A COALITION of airport workers, overseas Filipino workers, non-government organizations and socio-civic groups yesterday filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) challenging the constitutionality of a concession agreement granting the New NAIA Airport Infrastructure Corporation (NNIC) the authority to raise all fees at the country’s premiere international airport.
The coalition questioned the legality of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) concession agreement and Revised Administrative Order No. 1 authorizing the NNIC to raise the fees.
Earlier in June 2023, the National Economic and Development Authority approved after 47 days from its submission the Public Private Partnership (PPP) proposal for the operation of NAIA.
A project bidding was conducted on Dec. 27, 2023, with the NNIC bagging the contract in February 2024. The concession agreement was signed in March 2024.
Petitioners were the Samahan ng mga Manggagawa sa Paliparan ng Pilipinas, OFW Wellness Family Association, National Confederation of Labor, Pinoy Aksyon for Governance and the Environment, Partido Lakas ng Masa, Political Officers League of the Philippines, Freedom from Debt Coalition, and Socialista Inc.
The group told the SC that the concession agreement and the administrative order constituted an unlawful grant of control and beneficial ownership of strategic national infrastructure to private entities without proper congressional authorization, competitive public bidding safeguards, and adherence to constitutional limitations on foreign participation, thus, illegal or unconstitutional.
The petition was also signed by lawyer Luke Espiritu, Bishop Nilo Tayag, former rebel leader Nilo dela Cruz, and four employees from the Philippine Airlines, Macroasia Airport Services Corporation, and JAMMAS Manpower Incorporated.
Named respondents are Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, the Department of Transportation (DOTr), Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), MIAA Revision of Fees and Charges Committee (MIAA0RFCC) and the NNIC.
In their petition, the signatories also assailed the steep increase in airport fees under the PPP deal between the DOTr and the SMC-led NNIC. The assailed airport fees included the domestic passenger charge from P200 to P390, international passenger service charge from P550 to P950, as well as the 300 to 700 percent hikes in fees for airline landing, take-off, parking, cargo, and other lease rates for commercial spaces within the NAIA complex.
“These fees were approved without genuine public consultation, while the government relinquished critical powers to a private concessionaire. The public deserves a clear explanation, and not be slapped with skyrocketing fees at the airport,” Romeo Sauler, head secretariat of Puso ng NAIA, said. He is a retired aviation employee, who helped spearhead the filing of the complaint.
“The actions of the Department of Transportation, Manila International Airport Authority and Cabinet officials constitute grave abuse of discretion and violate established laws and jurisprudence on rate-fixing. They also transgress on the constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection, and undermine the separation of powers, and contravene public policy. The NAIA is public property and funds generated from its use are public in nature. Yet, these are now being shared with private entity, NNIC, under terms that are unlawful and prejudicial to the public,” the 36-page petition stated.
It also said the concession agreement and the administrative order “unlawfully” delegated rate-setting powers to a private concessionaire, entitled it full passenger service charge and granted it a share in other airport revenues.
“Alarmingly, the concession agreement contains a ‘deficit payment’ clause obligating the government to pay the concessionaire if a proposed rate adjustment is disapproved or not approved in accordance with the concession agreement. These provisions violate the law, public policy, and the government auditing code,” it added.
The petitioners alleged that the DOTr and MIAA carried out all the assailed actions without conducting real, timely and meaningful public consultations.
“One thing is certain, the public was not afforded reasonable notice or fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings that led to the approval of the revised fees,” they said, adding that token consultation and post-facto consultation do not amount to genuine compliance with the requirements for due process and public consultations.
They likewise complained that the the concession agreement gave the NNIC the right to determine whether or not and when to exercise authority to impose and adjust airport fees at NAIA, with no requirement for government review or public engagement.
They added that since the revised fees were imposed last year, no new major infrastructure has been constructed by NNIC at the NAIA to justify the increased costs or to show the public how their payments are justified.
They told the High Court that the concession agreement and the administrative order violated the doctrine of non-delegation of legislative powers and encroached on the powers of the legislature.
“The legislative authority to fix rates was originally delegated by Congress to the MIAA, DoTr and ultimately the Cabinet. None of these entities had the legal authority to further re-delegate this power to the private concessionaire, NNIC, especially where such delegation grants NNIC essentially legislative discretion over public fees,” the petitioners said.
Lastly, they raised the risk posed by allowing one corporation to control two major airports, NAIA and the P740 billion Bulacan Airport Project, which is currently facing delays in completion.
“There is a legitimate concern that entrusting the operation and management of NAIA, one of the country’s most critical airport hubs, to the same party could lead to similar delays, inefficiencies, or worse, a potential monopolization of the country’s primary aviation gateways. The possible consolidation of control over two major international airports in the hands of a single private group also present serious public interest implications,” they said.
With these, the petitioners asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order and or a writ of preliminary injunction to remain in effect pending the final resolution of the petition to restrain the respondents from further enforcing the assailed administrative order, and eventually, after due proceedings, to declare it as unconstitutional.
The petitioners also asked the same redress for the NAIA concession agreement.
