DISSENTING OPINIONSERENO, J.:What the majority has created by its Decision are several legal andoperational aberrations that will only set back the long-term resolution ofthe agrarian conflicts involving Hacienda Luisita and create even morehavoc in our legal system. Instead of definitively putting the multi-angledissues to rest, the majority has only succeeded in throwing back theagrarian problem to the farmers, the original landowners and theDepartment of Agrarian Reform (DAR).First, the majority Decision ruled in categorical language to (a) deny thePetition of Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI), (b) affirm PARC Resolution No.2005-32-01 dated 22 December 2005 and Resolution No. 2006-34-01 dated03 May 2006, which revoked the approval of the HLI Stock DistributionPlan (SDP); and (c) pronounce that PARC Resolution No. 89-9-12 approvingthe HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan (SDP), "is nullified and voided." However,without any legal basis left to support the SDP after the pronouncement ofthe complete nullity of the administrative approval thereof, the majorityproceeded to allow the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) of HaciendaLuisita the option to choose a completely legally baseless arrangement. It islegally baseless because an SDP and its operating agreement, a StockDistribution Option Agreement (SDOA), can only be valid with thecorresponding PARC approval. There is not a single legal twig on which theorder to proceed with the voting option can hang, except the will of thisCourt’s majority.Second, they ruled that the SDOA dated 11 May 1989 between petitionerHLI, Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) and the farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) is illegal for two violations: (a) the distribution ofshares of stock based on the number of man-days worked, and (b) theprolonged thirty-year time frame for the distribution of shares; additionally,they ruled that these two arrangements have worked an injustice on theFWBs, contrary to the spirit and letter of agrarian reform. Yet, the majoritywill allow them to remain in such a prejudicial arrangement if they sodecide. To allow the FWBs, the disadvantaged sector sought to be upliftedthrough agrarian reform, to remain in an illegal arrangement simplybecause they choose to so remain is completely contrary to the mandatorycharacter of social justice legislation.Third, while the majority states that a stock distribution option agreementcan only be valid if the majority of the shares or the control of thecorporation is in the hands of the farmers, they still ruled that the doctrineof operative facts led them to unqualifiedly validate the present corporatearrangement wherein the FWBs control only 33% of the shares of petitioner
HLI, without ordering in the dispositive portion of the Decision a conditionprecedent to the holding of the referendum – the restructuring of HLIwhereby majority control is firmly lodged in the FWBs.