Piatco’s ping-pong of NAIA-3 issues

One of many reasons Malacañang cites in ditching the Piatco deal is that the contractor never built an access road to link NAIA-2 and -3. Piatco retorts it’s because government never delivered a clean title to the land on which it will be built. But how can government do that, when the NEDA investment coordinating council never approved the third supplemental agreement that replaces the original access tunnel with a surface road? Oh, but government committed to do so just the same, Piatco rebuts, when the NAIA general manager signed the supplement. Then again, government is questioning the very circumstances behind the signing. for which Piatco paid its mysterious PR consultant Alfonso Liongson $200,000 on top of the same amount that he collected every month for clearly non-PR work.

This ping-pong of issues is but one of many that mars the deal and the opening of NAIA-3 for full operation. The opening is itself the subject of another ping-pong game.

Piatco claims it was ready to open last Dec. 15, but that Malacañang marred it with the voiding of the contract over a week before. Government says it couldn’t let the opening go on, for it would’ve given the impression that it was no longer questioning the legality of the deal. But government is committed to do so, Piatco replies, because of its 2003 tourism offensive. Not if Piatco deviated from design specifications for the flooring, picture window glass, air conditioning and fire sprinklers, government says. But the construction consultant approved the changes, Piatco cries. Sure, it did, government says, but it was Piatco’s consultant, not government’s. But government allowed the hiring of the consultant under the supplemental agreements, Piatco wails. That’s just it, NEDA never approved any of the supplements, government insists. Besides, there are unresolved security concerns; Piatco has yet to install the control tower’s communications system and perimeter walls, and government is questioning the use of inferior switches for the central system. Give us time and we’ll do it, Piatco reacts. But that would’ve been beyond Dec. 15, government rests its case.

The security issue gives rise to another ping-pong game.

Piatco claims it built a world-class terminal that takes into account the stricter international security measures set after 9/11. Government says Piatco compromised NAIA-3’s security by building a public mall where tourist duty-free shops should be. Let foreign aviation authorities be the judge of that, Piatco retorts. But the international airlines themselves have complained about the mall, government says. If so, Piatco claims, how come the airlines have signed rent agreements with us? That’s just for the space they’ll occupy, government says, if the security issue is resolved. But a quality assurance inspection will show the airlines NAIA-3’s safety features, Piatco pips. Sure, government says, but the amended and restated concession agreement (ARCA) dropped the original contract’s provision for a joint quality assurance team. But NEDA-ICC approved the ARCA in 1998, Piatco claims. It did with a mere minority, government says, that’s why the approval is under question.

Still another ping-pong pertains to the virtual monopoly Piatco will enjoy at NAIA-3 and in the whole of Luzon.

Piatco claims it holds no such monopoly. Government counters that the contract bars it from developing other Luzon airports until NAIA-3’s volume hits 10 million passenger per year. But we gave up that right as far as the Clark international airport is concerned, Piatco says. In press releases, yes, government retorts, but not in the contract. But we won the bidding, Piatco maintains. The original proponent never made a bid that would hand over to it exclusive collection of utility fees that government must regulate. That’s their problem, Piatco says, but we made a superior offer. Sure you did, government sighs, but you also got exclusive right to decide who can operate the parking lot, porterage, and passenger, ground handling, catering and flight information services. That’s exclusivity, not monopoly, Piatco says. What’s the difference, government asks, and why does the contract bar it from developing public land around NAIA-3? Because, Piatco squeaks, if government grants other firms the right to build hotels or malls, we’d lose money, Piatco squeaks. In that case, government says, why should billions of pesos in public money be used to build roads and flyovers that would make NAIA-3 viable?

The hottest ping-pong is over the government’s financial obligations.

Malacañang notes that the ARCA obliges government to guarantee Piatco’s loans. Piatco claims the proviso is only clarificatory in nature. But it’s still against the Build-Operate Transfer Law, government insists. Let’s renegotiate then, Piatco suggests. Too late for that now, government replies. But government must uphold the sanctity of contracts, Piatco warns. Only if it’s not onerous, government maintains. We can declare government in default, Piatco pushes. That very proviso on default is onerous and was belatedly inserted, government says.

The referee in the ping-pong of issues is the Supreme Court, Piatco says, not Malacañang. Fine, so the game has moved to that playing court. But the public is still entitled to watch, right?

* * *

Catch Linawin Natin, Mondays at 11 p.m., on IBC-13.

* * *

You can e-mail comments to [email protected].