Former Davao del Norte Rep. Antonio “Tonyboy” Floirendo Jr. has been convicted of graft in relation to the irregular land deal between his family and the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) back in 2003.
The Sandiganbayan found Floirendo guilty of violating Section 3(h) of RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, due to his involvement in the joint venture agreement between the BuCor and Tagum Agricultural Development Company (Tadeco).
The anti-graft court ruled on Wednesday that the prosecution managed to prove Floirendo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to six years and one month to eight years imprisonment.
He was also perpetually disqualified from holding public office. On July 11, 1969, Tadeco signed a contract with BuCor for the former's right to use and develop 3,000 hectares within the Davao Penal Colony for a banana plantation for 25 years.
The contract was renewed on September 26, 1979, followed by the most recent agreement on May 21, 2003.
Based on the new contract, BuCor will receive a guaranteed annual production share of ₱26,541,809 as well as profit shares, and it will increase by 10 percent every five years just as long as Tadeco is allowed to use 5,308.36 hectares of land.
Floirendo – who served as the congressman representing the 2nd District of Davao del Norte in the House from 2001 to 2004 – owned most of Tadeco's shares of stocks.
He had 75,000 shares of Tadeco, or equivalent to .89 percent of its outstanding capital stock at the time the 2003 agreement was signed.
This was a violation of Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019, since local officials are prohibited from having financial or pecuniary interest “in any business, contract or transaction in connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his official capacity.”
Floirendo never denied that he had an indirect financial interest in the 2003 joint venture agreement (JVA).
However, he insisted that such interest does not fall within the prohibitions of law.
He tried to argue that he was not required to divest his shareholdings because he acquired these even before he was elected as a congressman, and there was no conflict of interest at the time when the 2003 JVA was executed.
However, the anti-graft court said that Section 9 of RA 6713 requires a public official to divest himself or herself of his or her shareholdings within 60 days from the assumption of office when a conflict of interest arises.
“Clearly, there is a need for a public officer to make a divestment of shareholdings, or any pecuniary or financial interest, once the possession of such pecuniary or financial interest becomes prohibited, regardless of whether or not a situation of conflict of interest has arisen,” the decision said.