Floirendo faces graft raps over Tadeco deal

The Office of the Ombudsman yesterday formally lodged a criminal case against Davao del Norte 2nd District Rep. Antonio Floirendo Jr. in connection with his alleged unlawful business interests in a banana plantation doing business with the government.

Filed before the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan, the case against Floirendo involves violation of Section 3 (h) of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. It is a provision which prohibits government officials from “directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction... in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law from having any interest.”

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez before the ombudsman in March 2016.

Alvarez is a staunch supporter of President Duterte, while Floirendo is the biggest financier of Duterte’s presidential bid in 2016.

In its Sept. 4 resolution, the Office of the Ombudsman found merit on the allegation of Alvarez that Floirendo continues to be a board member of Tagum Agricultural Development Co. Inc. (Tadeco) despite his election as congressman.

Tadeco entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) with the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) in 1969, which allowed the firm to lease 3,000 hectares of land in the Davao Penal Colony for a banana plantation.

Tadeco is the world’s largest contiguous banana plantation engaged in the production and export of Cavendish bananas to Japan, Hong Kong, China, Korea, Middle East, Russia, Malaysia and Singapore under the Del Monte and Dole brands.

In its September ruling, the Office of the Ombudsman said its investigation showed that when the JVA was renewed in 2003, Floirendo was already elected as lawmaker and even though he ceased being board member, he allegedly still owned 75,000 shares of stock of the company and even became its vice chairman in 2008.

The ombudsman affirmed its ruling on Jan. 15 finding no merit on the arguments raised by Floirendo in his motion for reconsideration.

The Ombudsman dismissed Floirendo’s defense that what the Constitution only prohibits is the

Congress member’s holding of “substantial” stocks in private corporation having contracts with the government.