to allot them plots of land to independently farm. Residents are afraid to do anything that might antagonize their respective captains.

But the fear in Luisita is more deep-seated; it has its roots in a historical trauma. The last time a Cojuangco became president, the family was able to eliminate calls for land distribution through implementing a broken and illegal Stock Distribution Option (SDO). Luisita management (and even Cory) claimed this was a valid move because the farmers voted for it in a referendum. However, according to Danny Carranza, a community organizer in the hacienda during the late 80s, farmers voted for the SDO under duress. Management told them that their jobs would be at risk if they voted against it.

According to FARM leaders, Luisita residents are afraid that the SDO or something similar to it will be implemented now that Noynoy is president. Should this happen, the Cojuangcos will once again completely control who works and who doesn’t. Put yourself in the position of a farmer. Based on what happened in the past, you believe that a Cojuangco as president will likely enable the family to have control over your livelihood once more. Should this happen, you will want a job from that family because life is hard. In a situation like this, would you risk antagonizing your landlords?

. . . Of course, P-Noy should put pressure on his family to withdraw the temporary restraining order that prevents the distribution of Luisita. He should also investigate the atrocities of the Hacienda Luisita massacre and the current trend towards the hacienda’s remilitarization.

Unfortunately, however, agrarian reform does not seem to be a priority for our new president. It also isn’t likely that he will investigate crimes associated with his family. And with the residents of Luisita scared to death, I doubt there will be significant pressure from below.

Ironically, the beacon of hope for the Luisita workers is the heavily criticized Renato Corona who will lead the Supreme Court as it decides on the legality of the SDO. If the SC scraps the SDO, it will pave the way for the distribution of the hacienda’s land to those who till it. God save the Chief Justice. The fate of farmers living in a perpetual state of fear is in his hands.

from Farmers got short end of the stick by Solita Collas-Monsod:

Let’s face it: The Luisita farm workers — the 6,296 men and women who should have been the beneficiaries of the CARP that was passed during President Cory Aquino’s term — have been getting the short end of the stick since 1989. The so-called “Compromise Agreement” the last nail in that coffin of exploitation (pardon the mixed metaphors).

The first nail in that coffin of exploitation was when, in 1989, they were either encouraged or enticed or intimidated or manipulated — remember, most of them had worked there for all of their lives in a patriarchal setting — to opt to own shares of stock in the Hacienda Luisita corporation — the so-called Stock Distribution Option (SDO), rather than to get a share of the land. The argument that they bought, or was shoved down their throat at the time, was that if the land were divided, each farm worker would be getting at most 0.78 hectares (of the 6,443 hectares of Luisita at that time, only 4,916 hectares were classified as CARP-able); while if they were own shares in the corporation, the workers would not only be getting wages, but also a share of the profits. It sounds like a good deal, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, since then, the corporation never showed any profits, and claims it has become burdened with enormous debt (which then required selling land to help pay off some of it).

The second nail in the farmers’ coffin of exploitation was pounded in almost simultaneously: The farmers got only 33% of the corporation, while the Cojuangcos, through the Tarlac Development Corporation or TDC got 67%. Why only 33% for the farmers, when their contribution to this agricultural corporation was its principal resource, mainly the land? Three reasons: the amount of land included in the CARP was only 76% of Hacienda Luisita; that “CARPable” land was undervalued; and third, the TDC contribution was overvalued. . . .

from Portent of things to come? by Rene Azurin:

. . . Actually, all this ado about a “compromise” just continues to obscure the main issue about the whole Hacienda Luisita case. The main issue — lest we forget — is that Jose Cojuangco Sr. was provided a government loan of P5.9 million and given a government guarantee (for a foreign exchange loan of US$2.1 million) to allow him to acquire the sugar estate and the sugar mill in 1957, with the express condition that the agricultural land “would be distributed to the agricultural workers” after 10 years. Well, it wasn’t.

Ten years after the hacienda was acquired, the Cojuangcos — probably not wanting to give up the enormous wealth and power that the sugar business had given them (because of the preferential prices then enjoyed by Philippine sugar in the US market) — argued that they could not comply with the distribution condition because “the place did not have a single tenant.” They then cited a law, the Land Reform Code (R.A. 3844), that exempted from expropriation agricultural lands like the sugar hacienda “where large scale operations would result in greater production and more efficient use of the land.” The scamming, not just of the farmer-beneficiaries but also of the Filipino public, began then. Clearly, it continues to this day and the fact that the land distribution was a straightforward loan condition has now been all but forgotten.

