An advocacy group representing aviation workers and air passengers has urged the Independent Commission for Infrastructure (ICI) and Congress to investigate the P1.5-trillion Public-Private Partnership (PPP) deal for the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) between the Department of Transportation (DoTr) and the San Miguel-led New NAIA Infrastructure Corp. (NNIC).
The group, PUSO ng NAIA, said the agreement bears the hallmarks of a “scandal-ridden public works” project that have historically cost taxpayers billions, citing what it described as “unmistakable signs of corruption and tailor-fitted provisions favoring a private interest.”
“A year after the award, no major improvement can be seen — only the burden of new and excessive airport fees, in complete disregard of stakeholders’ concerns,” the group said.
PUSO ng NAIA accused NNIC and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) of violating transparency provisions in their PPP contract by failing to hire an independent consultant, whose role would be to ensure compliance and proper oversight of the project.
“This contract is imbued with public interest. It was entered into for the Filipino public — not for the benefit or convenience of NNIC or its billionaire backers,” the group emphasized.
According to the group, the terms of the P1.5-trillion contract appeared “engineered and tailor-fitted” for San Miguel Corp. (SMC) and its chair, Ramon Ang, undermining competition and exposing the public to what could be one of the largest questionable infrastructure deals in recent history — potentially surpassing the losses from corruption in flood control projects.
The group warned that if left unchecked, Filipinos would be “milked for 25 years” through guaranteed higher airport fees designed to favor the private concessionaire at the expense of 45 million air travelers.
It called on the ICI to conduct a full, independent probe into the NNIC-MIAA PPP award and urged Congress to “redeem the public trust” by siding with Filipino passengers over billionaire contractors.
Manipulated bidding
Earlier, DAILY TRIBUNE sources revealed that the bidding process for NAIA’s privatization was allegedly pre-arranged in favor of SMC, with various stakeholders either excluded or unaware of the proceedings.
“There was no public consultation before they came up with Administrative Order 1 (AO 1), which prescribed higher rates. So only those who participated in the bidding for privatization knew about it. But even then, the new rates were released just one day before the submission of bids,” the source said.
The bid submission was held on 27 December 2024, the same day the final version of AO 1 was released under then Transportation Secretary Jaime Bautista, who was accused of favoring SMC chair Ang.
Three companies reportedly composed 90 percent of the winning consortium’s equity — SMC with 33 percent, and two lesser-known firms that split the remainder. “These two other members of the consortium were incorporated on the same day and even had the same address,” the source noted.
Based on the bid requirements, the source said members of the Bids and Awards Committee (BAC) had indicated that San Miguel Corp. and another consortium would be disqualified for multiple technical deficiencies.
Despite this, the winning bidder for the rehabilitation project was the SMC-SAP & Co. Consortium, which offered the government a revenue share of 82.16 percent for a 15-year concession to modernize NAIA, at an estimated cost of P170.6 billion.
San Miguel Global Power (SMGP), an SMC subsidiary, had earlier sought to recover P34 billion from its power supply agreements, citing “changes in circumstances” caused by the war in Ukraine and the pandemic.
Despite initial denials from the Energy Regulatory Commission, court rulings had since compelled the agency to revisit SMC’s price adjustment requests.
One of the evaluators of the NAIA rehabilitation deal was the Asian Development Bank, which reportedly recommended the disqualification of the SMC-led consortium due to technical deficiencies.
Changing position
“At first, we were assured they would indeed be disqualified — that the technical deficiencies couldn’t be justified,” the source said. “Who said that? A member of the bank. And as the weeks went by, its position slowly changed.”
When evaluators were later asked if disqualification was still on the table, the source said the response was: “We’re still studying it because San Miguel is very litigious.”
Eventually, the position changed again: “There are technical deficiencies, yes, but not enough to disqualify them.”
According to the source, ADB’s endorsement was never made public. “All of ADB’s recommendations were confidential — we were never given copies. We kept asking for them, since the technical evaluation was already done.”
The source said no case was ever filed because “we were part of a consortium. But the other members didn’t want to take it to the final stage — they didn’t want to rock the boat. Many of them also had business ties with San Miguel.”