Who are landless?

Sec 25 RA 6657 - a landless beneficiary is one who owns less than three (3)
hectares of agricultural land.

Tenurial arrangement – tenant v farmworker

What is a tenant?

What is a farmer?

Section 3. Definitions. (f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation
of land or the production of agricultural crops, either by himself, or primarily with the assistance of his
immediate farm household, whether the land is owned by him, or by another person under a
leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with the owner thereof.

What is a farmworker?

Section 3. Definitions. (g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an
employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is
paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis (matter of payment, not an arrangement)

SDO – Stock Distribution Option – is it still a viable form of agrarian reform.

They still exist – 14of them
Section 3 – “and all other arrangements” – sa ngayon ba pwede pa rin? NO. Di na pwede. Very
absurd – in cobtraditction to the intent of Agrarian Reform. Why?
Hacienda Luisita case

Tadeco – CAT (Central Azucarera de Tarlac) – had spinoff corporation –Hacienda Luisita Inc (HLI) –
..and all other arrangements ..which include stock distribution” – what is required under law – should
be submitted within 2 years (must be availed of). A great majority of farmers chose it (from 125
million shares to 400 million shares – 150 million should go to farmers)

Conditions for the 118 million shares to be distributed -

1987 – 6657

1988 – Tadeco – HLI – 1.5 M-> 400M

-93% 6296 FWB

4915 ha – 590 M

196 M

355 M (40K/ ha)

1995 –

Hacienda Luisista – questioned 2 PARC resolutions and notice of coverage

Of the 4900 – issued notice of coverage

Issues: PARC has authority to recall?

1. Legal standing?
2. PARC authority?
a. No authority to recall or revoke? Nowhere is it stated
b. Under the doctrine of necessary implication – if no authority, it will be a toothless
agency can’t do shit
3. Consti – Sec 31/ 6657
a. Discusses the different modalities
b. Corporations given chance to avail sec 3 citing sec 4 of art 13
c. SC: they slept on their rights. Bakit ngayon pa lang kayo nagtatanong
d. Lis mota – di siya lis mota – application of provision to SDP, by virtue of RA 9700 this
is already moot and academic. RA 9700 – 2 modalities for agrarian reform
e. Direct and indirect ownership – pwede ba yung corporation to own agricultural land?
Ok lang ba yung dist of shares instead of physical dist? SC: under sec 4 art 13 –
provides for collective ownership – di lang physical dist kaya madiin ang tingin natin
sa sec 3 defining AF. Pwede ang SDO by definition. 6657 allows it
4. Is the revocation proper?
a. 1st arg- SDO didn’t improve our lives! SC: It’s not an assurance, it only provides you
an opportunity
b. 2nd arg – conversion of land – proper. Sumunod sa lahat ng rules (after 5 years, may
approval ect)
c. Bakit kailangan irevoke? Ano yung naging violation? Ano yung mandate?
i. Make sure there’s no dilution of shares. 6296 beneficiaries should be entitiled
to 18K shares – HLI naghakot ng more farmers, plus di ibibigay if you don’t
work for this number of days.
ii. Kailan dapat maibigay lahat ng shares – within 3 months – provision of SDP
– 30 years. Purpose nga is maibigay mo agad
iii. Based on these violations it was revoked
5. Nullity of SDOA/SOC

What were the options given to farmers?

If they want to remain as stockholders. Pwede na

Come Nov 2011 they modified the ruling – NO, wala nang option. Revoke lahat dapat may
physical distribution of land

SC: SDO is viable basta the control is in the farmers. But under this 33% lang makukuha nila
which means they will never truly be owners (even tho they will agree they will never be the
majority, they will never have control over those lands. That’s not the control being mentioned
under the law.

We have 14 Corps with SDOs. Pwede pa rin kaya yun? Yes, RA 9700 – by this date, wala lang
SDO. For the existing, okay lang.
Read Nov 2011 and 2012 decisions

Scope – Cases

Alita – Homestead patent not included

Natalia – Residential not included

Luz Farms – Livestock and poultry not included

Sutton – Livestock – cattle-raising not included

CMU – educational not included

DAR v DECS – CMU cannot be applied, not being used for educ anymore, being leased by a
corporation

Camarines Sur v CA – Filed for expropriation case (eminent domain) – if converting land, does
the LGU need the approval of the DAR?

*retention rights. Covered by yung 5 hectares?

Covered baa ng LGU ng retention limits? NO.

What are the modalities for the government to acquire that land? – VOS, CA, VLT – pwede pa
ba yung VLT? Di na. By June 30 shall be allowed. By August 1 wala na.

Roxas & Company -