1.

The estate was originally under Spanish control and was owned by the
Tabacalera. The estate has been occupied by various people since its purchase
in 1882. Among the occupants were Americans and Japanese. The Cojuangcos
behind Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) purchased the farm from the
Spanish in 1958 with the condition that it be distributed to small farmers.
TADECO's 10-year grace period for distributing the land expired, and farmers
began to fight for their rights. There were several court battles since then until
1988. Cory Aquino, the president at the time, signed into law an Act that included
a provision known as the Stock Distribution Option (SDO). This SDO clause
meant that no land ownership was transferred to the farmers. Over the years,
control over the farm revolved around abolishing the SDO or making it work well
to benefit the farmers. As the court’s final decision, they had rule for “just
compensation”. The Supreme Court ruling states that the 4,916 hectares of
Hacienda Luisita is to be redistributed to 6,296 registered farm-worker
beneficiaries, while the Hacienda Luisita Incorporated (HLI) will be receiving
40,000 pesos per hectare as compensation.

(Explanation: In economic terms, the land is one of the primary factors of

production. For the longest time, land ownership and distribution has been a
thorny issue in many parts of the world. That has been the case in the
Philippines, in particular, Hacienda Luisita. The case about the ownership has
gone through many twists and turns. The struggle of who should own this
agricultural field has spun many decades. Unfortunately, people lost their lives
during the battle. In the process, many families have lost their sources of income.
Their guards demolished their houses and barred them from accessing their
pieces of land. After a long battle, the land will finally be distributed to thousands
of farmers who was a registered worker of Hacienda Luisita.)

Reference: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2011/11/20/sc-orders-distribution-
of-hacienda/

2. The one of most credible author who features an article about Hacienda Luisita
controversy is Ambeth Ocampo.

(Explanation: He is a known historian at UP Diliman. Ocampo's devotion to

history and growing body of historical writings had earned him numerous awards
from prestigious awarding bodies in the Philippines and abroad, as well as
several writing and research fellowships, teaching professorships, and doctor of
honoris causa (given to a person as a sign of honour and respect, without their having
to take an exam) awards from various academic institutions.)
3. Ambeth Ocampo did not conclude directly about his knowledge on Hacienda
Luisita controversy but rather started to state about its history, applying events
happen during Spanish colonization, including Rizal’s some impactful actions,
and somewhat mentioning Rizal’s personal life edge among common Filipino,
however, this leads towards the movement in fighting oppression. On the latter
part, Ocampo pointed how agrarian reform is important why we must follow the
case of Hacienda Luisita and the Sumilang farmers today so that we can escape
rather than repeat history.

4. On a citation, according to Fukuoka prize award committee, “As an outstanding

historian and intellectual, Dr. Ambeth R. Ocampo has made a great contribution
to academic, cultural and social progress in the Philippines through his university
teaching, his writing for newspapers and magazines and his service in historic
and cultural administration.”
In addition to that, Ocampo’s ongoing bi-weekly column “Looking Back” in the
Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper which began after the EDSA revolution does
not only make him the most visible among Filipino historians but also position
him at the forefront of mainstream popular culture as he uses the mass media as
stage for his historical writing. This journalistic context of Ocampo’s
historiography has made him popular and set him apart from other historians who
take the academe as the context of their historiography.

(Explanation: Though there is still a dearth of studies on the application of

semiotics (the study of signs, symbols, and signification) in historiography (the
study of the history and methodology of history as a discipline), the work of
Ocampo is a good start to look at the possibility concerning “historical-semiotics”
as an approach. Historical-semiotics is basically the writing and re-writing of
history by focusing on signs, codes or images. Ocampo himself says, “I always
like history; however, I don’t like the way it is being taught or written.” Ocampo
believes that “History is not just memorizing forgettable dates, unpronounceable
names, and strange places. History is making people see their past, thereby
giving them a sense of their identity.”)

Reference: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/789188/ambeth-ocampo-taking-history-
from-ivory-tower