In their face-off, Senator Manuel 'Mar' Roxas II (right) faces tough questions from his rival in the vice presidential race, Senator Loren Legarda (left), during a televised debate, but is able to bring across his message through his answers.

Nacionalista Party vice presidential bet Sen. Loren Legarda slammed a rival for being evasive on a land grabbing issue which she said also hounds his family.

Legarda said Liberal Party vice presidential candidate Sen. Manuel Roxas II was sidestepping the issue on the 1,645 hectares of land in Barangay Mascap in Montalban, Rizal, which has been converted to a residential commercial use to avoid being subjected to agrarian reform.

The issue was raised during the Harapan: ABS-CBN vice presidential debate where both candidates participated.

During the forum, Legarda asked Roxas to shed light on the issue of a pending Supreme Court case filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform against the estate of J. Amado Araneta. Roxas is a member of the Araneta family.

Legarda said she is wondering why the Araneta family has not yet distributed the land to the 100 tenant-farmer beneficiaries in Montalban.

“Nasa Korte Suprema po ang (kaso ng) pamimigay ng lupa na napanalo na sana ng ating mga magsasaka. Bakit po di nyo pinamigay yung one thousand six hundred na ektarya sa mahihirap ng Montalban, Rizal. Pakisagot lang po,” Legarda directed her question to Roxas.

But instead of answering Roxas tried to answer an earlier question about the Value Added Tax (VAT).

But Legarda insisted Roxas answer the question to which Roxas replied: “Sandali lang po. Oras ko po ito. Huwag ninyong kunin.”

Legarda said she was dismayed over Roxas’ evasive stance.

“Roxas tried to sidestep the agrarian reform issue against him and is seeking cover behind legal technicalities,” Legarda claimed.

Legarda said that in 1989, Jorge Araneta, as administrator of the estate of J. Amado Araneta, requested the DAR, then under Secretary Miriam Defensor Santiago, for the conversion. The DAR refused, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision.

The DAR and the farmer tenants elevated the case to the Supreme Court.