The Supreme Court (SC) was asked to declare unconstitutional the order of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) that imposes higher fees and charges for the use of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).

Also sought to be declared unconstitutional is the March 18, 2024 NAIA Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Concession Agreement with San Miguel Corporation’s New NAIA Infra Corp. (NNIC) for the P170.6-billion contract to operate, rehabilitate and upgrade the NAIA terminals.

The petition was filed by a group of taxpayers, association of overseas Filipino workers (OFWs), present and former employees of Philippine Airlines (PAL), airport employees, and various cause-oriented groups.

The petitioners are Romeo R. Sauler, Robert Arnel P. Escario, Danilo P. Hermoso, Renato V. Ebio, Felipe D. Tipanero Jr., Nestor T Castro, Leonilo dela Cruz, Bishop Nilo D. Tayag, Samahang Manggagawa sa Paliparan ng Pilipinas represented by its President Gilberto G. Batas, OFW Wellness Association led by Emma E. Flores, Partido Lakas Masa led by Leodegario de Guzman, National Confederation of Labor led by lawyer Ernesto Arellano, Kilusang Manggagawang Sosyalista led by Mercedes A. Villarin, Freedom from Debt Coalition led by Dr. Rene Ofreneo, Pinoy Action for Governance and the Environment led by Benjamin Cyrus Ellorin, and the Political Officers League of the Philippines, Inc led by Ricardo R. Serrano.

Named respondents were Executive Secretary Lucas P. Bersamin, Transportation Secretary Vivencio B. Dizon, MIAA General Manager Eric Jose C. Ines, the chairperson of MIAA Revision of Fees and Charges Committee, and NEW NAIA Infra Corporation President and Chief Executive Officer Ramon S. Ang.

The petitioners asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the further implementation of MIAA Revised Administrative Order No. 1 (AO No. 1), series of 2024, and the NAIA Project Concession Agreement dated March 18, 2024.

The petitioners told the SC that the concession agreement is the “fastest PPP proposal in Philippine history” after it was approved by the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in June 2023 or 47 days from its submission.

They said it was subject to bidding on Dec. 27, 2023 and awarded to the NNIC in February 2024 with the signing of the concession agreement on March 18, 2024.

Thereafter, the petitioners said the MIAA issued Revised Administrative Order (AO) No. 1, Series of 2024 adjusting the rates of fees, dues, charges or assessments for the use of properties, facilities, and services of the NAIA.

They also told the SC: “the Petitioners and the public were blindsided and excluded from the process. They 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 lamented that AO No. 1 allows the airport operator to charge and collect both regulated and non-regulated fees and charges, and new fees and charges on both these types although on a staggered basis.

Regulated fees and charges include aeronautical fees and charges, other regulated fees and charges, and miscellaneous regulated fees and charges. Non-regulated fees and charges, on the other hand, refer to commercial fees and charges within the NIAA facilities.

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.

“The rate increases will have widespread effects on ordinary Filipinos, overseas workers, and the entire aviation and tourism industry. Thus, judicial intervention is not only warranted— it is imperative,” they added.

Lawyer Christopher “Kit” Belmonte, counsel for the petitioners, warned that the new charges, from parking fees to Passenger Service Charges, will significantly increase travel costs for millions, especially OFWs and airport employees.

“These hikes will come straight out of the pockets of our OFWs, travelers, and even the very workers who keep NAIA running. And they are not tied to any guaranteed improvement in service. This is privatization without accountability,” Belmonte said.

The petitioners also challenged the “unconstitutional delegation” of power to NNIC, allowing it to impose “non-regulated fees” without government oversight or clear standards, and to claim government subsidies under a “Deficit Payment Clause” if its proposed rate hikes are rejected.

They emphasized to the SC: “We are not against development. On the contrary, we welcome any initiative that would elevate the standards of our country’s gateways and critical infrastructure.”

But they said: “Progress must never come at the expense of participatory governance. It must never be rushed, cloaked in secrecy, or imposed without due regard to the voice and welfare of the people.”

Last April, a petition was filed before the SC against the constitutionality of the NAIA rehabilitation and operation contract that was awarded to the NNIC.

The first petition was filed by lawyers of the Center for International Law (CENTERLAW) and several others.

It also pleaded the SC to issue a TRO, a writ of preliminary injunction, or a status quo ante order to stop immediately the implementation of the concession agreement.

It is expected that the first petition will be consolidated with the new petition.

The first petition stated that the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel (OGCC) both advised the MIAA that the bidding and award of the NAIA project is covered by and must comply with the PPP Code.

Despite the advice, the petitioners said the bidding proceeded without the terms being clear about how the concessionaire will be compensated.