Beyond the legalities, a great injustice has been perpetuated for almost half a century against the poor farmers who’ve worked for the Cojuangcos. Many have passed away without realizing their dream of owning the tiny parcels of land that should have been divided and distributed to them in 1967. Those who survive find themselves today “already too old to till the land.” What options are realistically left to them except to take whatever is offered?

Mr. Lacierda says that Mr. Aquino “welcomes the agreement because… ang mahalaga ay ang ninanais ng farmers [what’s important is what thefarmers want].” This shows incredible insensitivity to the actual aspirations of the poor who are, once again, being taken for a ride by members of a ruling class who seem bereft of any sort of social conscience. If this is a portent of things to come, the poor might just have to abandon their hopes for social justice in a Cojuangco-Aquino administration.

cojuangcos, kapit-tuko sa hacienda

obvious na ba kung bakit di na umasenso ang pilipinas?   this time the president’s own family is setting the precedent, hoping that the supreme court approves.   is this why kaya biglang nire-recognize na ni aquino si corona as chief justice?

Cojuangcos don’t want to let go of the land
By Philip Tubeza

MANILA, Philippines—It’s a world turned upside down.

This was how lawyer Christian Monsod, a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, reacted to the reported compromise deal that was reached between the farm workers and management of Hacienda Luisita, the 6,500-hectare sugar plantation in Central Luzon owned by the Cojuangco family of President Aquino.

“The bottom line is that the Cojuangcos do not want to let go of the land,” said Monsod, who was himself helping to broker a deal between Hacienda Luisita Inc. and the farmers, with thebacking of the CatholicBishops’ Conference of the Philippines.

The deal runs counter to the “letter and spirit” of the 1987 Constitution which dictates that agrarian reform lands should go to the farmers while landowners get just compensation in return, according to Monsod.

“Now, it’s a world turned upside down with the landowners getting the land and farmers getting the compensation. If you have economic and political power concentrated, you can turn the world on its head,” he said.

yellow naif disses land reform :(

nakakadismaya the 5-minute video produced and posted by newbie blogger felicity tan entitled Ang nangyari sa Hacienda Luisita, ayon sa mga magsasaka.   it’s a cut-to-cut talking-heads kind of quickie production featuring just 7 former farmworkers / laborers / tenants of the hacienda saying they miss the old feudal days when the cojuangco-aquinos took care of their needs — complete with free health care, weekly allowances for the kids — and that they went on strike not for land — what would they do with land without capital and knowhow — but for better pay, except that the likes of satur ocampo and teddy casino made pakialam and satur even made millions of bucks, so please, leftists, stay away, we don’t want you meddling in our affairs.

i could not but react when i first saw it posted in facebook via carlos conde:

the video by itself is rather slanted against land reform and against the left, almost like an advertisement for oligarchic rule.  but let’s rewind to the part where these few farmers are saying that they went on strike for better pay, so obviously things had deteriorated since the happy past when the hacienda took care of all their needs.  sana ilagay naman sa context.  oh and the accusation that satur got a lot of money out of some deal should have been followed by a statement from satur either denying or confirming, in fairness lang.

tan’s reply:

my purpose was just to air the other side para mailabas naman, yun lang, if you visit HL you will see it is impossible that the farmers demonize the cojuangcos as it is seen in the media.  in any case, i put in the UP clip from TV patrol because the general sentiment is “give what the farmers what they want.”  So I asked them.  We already heard the farmers who want the land.  How about the others?  Lahat ba sila land ang gusto?  Looking at reports, it seems that way. Inside  HL is a different story.  if you change your opinion on it or not is besides the point and not my purpose.  I think Caloy’s blurb above says it all: “the OTHER side that ought to be heard as well” (thanks again C!)

soon after, men sta. ana also posted the video in fb with a comment, and we had this exchange:

men : Sad to say, this cannot be the full story. Some Noy campaigners, specifically those who work with the farmers, even think that the video might have been produced by the Luisita management (which is not the case, I think). So whoever produced this video only complicated the issue even for Noy supporters. The story is more complicated than what the video offers. I myself went to Luisita more than a month ago, accompanied by a young academic researcher doing his postgrad in Australia, a local organizer, a national peasant organizer, and a farmer who heads a national peasant organization (they are all pro-Noy), and the stories we received from the farmers differ from those interviewed in this video. In other words, there are many voices in Luisita, which this video does not capture. But what is clear is that different forces have used the farmers as pawns. What a tragedy.

me : men, i so agree.  carlos conde also posted the video and i commented that it’s practically an advertisement for oligarchic rule, sabay banat kay satur.  the video producer says it is simply meant to air the side of luisita farmers who continue to be unemployed, as if there were only this one side and only these few farmers. and she claims to be a journalist, even blogs about ethics of journalism.   absolutely, support like this noynoy doesn’t need.

