1 Higit Pa Susunod na Blog Bumuo ng Blog Mag-sign in

Philippine Constitutional Law

Digests
A site for digests of landmark Constitutional Law cases in the Philippines.

Home Privacy Policy Musings on Law All That Matters

Monday, November 28, 2011

Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrarian Reform

Council (PARC), et al., G.R. No. 171101, November 22, 2011

RESOLUTION

VELASCO, JR., J.:

I. THE FACTS

On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to

DISMISS/DENY the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the resolutions
of the PARC revoking HLIs Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands in
Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) of the government.

The Court however did not order outright land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court
noted that there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which the Court cannot
validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP must, by application
of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original 6,296 qualified
farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to remain as HLI
stockholders or [choose actual land distribution]. It thus ordered the Department of Agrarian Blog Archive
Reform (DAR) to immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to
2012 (26)
them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after
which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, 2011 (11)
signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed December (4)
names. November (7)
Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v.
The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court Presidential Agrari...
decision.
Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v.
Presidential Agrari...
II. THE ISSUES
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo v. Hon.
Leila M. De Lima (...
(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this case?
(2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional? Briccio Ricky A. Pollo v. Karina
Constantino-Dav...
(3) Cant the Court order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
cover the full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held Atty. Evillo C. Pormento v. Joseph
Ejercito "Erap"...
by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares
covered by HLIs SDP? Wilson P. Gamboa v. Finance
(4) Is the date of the taking (for purposes of determining the just compensation Secretary Margarito Te...
payable to HLI) November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP? Datu Michael Abas Kida v. Senate of
(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA the Philippine...
6657 lapsed on May 10, 1999 (since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP
coverage through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989), and thus the qualified
FWBs should now be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to Followers
third parties, whether they have fully paid for the lands or not?
Mga sumusubaybay (10)
(6) THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the
qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be
reconsidered?

III. THE RULING

Sundin
[The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the motions for reconsideration of respondents
PARC, et al. with respect to the option granted to the original farmworkers-beneficiaries
(FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita to remain with petitioner HLI, which option the Court About Me
thereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. It reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified Edgardo Luardo Jr.
FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, and UNANIMOUSLY
Follow 50
directed immediate land distribution to the qualified FWBs.]
View my complete profile
1. YES, the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case.

[The Court maintained its stance that the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this
case since, contrary to the suggestion of the minority, the doctrine is not limited only to Labels
invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or the 2011 bar exam results (1)
administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the nullification or
20th century fox v. CA (1)
recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences that must be
3 readings on separate days (1)
respected. It is on this score that the operative fact doctrine should be applied to acts and
consequences that resulted from the implementation of the PARC Resolution approving the 349 pepsi crowns case (1)
SDP of HLI. The majority stressed that the application of the operative fact doctrine by the abadilla 5 (1)
Court in its July 5, 2011 decision was in fact favorable to the FWBs because not only were actual case or controversy (1)
they allowed to retain the benefits and homelots they received under the stock distribution alibi (1)
scheme, they were also given the option to choose for themselves whether they want to angara v. electoral commission (1)
remain as stockholders of HLI or not.]
ARMM elections (1)
arnault v. nazareno (1)
2. NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 NOT unconstitutional.
arroyo v. de lima (1)
[The Court maintained that the Court is NOT compelled to rule on the bar exams (1)
constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest bayan v. zamora (1)
opportunity and that the resolution thereof is not the lis mota of the case. Moreover, the cacho-olivares v. ermita (1)
issue has been rendered moot and academic since SDO is no longer one of the modes of chavez v. gonzales and ntc (1)
acquisition under RA 9700. The majority clarified that in its July 5, 2011 decision, it made no checkpoints case (1)
ruling in favor of the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but found nonetheless that
china bank v. CA (1)
there was no apparent grave violation of the Constitution that may justify the resolution of
columbia pictures v. flores (1)
the issue of constitutionality.]
combinations and restraint of trade (1)
3. NO, the Court CANNOT order that DARs compulsory acquisition of comprehensive agrarian reform program
Hacienda Lusita cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 (2)
hectares covered by HLIs SDP. constitutionality of checkpoints (2)
contempt power of senate (1)
[Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of the control test (1)
SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then the custodial investigation (1)
Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land. david v. arroyo (1)
Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the agrarian reform
decision in in re charges of plagiarism v.
law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural lands originally held justice del castillo (1)
by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were supposedly covered by RA
delegation of power (1)
6657.
dissent of justice ma. lourdes sereno (1)

