Virgilio Lorenzo Jr

SC asked to issue TRO, status quo ante order vs NAIA concession contract

Travelers queue at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 1 to take their respective flights after the momentary shutdown of the Philippine airspace due to maintenance work on May 17. 2023. Flights at the Manila airport resumed on Wednesday after the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines replaced the uninterruptible power supply (UPS) units at its air traffic management center from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m.

Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News

Article (news)

Adrian Ayalin

ABS-CBN News

MANILA — A group of lawyers asked the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order and a status quo ante order against the concession contract for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport between the government and the New NAIA Infra Corporation (NNIC).The group of petitioners said the contract was unconstitutional and illegal as it violated provisions of the new Public-Private Partnership Code which was signed into law on December 5, 2023.The group noted that the law took effect before the bidding for the concession contract on  December 23, 2023.The petitioners noted that the Office of the Solicitor General and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel both advised the Manila International Airport Authority that the bidding and award of the project is covered by the PPP Code.“Instead of going back to the drawing boards and secure the necessary approvals under the newly enacted law, the MIAA could not be bothered by it nor deterred by mere opinions from the legal counsels of government bodies and instrumentalities,” the petitioners said.The petitioners said the grant of governmental rate-fixing power to NNIC is unconstitutional.They assailed Revised Administrative Order No. 1 or RAO1 governing fees, rentals and charges which were only approved in September 2024 or more than six (6) months after the award of the project to NNIC and more than five (5) months after the signing of the Concession Agreement.They noted that RAO1 essentially allows a private entity to exercise governmental, specifically legislative rate-fixing powers.“This is patently illegal,” the petitioners said.The lawyers who filed the petition for certiorari and prohibition include Joel Butuyan, Ma. Soledad Derequito-Mawis, Tony Laviña and Jose Mari Benjamin Francisco Tirol.Respondents were Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, as well as the Department of Transportation; MIAA; Pre-Qualification, Bids and Awards Committee for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Public-Private Partnership Project; PPP Board; and NNIC.The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to restrain the respondents from any further implementation of the concession agreement.They also asked the court to direct the respondents to restore in full the status quo prevailing at NAIA on September 13, 2024 prior to the handover of NAIA to a private operator.They also asked the court to render a decision after due proceedings declaring the NAIA PPP Project Concession Agreement dated March 18, 2024 as unconstitutional, illegal, void and of no effect.In the petition, the petitioners further noted that the Passenger Service Charge of Terminal Fee is set and scheduled to increase on September 14, 2025 by 72 percent to P950 for every departing international passenger and by 95 percent to P390 for every departing domestic passenger.“If respondents are not immediately restrained, even if this petition is eventually granted, respondents’ ongoing and continuing implementation of a patently illegal RAO1 and the Concession Agreement founded upon it will result in grave injustice and irreparable damage to millions of Filipinos and foreign travelers, not to mention hundreds of airlines, concessionaires and lessees operating at NAIA, who are already now being made to pay, every day, fees and charges on the basis of an illegal RAO1,” the petitioners said.The petitioners also stated that while refunding supposedly illegal collections of fees and charges from NAIA users, such as airlines, may be feasible, refunding illegal collections from passengers, including foreign travelers, will be difficult.“And it would not be an exaggeration to say that it would be impossible for individual users to ever get a refund on account of indirect illegal collections passed on to them in the form of price increases in airline tickets or of various goods and services on offer at NAIA,” the petitioners said.&quot;Tataas iyong lahat ng babayaran ng mga pasahero, pati iyong mga pribadong mga negosyante na mayroong mga pwesto dito, pati iyong mga airlines tataas lahat ang kanilang rates at lahat iyan ay ang epekto sa lahat ng mga users ng mga airports natin, ang publiko, so tataas lahat iyan,” Butuyan told reporters after the filing of the petition.The NNIC, when it officially took over the operations at the NAIA on September 14, vowed to make the airport “truly world class” and would entail more jobs and more tourists visiting the country.<div><a href="https://www.abs-cbn.com/business/2024/9/14/san-miguel-led-naia-privatization-takes-flight-945">Multibillion-peso NAIA privatization project takes flight</a></div>

The group of petitioners said the contract was unconstitutional and illegal as it violated provisions of the new Public-Private Partnership Code.

The group of petitioners said the contract was unconstitutional and illegal as it violated provisions of the new Public-Private Partnership Code.