• Deal with BuCor valid – Tadeco


    The Tagum Agricultural Development Company (Tadeco) maintained that the findings of the Department of Justice (DoJ) declaring the company’s joint venture agreement (JVA) with the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) was “fraught with legal misinterpretations.”

    In a statement, Tadeco president and CEO Alex Valoria said the findings were based on flawed interpretations of the Constitution and laws governing contracts and the disposition of public lands.

    “When the DOJ investigating panel released its findings, Justice Undersecretary (Raymund) Mecate pointed out that the JVA was ‘fraught with infirmities.’ But, sadly, when we read the findings released to the media, the only conclusion we can respectfully come to is that the findings were fraught with legal misinterpretations,” Valoria said.

    He added that the recommendation of the DoJ panel to amend the JVA to make it compliant with the law indicates that the justice department deems the contract valid.

    Disputing the DoJ’s claim that the contract area of 5,308 hectares exceeds the allowable area of public agricultural land that may be leased to private firms, Valoria pointed out that the agreement involves inalienable public land, which does not have any prescribed area limits.

    He added that the JVA does not involve the procurement of any government infrastructure, supplies and consultancy, thus was not covered by the bidding requirement.

    Tadeco, he said, pays BuCor not only a guaranteed annual production and profit share, but also provides the funds for the Bureau’s Inmate Farm Workers Training and Exposure Program, the inmates’ stipends and training subsidies.

    “For 2016 alone, Tadeco paid BuCor a total of P142,719,662, which equates approximately to P27,000 per hectare. This figure is way above the lease rates of P10,000 to P18,000 that the DOJ said BuCor should be receiving from TADECO, when it claimed that the JVA was disadvantageous to the government in terms of per hectare rate,” Valoria said.

    “Moreover, the successes of the rehabilitation program under the JVA resulting in the eventual re-integration of the inmates back to society as productive citizens is beyond monetary value,” he added.

    The Tadeco head said that the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions does not bar the government from entering into joint venture arrangements involving inalienable lands like the DPPF.

    “In fact, under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, there is now an express provision allowing joint venture arrangement involving exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources. Natural resources include inalienable public lands like the Davao penal farm,” Valoria said.


    Please follow our commenting guidelines.


    1. Di lahat ng gusto ni Alvarez masusunod! Wag ipagpilitan kung Malinaw naman na legal ang JVA. Ibang klase din si Alvarez walang ibang Alam na tirahin kundi tong TADECO

    2. Aling Mameng on


      Anong invalidate ang sinasabi mo??? Papatayin mo ang libo-libong manggagaw at pamilya nila. Kahit mga si SOJ ang sabi kailangan pa ng study. The contract is legal. Hindi bobo ang mga previous secretary ng DOJ. Ang daming review nang dinaanan ang contract. Nangyayari ito ngayon, kahit wala namang dapat imbestigahan, dahil sa personal na dahilan ni Alvarez. Ang taong ‘yan ang dapat imbestigahan.

    3. Obviously the contract is legal and all the other clauses but Aguirre doesn’t understand any of the legalities, he gets just the sound of Alvarez’ money though hence the ridiculous and flawed DOJ recommendations though and the Kangaroo court.

    4. Alvarez is just wasting our time. Same goes to COA, Calida at lalo na sa DOJ na dapat mas alam ang mga bagay na ito. Nakakahiya at nakaka inis kayo.

    5. This is obviously biased! Alvarez is trying to bring down TADECO for his own interest.

    6. The Tadeco President should take note of the separability clause of the contract…which say if any part of this contract in illegal, sentence, phrase or word, it should be edited, amended or modified to make it legal…yes…the contract is conceptually legal but maybe some provisions does not meet the legal aspect…hence the contract can be invalidated!!!!!!!