Reaction paper: Hacienda Luisita
Where Rights Go Wrong
The documentary we watched served as an eye-opener. I always knew about the issue regarding Hacienda Luisita, but I never really saw the gravity of the problem. Through watching the documentary, I realized that the greatest burden of both parties was each side’s definition of JUSTICE. My question is, does justice cease to matter when legal rights and human rights clash?
The government and the Cojuancos’ definition of justice obviously revolved around the ownership of the land. They had the lawful right to ask the farmers to leave their land because these informal settlers had no right to be there in the first place. It was reasonable to ask these people to leave; however, the issue exploded when the possibility of diplomacy failed and they felt the forceful need to resort to violence.
The people’s definition of justice, on the other had, was more about life. Their dependence on the land was too much to lose in terms of survival and therefore felt that the government and Cojuancos had no right to take human rights—such as right to labour and right to life—away from them. People died protecting the land they had treated as their own. Risking their lives and losing their lives for the land showed how their lives would be meaningless or impossible without it. Sadly, lives were lost before this was made clear to the public.
What struck me in the film was their undying love for the land they needed for their lives. It showed how far people would go to defend their rights as human beings for their survival and how the government and Cojuancos failed to put themselves in the shoes of these people. I personally wish the situation were handled in such a way that both parties won in the end. That may seem idealistic, but I believe that it would have been possible with the power the Cojuancos had then that they still have now. The Cojuancos or the government should have provided...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document