Palace to Luisita farmers: Prove claims vs. PNoy’s sis, uncle

Malacañang downplayed the more than 100 criminal charges that farmworker-beneficiaries from the Hacienda Luisita filed against a sister and an uncle of President Benigno Aquino III.

In an interview with government radio dzRB, Communications Secretary Herminio Coloma Jr. said “those kinds of accusations started during the 2010 campaign. They have not presented any hard evidence ever since,” and that they should just prove those allegations.

PNoy’s sister and uncle among those accused

The farmworker-beneficiaries trooped to the Department of Justice on Friday to file attempted murder, arson, child abuse, physical injuries, illegal arrest and arbitrary detention, theft, robbery, and malicious mischief, among others, against former Tarlac Rep. Jose “Peping” Cojuangco Jr. and presidential sister Maria Elena “Ballsy” Aquino-Cruz.

The complainants, members of the Alyansa ng mga Mangagawang Bukid sa Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA), also charged the board members of the Tarlac Development Corp., former Land Transportation Office chief Virginia Torres, Tarlac-Philippine National Police provincial director Alex Sintin, and former Tarlac City police chief Bayani Razalan.

“The public must be made aware that the worst atrocities are being committed by no less than the presidential family against hapless farmers despite – or as cruel retribution for – the Supreme Court ruling (in November 2011) for total land distribution in Hacienda Luisita,” AMBALA lawyer Jobert Pahilga said.

Legal process

Coloma said it would be best that the case go through the proper legal process.

“There are processes under the rule of law, and it would be best to follow them,” he said.

He said the government has not been wanting in the distribution of the land, which was ordered by the Supreme Court in 2011.

Distribution of land

The SC decision favored the distribution of the 4,915.7466 hectares of Hacienda Luisita, the sugar estate once operated by the relatives of the president.

The High Court had modified a previous ruling that allowed 6,296 farmer-beneficiaries to choose between ownership of agricultural land or shares of stock representing the value of the sugar estate.