Supreme court asked to nullify Naia concession deal
A group of lawyers on Monday asked the Supreme Court to nullify the concession contract for Ninoy Aquino International Airport (Naia), citing violations of constitutional rights to due process and equal protection of the law.
In a 182-page petition for certiorari and prohibition, lawyers Joel Butuyan, Ma. Soledad Derequito-Mawis, Antonio Gabriel La Viña, Roger Rayel and Jose Mari Benjamin Francisco Tirol urged the high court to declare unconstitutional, illegal and void both the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2024, and the Naia Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project concession agreement.
They also sought to stop the implementation of both measures.
The petitioners further asked the high tribunal to direct the respondents to restore the status quo at Naia as of Sept. 13, 2024, before the handover to a private operator and before the effectivity of MIAA RAO No. 1.
Named respondents were Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, representing Cabinet members; the Department of Transportation (DOTr); MIAA; the Prequalification, Bids and Awards Committee for the Naia PPP Project; and the PPP Governing Board, as well as private concessionaire New Naia Infra Corp. (NNIC).
Connivance
According to the petitioners, the government has left the Filipino people and Naia users to “fend for themselves” under an administrative rate regulation that they said not only violates the law and public policy, but “defies the all-important constitutional provisions on separation of powers, due process and equal protection of laws.”
They warned that a Supreme Court ruling upholding the concession agreement would “open the floodgates to an open and institutional connivance between the government and business conglomerates or other private entities to partner in operating public utilities, government monopolies, and government facilities which will disregard the mandate of the law to ‘protect the public interest’ and to shirk from the obligation to provide ‘affordable’ and ‘accessible’ public services.”
“As it stands, the Naia PPP Project is just privatization for privatization’s sake. From inception to implementation, the Project was never designed with the common good or public welfare in mind,” the petition read in part.
The P170.6-billion concession agreement, dated March 18, 2024, is a contract between the DOTr, MIAA and NNIC covering the rehabilitation, operation, expansion and eventual transfer of Naia.
It grants NNIC the right to operate and maintain the airport for 15 years, extendable by another 10 years.
Increased rates
NNIC began collecting fees and charges at Naia on Oct. 1, 2024, following RAO1, enforcing “substantially increased rates” from higher vehicle parking rates, to land lease rentals and office space rentals, to aircraft landing and takeoff fees, to tacking fees and passenger processing fees, among others.
The lawyers argued that the bidding did not comply with and was in violation of the provisions of the new PPP Code signed into law on Dec. 5, 2023, and took effect before the bidding on Dec. 23, 2023.
They also argued that the adoption and integration of RAO1 into the concession agreement violated their right to procedural due process, pointing to the lack of “genuine and meaningful public participation.”
The petition cited “strong opposition and serious objections” from airline groups, including the Air Carriers Association of the Philippines, the Board of Airline Representatives, the Airline Operators Council, and the International Air Transport Association Philippines.
None of these objections, they said, were addressed during the sole public hearing conducted by MIAA on Feb. 12, 2024.
The lawyers warned that without immediate action from the high court, the continued implementation of RAO1 and the concession agreement could cause “grave injustice and irreparable damage to millions of Filipinos and foreign travelers,” as well as to airlines, concessionaires and lessees now paying increased rates under the contested administrative order.
“Given the circumstances, the extreme urgency of and paramount necessity for a temporary restraining order, writ of preliminary injunction or status quo ante order issued by the Honorable Court cannot be overstated,” the petitioners said.
They also asked that respondents be compelled to return all sums collected under RAO1, whether from airline passengers, airlines, aviation service providers, lessees, concessionaires, or the general public, that exceed the rates in place at Naia on Sept. 13, 2024.
