Business or Service

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).

The PRISON LAW incorporated in chapter 45 of the revised ADMINISTRATIVE CODE OF 1917.

SECTION 26 of the ADMINSTRATIVE CODE OF 1987 issued November 23, 1989 under PROCLAMATION NO. 495 of the PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES change the name of the BUREAU OF PRISON to BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS.

On May 24, 2013, PRESIDENT BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III signed into law the REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10575/ otherwise known as THE BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS ACT of 2013 which provides for the modernization, Professionalization and Restructuring of the bureau.

The above facts coming from a government website gives us a glimpse of how the TADECO – Bucor Joint Venture Agreement should really be seen as.

BUT LET US GET BACK TO THE OTHER MAJOR CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS OF THE LAND.

Much has been said about the Bucor lands its Davao Penal Colony. With all due respect, the Commission on Audit, the Solicitor General, the DOJ panel and other personalities assumed the lands to be alienable subject to the provisions in the Commonwealth Act 141 of 1936. All arguments on lease, limit of area to be leased (1024 ha), 25-year lease renewable for another 25-year lease, highest bidding based on the Commonwealth Act are applicable to ALIENABLE lands, I repeat, ALIENABLE lands as described in the Commonwealth Act 141.

Now, is the Bucor lands in the Davao Penal Colony alienable?

In Act 3732 of 1932, the Davao Penal Colony was established and by virtue of Proclamation No. 131 of 1931, lands were reserved for the Prison Farm. And by virtue of the Commonwealth Act 141 of 1936, lands under the public domain proclaimed as reservation are non-alienable unless again proclaimed by the president as alienable. Since then, there were already 21 laws reducing the reservation into less than 10,000 hectares and the area being currently mentioned in the TADECO – Bucor Joint-Venture Agreement has not been declared alienable yet by any laws.

THUS, the arguments on the illegality of the JVA based on limit of area to be leased (1024 (CA 141) or 1000 ha (1987 PhilCons)), 25-year lease renewable for another 25-year lease, public auction or highest bidding based on Commonwealth Act 141 of 1936 may not be applicable, after all.

NOW, LET US GET BACK ON HOW TO LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT.

As it is the reservation for the Bureau of Corrections, it is only the bureau that has the absolute authority to design, formulate and implement land-use development plans and policies for the effective and extensive reformation program for national inmates. This is stipulated in the Republic Act 10575. This is also manifested in the recommendation of the CoA which is addressed to the BuCor head and not to any other personality or agency. Not even DA or DAR can make manifestations or rulings on the land of Bucor as it is the only agency which is absolutely authorized as mentioned above.

For the Bureau of Correction, its main function is not to lease its lands for the highest bidder for the highest profit but to use its lands for inmate security, effective reformation programs with or without profit. This is part of the RA 10575. 

The RA 10575 also stipulates that BuCor can source its funds from the government and from the income from institutional projects subject to joint-venture agreements.

Thus, the action of Bucor to have a Joint Venture Agreement with Tadeco is not a business agreement that the government hopes to generate the biggest funds for whatever purposes. It is a joint venture agreement to effectively rehabilitate the inmates, an institutional project. The income of this joint venture agreement is not only in the form of lease and profit share but also the stipends that are given to the inmates as farm trainees in the banana plantation. In effect, Tadeco is carrying out the program to effectively rehabilitate and restore the inmates thru the Inmates Farm Training and Exposure Program (IFTEP), giving the inmates the opportunity to earn while also learning back to follow rules and regulations. This stipend is the cost of the training that these inmates undergo before their eventual freedom. This stipend amount far exceeds the amount in terms of lease and profit share and if the whole package is computed and compared vis a vis to the normal lease/rental in the area (the CoA report says that the prevailing leasing rates in the area is from PhP10,000 to PhP18,000 per ha), it is really way above board.

Now, is the government short-changed? I don’t think so.

Rehabilitation and restoration of the inmates’ goodness to follow the laws and rules wherever they may be is more effective than just giving them livelihood projects or classroom type formal/informal training. Training them on the jobs in the banana plantation exposes them to standards which should be followed. It teaches them that there is a specific time for work and a set of standards on how to go about the work. And in doing so, they slowly but surely realize that following instructions is indeed a worthy action and can generate them fair allowance. This is the type of restorative rehabilitation which is embedded in the Bucor – Tadeco experience. Is it effective? Yes. It is very effective as it also gets the inmates closer back to their families since the inmates are also providing them with their necessities coming from the substantial stipend that they received while working as trainees in the field. This closer ties between the inmate and his family rekindles love lost and will be there even after their sentences are served. This is the best restoration an inmate can ever have.

Another thing, if the whole amount, lease, profit share and stipend for inmates, is directly given to the Bureau for the rehabilitation of the inmates, Tadeco then, will not allow the inmates to work in the field as it will be a very inefficient operation. Imagine, giving salaries to the workers an equivalent to a day’s work but the actual duration of the job is only 4 – 5 hours. It will then be the bureau which will decide how much is given to the inmates and how to go about the rehabilitation. Then, how can the rehabilitation programs be effective? Will the inmates be given the chance to follow instructions and at the same time earn a substantial amount as a way of them realizing that to follow rules and instructions is commensurate to good life? I don’t think so.

And additionally, the agreement can even be seen as anti-corruption since the amount for the rehabilitation of the inmates, in the form of stipend and other materials, are directly given to them and not thru any other method which may be corrupted.

Thus, the answer to the question of whether the partnership between Tadeco and Bucor is legal or not and if the agreement does shortchange the government, is definitely clear, IT IS NOT ILLEGAL AND IT IS VERY ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE GOVERNMENT thru the Bureau of Correction where its mandate is to rehabilitate and restore the human dignity of a prisoner as indicated in the first part of this piece.

THIS IS HOW IT SHOULD BE SEEN.

But of course, I am not a lawyer.

Again, my plea, is to look at the feasibility and effectiveness of this agreement in carrying the mandate of a government agency. It should be emulated and not condemned.