3 congressmen ask SC to nullify controversial Piatco contract

Three congressmen asked the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to declare null and void the government’s "onerous" contract with Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco) to construct and manage the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3.

"These investigations (in the House of Representatives) cannot declare this contract null and void. So, we decided to elevate this matter to the SC because of its urgency, and because the SC is the final arbiter of all of these," said Rep. Salacnib Baterina (Ilocos Sur). He and Reps. Clavel Martinez (Cebu) and Constantino Jaraula (Cagayan de Oro) filed a taxpayer’s suit before the high tribunal.

Respondents named in the suit are Piatco, the Manila International Airport Authority, Transportation and Communications Secretary Leandro Mendoza and Secretary Simeon Datumanong of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH).

Piatco welcomed the filing of the congressmen’s petition to have the contract declared null and void. Piatco lawyer-spokesman Moises Tolentino Jr. said it was the right of the three congressmen to file a complaint.

"However, we are confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the legality and validity of the contract which had been approved by the duly authorized government agencies," Tolentino said. "It will stop once and for all speculations about the contract." One of the reasons for the petition, according to the statement issued by the congressmen, is that allowing the deal to push through would only mean more losses for the government.

"It is estimated that the government liabilities created by the Piatco contracts amount to P60 billion or one-third of the estimated national budget deficit for this year," the statement said.

Baterina pointed out that as of now, the government has an actual deficit of a little over P60 billion. Allowing Piatco to operate the NAIA Terminal 3, he said, would make the government shoulder P3 billion more when it should have been earning instead.

Aside from violating Article 6 Section 29 (1) of the 1987 Constitution which bars unappropriated expenditures, Baterina said Piatco had no intention to bind itself to the original contract as it even amended the deal five times over through supplements it added to the original contract.

"Piatco contracts contained financial obligations passed on to the government amounting to over P10 billion, none of which are covered by required congressional appropriation," he said.

Baterina also lambasted the DPWH which he claimed "arrogated" unto itself Congress’ power to appropriate funds, because it implemented the project and agreed that Piatco would have to "advance" the funds.

Jaraula said that this contract cannot be final as it has yet to pass judicial scrutiny. He noted that there was not even a certification for the availability of government funds, nor was an enabling law passed to support the deal.

Martinez, for her part, said that none of the government’s legal institutions – the Department of Justice, the Office of the Solicitor General, and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel – have been consulted on the contract.

Once the Piatco contract pushes through, the lawmakers warned, "public officers will be emboldened to execute contracts which oblige the government to expend unappropriated funds, and to amend contracts in violation of applicable law."

Piatco, on the other hand, said the three congressmen already had a chance to air their views on the contract when it was investigated earlier by the House committee on transportation. The committee deemed the contract free of irregularities and ruled that it was advantageous to the government.

Tolentino said Piatco is confident that the SC will uphold the validity of the contract since it has been declared legal and aboveboard by a Pasig Regional Trial Court, the Office of the Ombudsman, the Investment Coordinating Council, and the National Economic and Development Authority.

"The contract is transparent," Tolentino said. "It was thoroughly discussed during a lengthy hearing by the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee that ended just recently. In this public hearing... not a shred of evidence was submitted by the objectors to prove their allegation of irregularities in the contract."