Snippets

The original complaints of Alvarez, as stipulated in House Resolution 867, are that the rent/lease/share or whatever of Dapecol/BuCor is so small that the JVA is disadvantageous to the gov't; a 25 year lease instead of the prevailing 10 years plus an issue on ill-treatment of workers. The DOJ was asked to review and junk the JVA on those grounds. CoA also entered the issue by commenting on it with a recommendation that the agreement be fixed. The Solocitor General also made its unsolicited remarks. Heck, even some journalists who do not know the real score joined the fray with flying bullets. And since the allegations, hence the review, have been proven to be of no truth when all laws and provisions of the constitution are laid out and all financials are in, Alvarez and cohorts are throwing issues after issues to find flaws in the agreement to take down Tadeco but to no avail. They even resorted to bullying and intimidating the resource persons just to point out their flawed argume...

Tadeco Bucor Joint Venture Agreement - Further  Presidential Decree 1585 (a) that when the national interest so requires, the President of the Philippines may review, amend, modify, revise, rescind or revoke any such contract, concession, license, permit lease or similar privilege or any condition or provision therein; (b) that, upon the recommendation of the government agency or instrumentality concerned with the administration of any such contract, concession, license, permit, lease or similar privilege, the President may, pending the conduct of appropriate hearing, summarily suspend and order the cessation of all activities and operations under the contract, concession, license, permit, lease or similar privilege for violation of any condition prescribed in duly issued rules and regulations of the administering government agency or instrumentality. DOJ Secretary Aguirre wants the president to invoke the above PD for the cessation of the Tadeco-Bucor JVA. Well, his...

Congressional Inquiry Was the investigation fair? Was it really in aid of legislation? Alvarez was talking about a business agreement where an entity may be created which will take care of the business when in fact it is a rehabilitation agreement where the common interest is the rehabilitation of inmates. Tadeco, while engaging in the banana business, trains the inmates on the banana plantation in the land provided by BuCor. It is such a unique agreement that is so effective in weeding out corruption (stipends to inmates are directly given to them and not thru any other method which can be corrupted) while effectively restoring the lives of inmates back into law-abiding citizens. Questions such as what's the difference between a partnership and agreement are very lousy, tasteless even. Another lawmaker asking about net income and a line of thinking that any accountant will cringe. Whew! A Secretary of Justice sensing that the case cannot be won by the proponents...

Business or Service http://www.bucor.gov.ph/about.html The link above is the website of the Bureau of Corrections or Bucor. Accordingly, it is mandated by law to accomplish its twin objectives - The Effective Rehabilitation and Safekeeping of National Prisoners. Its functions are to safe keep prisoners convicted by courts three (3) years and one (1) day and above to serve sentence in prison; keep prisoners from committing crimes while in BuCor's custody; provide inmates basic needs as human being; ensure rehabilitation programs are made available to the inmates for their physical, intellectual and spiritual development and develop livelihood programs to assist inmates earn a living and develop their skills while in prison. The legal basis: The BUREAU OF PRISONS was established on November 1, 1905 under the DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION through REORGANIZATION ACT ACT 1407 of the PHILIPPINE COMMISSION until it was Transferred to the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ). ...

An appeal. The pressing issue on the Tadeco-Bucor JVA has brought opposing views on the different laws, proclamations and even on the constitution on the table, an exercise proving the existence of democracy. Calls for the cancellation of the Joint Venture Agreement has been all over the news. Mounting views, looking at the agreement to be within the bounds of the law and mandate of Bucor, are also visible in social media. Those that want the agreement to be void are looking for laws to support their claim. Those that believe in the agreement look for laws to uphold its legality. Each group has their purpose and intent for their beliefs. Meanwhile, workers in Tadeco and inmates of Dapecol are looking at the horizon, staring at the cloud of uncertainty. The issue has brought uneasiness on the peaceful lives of the workers in Tadeco. The effective rehabilitation effort and mandate of Bucor is in jeopardy. We have been thrust into a realm where tomorrow is either gladness or sadness...

Legality of the Tadeco-Bucor Joint Venture Agreement Law: Commonweath Act 141 of 1936. Chapter II. SECTION 8 . Only those lands shall be declared open to disposition or concession which have been officially delimited and classified and, when practicable, surveyed, and which have not been reserved for public or quasi-public uses, nor appropriated by the Government, nor in any manner become private property, nor those on which a private right authorized and recognized by this Act or any other valid law may be claimed, or which, having been reserved or appropriated, have ceased to be so. However, the President may, for reasons of public interest, declare lands of the public domain open to disposition before the same have had their boundaries established or been surveyed, or may, for the same reason, suspend their concession or disposition until they are again declared open to concession or disposition by proclamation duly published or by Act of the National Assembly. Fact: ...