men : Oo nga, Angela.  She committed the mistakes that she was railing against.  Actually, I don’t have any problem re opinionated journalism.  Just be honest about it.  Hunter Thompson is my idol because of his gonzo journalism.  Problem here is she becomes holier than thou.

worse, she’s getting a lot of kudos in her blog, i assume from political naifs like herself, who are thankful that she has cleared the air, so now they get it, the farmers don’t really want land, they just want the good old feudal days back, so now they WILL vote for noynoy.   susmaryosep.   i don’t get it.    why isn’t she practising what she preaches re journalism ethics?  maybe she thinks these ethics don’t apply sa blogosphere?    she’s been blogging for just a month, so let’s give her the benefit of the doubt?  LOL

pero sige na nga, maybe she didn’t plan for the video to stand alone, maybe she thought her “blurb”, where she says she didn’t bother airing the other sides because they’ve had enough exposure in media, presuming, incorrectly, that her readers all know the big picture already, would be posted around along with the video.  still, the blurb said hardly enough.   and besides, that’s not the way it works in the blogosphere.   you have no say in what or how much gets picked up and posted around, so a video has to be complete in itself, airing all sides, unless hindi naman talaga credible journalism ang drama kundi partisan sensationalism.

salamat na lang at meron din siyang commenters na mas marunong sa kanya, like jonas and the penniless sitar player:

Jonas :  medyo may intellectual dishonesty dito sa ginawa mo, ms. tan.  una, binanatan mo ng todo ang report ng gmanews.tv dahil sa tingin mo mali-mali at iisang panig lang.  tapos sinabi mo, pupunta ka sa luisita para hanapin ang katotohanan.  pero ano ang ginawa mo?  you just presented a few farmers na kontra kina lito bais, at napaka-tendentious pa ng mga argumento at totally without basis or proof (lalo na ang akusasyong binigyan si satur ocampo ng 6m).

in the final analysis, propaganda din ang ginawa mo na ang makakabenepisyo ay si noynoy at mga kalaban ng ulwu at catlu.  true, pinresent mo ang side ng ilang mga farmers pero what they said didn’t help the discussion of the issue. they  merely vented their ire.

medyo tuso ang posisyon mo na ang ginagawa mo lang ay ang side ng mga farmers na di naririnig.  ok lang sana ito kung hindi mo pinipresenta ang sarili mo na journalist.  e kaso, napaka-self-righteous pa nga ng dating mo about journalism, as if you are god’s gift to journalism in this part of the woods.

hindi mo pueding sabihin na kaya di mo nilagay ang side nina lito bais ay dahil masyado na silang sikat sa media.  tusong pag-iisip yan.  kung totoo kang journalist, give us the complete picture.  otherwise, don’t pass yourself off as a journalist na walang kinikilingan kundi ang katotohanan.

in the final analysis, walang pinagkaiba ang ginawa mo sa mga puntong ayaw mo sa story ng gmanews.tv.  bagkus, mas maganda ang ginawa ni stephanie dychiu dahila at least mas throrough ang research, mas maayos at mas complete ang picture, kahit na sabihin mong one-sided. April 24, 2010 2:22 PM

penniless sitar player :  it only shows that redistribution should not be the only concern of land reform.  a finite resource such as land, should be managed sustainably (considering the economic, social and ecological dimensionsof it.)  unlike the virtual land in farmville (he he he) further subdividing it to smaller portions would not optimize its eco-social contribution. with the chains and layers of people and processes involved in production (farmhand, farmhelp, capital and service providers, irrigation providers, traders, buyers) agricultural production is actually one big enterprise. and with that, only a sustainable business model could answer the increasing needs of people dependent on it.  new forms of ownerships and/ or profit/fruit sharing should be set in place.  I also abhor the idea that control remains in the hand of a mega-family corporation but individually distributing it would even marginalize the people at the far end of the value chain.  the idea of setting up cooperative, interdependent structures and mutually reinforcing agro-enterprises, owned and managed by the farmers, could be explored and it should be coupled with efforts to build the capacity of farmers to deal with it in a businesslike way. April 26, 2010 3:47 AM

cory’s comprehensive agrarian reform program failed (and carper, its extension, will fail) because of loopholes designed to allow old-rich hacenderos to be creative about finding ways of holding on to their hundreds of thousands of hectares of land instead of being creative about sharing the bounty with landless farmers in national food production.   meanwhile, small middleclass landowners, like my nanay who inherited a mere 20 hectares or so of hard-earned riceland from her parents, had to give up all but 7 hectares some 20 years ago, ora mismo, agad-agad, grabe  :(