However since the area to be awarded to each FWB in the July 5, 2011 Decision economic protectionism (1)
appears too restrictive considering that there are roads, irrigation canals, and other election synchronization (1)
portions of the land that are considered commonly-owned by farmworkers, and these may equity structure in public utilities (1)
necessarily result in the decrease of the area size that may be awarded per FWB the exclusionary rule (1)
Court reconsiders its Decision and resolves to give the DAR leeway in adjusting the area filipino first policy (2)
that may be awarded per FWB in case the number of actual qualified FWBs decreases. In foreign military troops in the phils. (1)
order to ensure the proper distribution of the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita per
fortun v. arroyo (1)
qualified FWB, and considering that matters involving strictly the administrative
freedom of expression (1)
implementation and enforcement of agrarian reform laws are within the jurisdiction of the
DAR, it is the latter which shall determine the area with which each qualified FWB will be freedom of religion (1)
awarded. freedom of speech (1)
freedom of the press (3)
On the other hand, the majority likewise reiterated its holding that the 500-hectare gamboa v. teves (1)
portion of Hacienda Luisita that have been validly converted to industrial use and have been general warrant (1)
acquired by intervenors Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and Luisita globalization (1)
Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), as well as the separate 80.51-hectare SCTEX lot
GMA TRO (1)
acquired by the government, should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC
grosjean v. american press (1)
resolution. The Court however ordered that the unused balance of the proceeds of the sale
of the 500-hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare land used for the SCTEX be hacienda luisita (2)
distributed to the FWBs.] hello garci (1)
HLI v. PARC decision july 5 2011 (1)
4. YES, the date of taking is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011 (1)
HLIs SDP. holdover of elected ARMM officials (1)
iglesia ni cristo v. CA (1)
[For the purpose of determining just compensation, the date of taking is November
impeachment of cj corona (1)
21, 1989 (the date when PARC approved HLIs SDP) since this is the time that the FWBs
were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be implied powers (1)
precise, these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock in re garcia (1)
distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on November 21, 1989. incompatible offices (1)
Such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory incorporation clause (2)
acquisition. On the contention of the minority (Justice Sereno) that the date of the notice of ineligibility of the President to run for re-
coverage [after PARCs revocation of the SDP], that is, January 2, 2006, is determinative of election (1)
the just compensation that HLI is entitled to receive, the Court majority noted that none of inherent powers (1)
the cases cited to justify this position involved the stock distribution scheme. Thus, said investigation in aid of legislation (1)
cases do not squarely apply to the instant case. The foregoing notwithstanding, it bears
jose midas marquez (1)
stressing that the DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final
justice mariano del castillo (2)
and conclusive upon the landowner. The landowner can file an original action with the RTC
acting as a special agrarian court to determine just compensation. The court has the right to justice sereno's dissent in in re charges
of plagiarism vs. justice del castillo (1)
review with finality the determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.]
kida v. senate (1)

5. NO, the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under kuroda v. jalandoni (1)
RA 6657 has NOT lapsed on May 10, 1999; thus, the qualified FWBs should laserna v. ddb (1)
NOT yet be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third liban v. gordon (1)
parties. lis mota (1)
lumanog v. people (1)
[Under RA 6657 and DAO 1, the awarded lands may only be transferred or maguindanao massacre (1)
conveyed after 10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent (EP)
mandatory drug testing (1)
or certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). Considering that the EPs or CLOAs have not
manila hotel (1)
yet been issued to the qualified FWBs in the instant case, the 10-year prohibitive period has
not even started. Significantly, the reckoning point is the issuance of the EP or CLOA, manila prince hotel v. gsis (1)
and not the placing of the agricultural lands under CARP coverage. Moreover, should the martial law (1)
FWBs be immediately allowed the option to sell or convey their interest in the subject lands, meaning of the term capital in Sec. 11
then all efforts at agrarian reform would be rendered nugatory, since, at the end of the day, Art. XII of the Constitution (1)
these lands will just be transferred to persons not entitled to land distribution under CARP.] monopolies (1)
moot and academic cases (1)
6. YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be national patrimony (1)
given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI should be reconsidered. new york times v. U.S. (1)
office search (1)
[The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given
oil deregulation (1)
an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never
gain control [over the subject lands] given the present proportion of shareholdings in HLI. one title-one subject (1)
The Court noted that the share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just] 33.296%. Thus, p.s. bank v. senate impeachment court
even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI stockholders, (1)
which is unlikely, control will never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control means the people v. exala (1)
majority of [sic] 50% plus at least one share of the common shares and other voting Philippine National Red Cross (1)
shares. Applying the formula to the HLI stockholdings, the number of shares that will pimentel v. comelec (1)
constitute the majority is 295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI capital shares divided
piracy (1)
by 2 plus one [1] HLI share). The 118,391,976.85 shares subject to the SDP approved by
plagiarism (3)
PARC substantially fall short of the 295,112,101 shares needed by the FWBs to acquire
control over HLI.] police lineup (1)
pollo v. david (1)

