The Supreme Court (SC) has been pressed to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) that would stop the enforcement of the increases in fees and other charges at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) starting Sept. 14.

Several petitions have been filed before the SC challenging as unconstitutional not only the increased fees and charges but also the rehabilitation and operation contract that was awarded to the New NAIA Infra Corporation (NNIC) in February 2024.

The petitions sought the issuance of TRO against the increased fees and charges and against the continued enforcement of the rehabilitation and operation contract by the NNIC.

The SC has yet to act on the petitions and the reiterative plea for a TRO.

The motion that reiterated the issuance of a TRO was filed by lawyers Rico Domingo and Ceasar Oracion, petitioners in the case docketed as GR No. 279760.

They told the SC that starting on Sept. 14, 2025, the International Passenger Service Charge will drastically increase to P950 from P550, and the domestic Passenger Charge will be raised to P390 from P200.

Thus, they said, “a family of four traveling to a local destination will have to shell out an additional P760 for the Passenger Service Charge, while a family four travelling to a foreign destination will have to pay an additional P1,600.”

They also said that “the NAIA PPP (Public-Private Partnership) Project ongoing implementation has already caused and will continue to cause undue hardships to users of NAIA, not to mention damage and loss of public property.”

The increases in fees and charges were contained in Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) Revised Administrative Order (AO) No. 1, Series of 2024 that adjusted the rates of fees, dues, charges or assessments for the use of properties, facilities, and services of the NAIA.

The petitioners in the cases said they and the public “were blindsided and excluded from the process, and were not given a full and transparent account of the events leading to the signing and implementation of AO No. 1 and the Concession Agreement, and were left with only fragmented information.”

Thus, they said the approval of AO No. 1 and the concession agreement violated their right to due process.

They pointed out that AO No. 1 was issued without the public hearings required under Batas Pambansa Blg. 325 and the Administrative Code of 1987, and that MIAA, which spearheaded the rate-setting, does not have the legal authority to do so.

“One thing is certain, the public was not afforded reasonable notice or a fair opportunity to participate in the proceedings that led to the approval of the revised fees,” they said.

On the rehabilitation and operation contract, the petitioners told the SC that the bidding did not comply with the provisions of the Public-Private Partnership Code (Republic Act No. 11966) that was signed into law on Dec. 5, 2023 and took effect on Dec. 23, 2023.

They said the concession was subjected to bidding on Dec. 27, 2023 and awarded to the NNIC in February 2024 with the signing of the agreement on March 2024.

“It would soon become evident just how quickly and easily a PPP (Public-Private Partnership) Project could be drawn up, approved, peddled, bid out, awarded and a concession agreement for it signed if absolutely none of the government officials overseeing it cared about following the law or safeguarding the public’s interest,” they also said.

Named respondents in the petitions were the executive department led by Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, the Department of Transportation, the MIAA, the PPP governing board, and the NNIC.