2 congressmen seek to block $62-M payment to Piatco
March 11, 2005 | 12:00am
Two House members filed an intervention yesterday with the Pasay City Regional Trial Court opposing the initial $62 million that the court had ordered the government to pay to Philippine Air Terminals Co. (Piatco), proponent-builder of the controversial Ninoy Aquino International Airport Terminal 3.
In their petition, Representatives Salacnib Baterina of Ilocos Sur and Clavel Martinez of Cebu said the government should not make "any compensation to Piatco or Fraport (Piatcos German partner) for Terminal 3, whether under the pretended legal cover of expropriation or otherwise."
They said, Piatco and its German partner do not own the new world-class passenger terminal since their build-operate-transfer contract does not give them ownership of the building.
"As such, neither Piatco or Fraport is entitled to compensation," they said.
The two pointed out that the project proponents could not be classified as builders in good faith under the Civil Code because the Supreme Court has invalidated their contract due to irregularities.
"The New Civil Code allows the government to demand the return of what it has given without any obligation to comply with its promise," they added.
Baterina and Martinez also claimed that the order of the court for the government to compensate Piatco is unconstitutional.
They cited a provision of the Constitution prohibiting the expenditure of taxpayers money without an appropriation made by Congress.
"The government may not even legally expropriate without prior legislative appropriation," they said.
In effect, the two House members are arguing that Malacañang should take over Terminal 3 and run it. Or if there is any compensation involved, lawmakers should have a say in it.
The Pasay court ordered the government to pay Piatco and Fraport an initial $62 million after the latter filed a petition to expropriate the new terminal, which is set to open in June.
Germany has urged the government to appropriately compensate German investors in the project.
In their petition, Representatives Salacnib Baterina of Ilocos Sur and Clavel Martinez of Cebu said the government should not make "any compensation to Piatco or Fraport (Piatcos German partner) for Terminal 3, whether under the pretended legal cover of expropriation or otherwise."
They said, Piatco and its German partner do not own the new world-class passenger terminal since their build-operate-transfer contract does not give them ownership of the building.
"As such, neither Piatco or Fraport is entitled to compensation," they said.
The two pointed out that the project proponents could not be classified as builders in good faith under the Civil Code because the Supreme Court has invalidated their contract due to irregularities.
"The New Civil Code allows the government to demand the return of what it has given without any obligation to comply with its promise," they added.
Baterina and Martinez also claimed that the order of the court for the government to compensate Piatco is unconstitutional.
They cited a provision of the Constitution prohibiting the expenditure of taxpayers money without an appropriation made by Congress.
"The government may not even legally expropriate without prior legislative appropriation," they said.
In effect, the two House members are arguing that Malacañang should take over Terminal 3 and run it. Or if there is any compensation involved, lawmakers should have a say in it.
The Pasay court ordered the government to pay Piatco and Fraport an initial $62 million after the latter filed a petition to expropriate the new terminal, which is set to open in June.
Germany has urged the government to appropriately compensate German investors in the project.
BrandSpace Articles
<
>
- Latest
- Trending
Trending
Latest