Constitutionality of NAIA concession deal challenged by new group of lawyers | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Constitutionality of NAIA concession deal challenged by new group of lawyers
Constitutionality of NAIA concession deal challenged by new group of lawyers
MANILA — Former Philippine Bar Association president Rico Domingo and lawyer Cesar Oracion filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court Friday for the nullification of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Concession Agreement.
MANILA — Former Philippine Bar Association president Rico Domingo and lawyer Cesar Oracion filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court Friday for the nullification of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Concession Agreement.
The petitioners argued that the concession agreement is illegal and unconstitutional.
The petitioners argued that the concession agreement is illegal and unconstitutional.
Respondents to the petition are the New NAIA Infra Corp., the Department of Transportation, Manila International Airport Authority, Public-Private Partnership Center of the Philippines Governing Board, Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee for the NAIA PPP Project.
Respondents to the petition are the New NAIA Infra Corp., the Department of Transportation, Manila International Airport Authority, Public-Private Partnership Center of the Philippines Governing Board, Pre-Qualification Bids and Awards Committee for the NAIA PPP Project.
The petitioners argued that the concession agreement was made under the Build Operate Transfer Law even if the applicable should have been the Public-Private Partnership Code which took effect on December 23, 2023.
The petitioners argued that the concession agreement was made under the Build Operate Transfer Law even if the applicable should have been the Public-Private Partnership Code which took effect on December 23, 2023.
ADVERTISEMENT
The concession agreement was signed on March 18, 2024 and was approved by the Marcos administration cabinet on September 4, 2024.
The concession agreement was signed on March 18, 2024 and was approved by the Marcos administration cabinet on September 4, 2024.
“Respondents DOTr, MIAA, and PBAC’s Invitation to Bid and the Bid Documents such as the Instructions to Bidders and draft Concession Agreement which expressly referred only to the BOT Law and the BOT Law IRR as the legal framework for the bidding process, had all become outmoded, obsolete and useless on 23 December 2023 when the PPP Code took effect and expressly repealed the BOT Law,” the petitioners said in a statement,” the petitioners said.
“Respondents DOTr, MIAA, and PBAC’s Invitation to Bid and the Bid Documents such as the Instructions to Bidders and draft Concession Agreement which expressly referred only to the BOT Law and the BOT Law IRR as the legal framework for the bidding process, had all become outmoded, obsolete and useless on 23 December 2023 when the PPP Code took effect and expressly repealed the BOT Law,” the petitioners said in a statement,” the petitioners said.
The petitioners added that even if the BOT Law still applied to the NAIA project, the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory provision of the law.
The petitioners added that even if the BOT Law still applied to the NAIA project, the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory provision of the law.
“While the private operator has been firmly dedicated to the collection of those escalated fees and charges since 1 October 2024, even unilaterally hiking its so-called non-regulated fees and charges several times since then, to this day, it remains uncertain what the public is supposed to be getting out of this privatization deal, and when,” the petitioners said.
“While the private operator has been firmly dedicated to the collection of those escalated fees and charges since 1 October 2024, even unilaterally hiking its so-called non-regulated fees and charges several times since then, to this day, it remains uncertain what the public is supposed to be getting out of this privatization deal, and when,” the petitioners said.
The petitioners also said the DOTr and MIAA awarded the project and signed the agreement, in violation of Section 30 the PPP Code which prohibits them from implementing projects they regulate.
The petitioners also said the DOTr and MIAA awarded the project and signed the agreement, in violation of Section 30 the PPP Code which prohibits them from implementing projects they regulate.
ADVERTISEMENT
They also stressed that the project illegally encompassed Important Cultural Properties - the NAIA Terminals 1 and 2 which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts.
They also stressed that the project illegally encompassed Important Cultural Properties - the NAIA Terminals 1 and 2 which are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Commission for Culture and the Arts.
The DOTr and MIAA also illegally provided for the concessionaire’s real property tax exemption.
The DOTr and MIAA also illegally provided for the concessionaire’s real property tax exemption.
The petitioners added that the DOTr and MIAA appeared bent on leaving the private operator unchecked.
The petitioners added that the DOTr and MIAA appeared bent on leaving the private operator unchecked.
“Apparently, it is viewed as an achievement complete unto itself to have privatized an important public service where the most tangible result is unnecessary financial burdens on the Filipino People,” the petitioners said.
“Apparently, it is viewed as an achievement complete unto itself to have privatized an important public service where the most tangible result is unnecessary financial burdens on the Filipino People,” the petitioners said.
Early last month, another group of lawyers led by Atty. Joel Butuyan filed a petition against the concession agreement and asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order a status quo anter order.
Early last month, another group of lawyers led by Atty. Joel Butuyan filed a petition against the concession agreement and asked the court to issue a temporary restraining order a status quo anter order.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
