DOTC seeks DOJ opinion on NAIA Terminal 3 project

The Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) has sought an opinion from the Department of Justice on the NAIA Terminal 3 project following questions about the legality of some of the provisions of the build-operate-transfer (BOT) contract and its supplements.

Transportation and Communications Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez said that the referral was needed to "obtain an objective opinion on the aspects of the contract being questioned by the oppositors. The DOTC cannot just arbitrarily modify or act on the PIATCO-NAIA 3 contract because there are rights and obligations that will be affected."

"The DOJ is in the best, and I would say the most objective, position to assess the validity of the claims against the NAIA 3 Terminal short of the filing of an actual court case," he explained.

Alvarez said that, in the end, his goal was to build the policy environment best suited for the development of the country’s air transport infrastructure. "I believe this referral (to the DOJ) is as fair as can be for both sides and the agencies involved."

A group calling itself the MIA-NAIA Association of Service Operators (MASO) has charged that there are irregularities in the BOT contract of the Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport. Slated for completion by next year, it will serve as the new international passenger terminal for NAIA, replacing the old Terminal 1 and the Terminal 2 now being used by PAL.

The MASO now provides different services to airlines out of Terminals 1 and 2, and the status of their contracts may become unclear once Terminal 3 starts operating.

The BOT contract for Terminal 3 was originally proposed by Asia’s Emerging Dragons Co., a consortium of the leading Chinese taipans in the Philippines, upon the urging of the former President Fidel V. Ramos. However, a counter-offer was submitted by PIATCO that offered a higher fee to the government. AEDC was unable to match the offer, resulting in an award to PIATCO. Both PIATCO and MASO have been engaged in a word war the past few months on the validity of the contract.

Alvarez said that by referring the contract to the DOJ, he was disabusing all parties of the notion that the DOTC would treat the matter with preference to either side. "Of course, the preferred option is that the aggrieved party should go to court so that there can be a hearing with both sides presenting in their favor. This way no one can claim impartiality or lack of ability to present evidence."