As airport users and travellers, our task is to create a lobby that will bring out expert, non-partisan knowledge on why NAIA 1 continues to be used despite its inadequacy and at great discomfort and inconvenience to travellers while NAIA 3, a modern, spunking building is left to rot. Although the lobby is primarily an action group, and hopes to be able to persuade the government to open NAIA 3, it will also be a vehicle through which citizens and/or users (airline operators, non-Filipinos, etc.) can have vital information on just how and why a public service should be rendered despite the contention. We may or may not succeed but at least we have tried.
For example, we are not discouraged by remarks from Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo that the NAIA 3 was inadequate. We want to know why it is inadequate from a neutral expert engineer to tell us why it is inadequate and how this can be rectified so it can become adequate.
Seeking a partnership between citizens and their respective representatives from Congress for this advocacy is part of political reform that this column has advocated time and again — that Congress, acting as a parliament, should represent their constituents — not vested interests. It is constituency politics. Representatives must do exactly that — represent the interests of their constituents. An adequate airport service is one of them especially on behalf of millions of overseas Filipinos and their families who daily use its facilities.
I am always reminded by one of the tools we used when we, as political exiles from the Marcos regime, were campaigning against the deportation of Filipinos in the UK without an adequate hearing. Had the UK immigration deported Filipinos without a hearing, there would be no campaign to fight for. Happily, Filipinos belonged to constituencies and it is a cardinal rule in the British system that a member of Parliament is the only official that can stay a deportation. It did not matter what party they belonged, the MP as they are called, are obliged to their constituent. That was how we stayed the deportation of hundreds of Filipinos until the High Court ruled that they could not be deported arbitrarily and it was incumbent on immigration to file a legal case before deporting the person concerned. Without the MP’s intervention, the concerned person would have had to fight his or her legal case from home which is next to impossible. There is a specific personal bond of obligation between representatives and who they represent. The partnership between citizen and his/her representative is vital and gives the advocacy a political clout without being offensive.
"Paulino G. Garcia, Jr."<pgg@alcantaragroup.com>He says it is in the right direction with the end in view of getting the NAIA 3 opened at the earliest possible time while negotiations are underway. Certainly, this is a win-win approach especially for the public and for the country. To complement Mr. Del Rosario’s proposal, I would suggest that the Philippine government secure the services of a private professional, individual or group who can undertake the negotiations with the other parties. In so doing, our negotiation panel can view the whole thing from a distance with a cold blooded and unbiased logic from a business standpoint. He does not think that Solicitor General Benipayo can devote time on the issue even if he is fully qualified as a negotiator because of "his other responsibilities and priorities" as government bureaucrat. He suggests that a Secretariat, composed of private citizens, financed by the private sector, should be formed to closely monitor the progress of the work and to provide the guidance and direction to the private negotiator.
He adds that the articles in this column have enabled the situation to approach what Caldwell calls the "tipping point" and that we, concerned citizens, should provide the inertia and the means to make this important facility usable at the earliest possible time. If successful, this could serve as a model for settling major issues that others can follow.
Dr. Percival Punzal, <"pcpunzal"@pacific.net.ph>MD from the Philippine Heart Center writes he had just come back from Birmingham. He narrates his own ‘dreadful experience’ in NAIA 1. "I left Manila via KLM on June 6, 2004 (the same date your article describing the ‘horrors of our airport’ came out in the Star) As per airport advisory, passengers are supposed to be in the airport at least 3 hours before check-in time When I came to the airport, the first thing that struck me was the kilometric lines of passengers waiting to check-in. There were two at the KLM counter for over 300 passengers.
"E-mail is: cpedrosadsamail.com.ph."