ayay..matuman MAHAL NA HARI....ng SABLAY
__________________________________________________ ___________
DILI PANI TINUOD OI;;DAPAT MO PALIT MO NEWSPAPER PARA MA CONFIRM
ayay..matuman MAHAL NA HARI....ng SABLAY
__________________________________________________ ___________
DILI PANI TINUOD OI;;DAPAT MO PALIT MO NEWSPAPER PARA MA CONFIRM
Jack, I did read the entire dissenting opinion of Sereno. Indeed it was well crafted and the points she raised regarding compensation legally justifiable. However, this is no longer just a legal issue, but a moral one considering the plight of several thousand Farmer beneficiaries and the more than 50 years they have waited for justice. Consider the timeline of this property: Hacienda Luisita: Timeline
Note that when the property was acquired by the Cojuanco's:
November 25, 1957
The Cojuangcos obtain a P5.9-million loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) provided that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions.”
Cojuangco Sr. requests GSIS to change the phrase to “…shall be sold at cost to tenants, should there be any.” after four months. This would be quoted in the future as justification not to allocate the land.
From the very beginning, there was already a dubious intent with the request to change the phrases in the agreement. One that they will use later to justify NOT allocating the land.
Moving forward:
May 7, 1980
The national government lodges a case before a Manila court to force Hacienda Luisita’s management to surrender the estate to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that hacienda land could be given to farmers.
January 10, 1981
The Cojuangcos argue that sugar lands are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislation and cry harassment against Ninoy’s kin.
Granting that Ninoy was indeed being harassed by Marcos, was it right for the Cojuangcos to argue that the sugar lands were not covered by the existing land reform? What about the agreement with the government back in 1957?
December 2, 1985
The Manila court orders Tadeco to submit Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The order is criticized as an act of harassment because Corazon Aquino is set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap polls. The Cojuangcos bring the matter to the appellate court.
Again the Cojuangcos argue harassment. But then again, what about the original agreement? this is now 25 years of the Cojuangcos exploiting the Hacienda and its farmers.
January 22, 1987
Thousands of frustrated farmers troop to Malacañang demanding land reform and distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. Thirteen protesters are killed in the “Mendiola Massacre.” The massacre happens after 11 months of the Corazon Aquino administration.
Following these were the introduction of the SDOs and on May 11,1989 The farmers’ ownership of the plantation is pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retain 67 percent, under Carp that is imposed on Hacienda Luisita in 1989. Isn't this pure exploitation? 1989 is also the year that the SC ruled should be the basis for valuating the property for the farmers to pay. At this point in time, the value per hectare was only 40,000 as against Sereno's opinion when the valuation is pegged at One million pesos per hectare.
Going back to Sereno's dissenting opinion, what is there to enlighten us? That the land can still be distributed while the issue on the just compensation is being argued in special courts? That "Although the State is obliged to pay the fair market value of the agricultural lands in accordance with the law, rules and jurisprudence, the State does not shift that burden to the FWBs that would receive the expropriated properties. It shall subsidize the repayment schemes for the distributed agricultural lands and offer terms that are affordable to the farmers and allow them to simultaneously pursue their chosen agricultural enterprises on the lands." If the state subsidizes, where will the funds come from? Our taxes, right?
The dissenting opinion is well crafted indeed, but does not give justice to the farmers whose plight worsens for every delay that this issue encounters. The fact is, from the very beginning, the agreement was to distribute the land to the farmers. Over 50 years, and this has not been done. For 50 years the Cojuangcos gained from a property that is NOT rightfully theirs, and still want to get more out of it with a favorable valuation.
Is that right, Jack?
Anyway, congratulations to the President on his new Chief Justice appointee. Sereno was the obvious choice among the nominees.
Let's give her a chance to prove her worth. Also, there is no guarantee that she could complete her 18 years as CJ. Basin ang next Pres after 2016 dili sila magkasinabot ni Sereno unya ipa-impeach na pod. So wait and see nalang ta.
bro, ang dissenting opinion was not against agrarian reform but was about land valuation
bro, lets reckon back the time when HL was awarded to the Cojuangco's, that was the most economical decision a President magsaysay could ever have.. considering economical survival.. tanan man loans, naay requisite.. and tanan requisite naay exemptions.. why would you make a fault to an exemption provided for in the loan agreement?
never Sereno mentioned nga dili dapat e distribute ang HL.. ang gist sa dissenting opinion was land valuation.. ALL SC DECISION are encompassing, meaning tanan affected due to jurisprudence.. the key term here is land valuation dpending on date of TENDER.. bro, kung dili cojuangco or aquino ang involved ani, ka luoy sd sa apektado noh, nga ang TENDER gamiton was on a later DATE..
ang eminent domain gani, the obligations of the sovereign for expropriations with just compensation.. DILI lang ni nato e apply, abi kay politiko man? unsa man kaha effect ani sa ordinaryo nga taw?
kita ka sa execution clause, ni ingon c Brion nga para ra ni sa HL issue nga decision? SINGLED out ang Luisita?
*** im not too certain if c Brion ba ni write sa ponencia.. i'll correct it tomorrow..![]()
Did Article VII Section 15 (on midnight appointments) apply to the Judiciary? The answer is NO.
"The Supreme Court effectively ruled that if the framers of the 1987 Constitution had intended Article VII, Section 15 to include the member of the Judiciary, they would have written it so but did not. Thereby ruling that the entire article is limited to the Executive branch only. Note also that in the decision, the Supreme Court quoted the separation of powers doctrine espoused by the framers of the 1987 Constitution as lifted from the Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission. The SC also said that the very creation of the JBC points to the intent of the framers to exclude the judiciary from Articles VII, section 14, 15 and 16."
This page is also enlightening, Jack: Corona’s “Midnight” Appointment: Legal or not? « Teki Abary Repalda
makabotar na gyud kong bongbong ini dah aron naa say ma impeach ini puhon. hehe...
hehe.. agree ko nimo ini bro. nakuha gyud nimo. it is all power play kung kinsay makalingkod ug naa sa kinatas-ang gahum. si GMA gibutang niyas Corona to keep away HL from the Cojuangcos and lands distributed to the tenants. Si Penoy sad, gitangtang si Corona ug gipuli si Sereno (nice ryhme corona-sereno, corona-sereno....) to keep the tenants away from the HL and perpetuate their ownership of the lands they loaned and financed by the government. asa man gud na paingon anha man gyud ana. dakong pildero si Carpio sa katapusang sumada. nadaut pa gyud iyang relasyon sa iyang kumpare nga si Corona.
Similar Threads |
|