Posted by Atty. Ed at 12:36 PM pormento v. estrada (1)

power to promulgate rules of procedure
+1 Recommend this on Google (1)
Labels: comprehensive agrarian reform program, hacienda luisita, HLI v. PARC resolution nov. 22 2011, presentation of master tape in piracy
stock distribution option cases (1)
Location: Cebu City, Philippines president's power to appoint ARMM
OICs (1)
prior restraint (3)
No comments: privacy of communications and
correspondence (1)
Post a Comment probable cause for issuance of warrant
of arrest (1)
probable cause for the issuance of a
search warrant (1)
Enter your comment... RA 9165 (1)
requisites of judicial review (2)
resolution in in re charges of plagiarism
v. justice del castillo (1)
Comment as: Google Account review/censorship of religious tv
programs (1)
right against self-incrimination (1)
Publish Preview right against unreasonable search and
seizure (2)
right of privacy (1)
right to travel (1)
roberts v. CA (1)
search and seizure (4)
search warrant (1)
secrecy of foreign currency deposits (1)
self-executing provision (1)
sjs v. ddb (1)
speedy disposition of cases (1)
stock distribution option (2)
stop-and-frisk (1)
suspension of privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus (1)
taada v. angara (1)
tatad v. executive secretary (1)
terry search (1)
terry v. ohio (1)
treaty (3)
TRO vs. senate impeachment court (1)
university of cebu college of law (1)
valid form of warrantless search (1)
valmonte v. de villa (2)
vinuya v. executive secretary (2)
visiting forces agreement (1)
warrant of arrest (1)
warrantless arrests (1)
warrantless search and seizure (1)
world trade organization (1)

TopBlogs.com.ph

Feedjit

Newer Post Home Older Post

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Live Traffic Feed
A visitor from Philippines
viewed "Philippine
Constitutional Law Digests:
Randolf S. David v. Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, G.R. No.
A visitorMay
171396, from3,Quezon, Nueva
2006 (and other
Ecija viewed "Philippine
consolidated cases)" 26 mins
Constitutional
ago Law Digests: The
Checkpoints Case : Valmonte v.
De Villa, G.R. No. 83988
September
A visitor from 29, Cebu,
1989 (173
CebuSCRA
City
211)" 1 hr
viewed "Philippine 29 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No.
L-3820,
A visitorJuly from18, San1950"
Pedro,
1 hr 37
mins agoviewed "Philippine
Laguna
Constitutional Law Digests:
Angara v. Electoral
Commission,
A visitor fromG.R. Cebu,No.
Cebu
L-45081,
City
July 15,"Philippine
viewed 1936" 1 hr 53 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No.
L-3820,
A visitorJuly from18, Quezon
1950"City
4 hrs 23
mins ago
viewed "Philippine
Constitutional Law Digests:
Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS,
G.R.
A visitor
No. from
122156, Philippines
February 3,
1997" 4"Philippine
viewed hrs 24 mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Taada, et al., v. Angara, et al.,
G.R.
A visitor
No. from
118295, Buting,
MayRizal
2, 1997"
4 hrs 38"Philippine
viewed mins ago
Constitutional Law Digests: In
Re del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-
17-SC,
A visitorOctober
from Cebu, 12, 2010"
Cebu 4City
hrs
55 mins"Philippine
viewed ago
Constitutional Law Digests:
Arnault v. Nazareno, G.R. No.
L-3820,
A visitorJuly from18, Cavite
1950"viewed
5 hrs 11
mins ago Constitutional Law
"Philippine
Digests: Angara v. Electoral
Commission, G.R. No. L-45081,
Real-time view Get Feedjit

Philippine
Digests
A site for digests of landmark C

Home Privacy Policy

Monday, November 28, 2011

Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v.

Council (PARC), et al., G.R.

VELASCO, JR., J.:

I. THE FACTS

On July 5, 2011, the Suprem

DISMISS/DENY the petition filed by HLI
of the PARC revoking HLIs Stock Distri
Hacienda Luisita under compulsory co
Program (CARP) of the government.

The Court however

noted that there are operative facts that
validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared
of the operative fact principle, give w
farmworkers-beneficiaries (FWBs) to
stockholders or [choose actual land distr
Reform (DAR) to immediately schedule

Total Pageviews
 248,482

Copyright 2011-2012 by Atty. Ed. Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.