A petition seeking to halt the implementation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) concession agreement has reached the Supreme Court (SC), with private operator New NAIA Infra Corp. (NNIC) defending the deal and clarifying existing cost relief measures for passengers.
In a statement on Wednesday, NNIC said it “respects the right of any group to raise concerns and seek legal remedies,” referring to the motion filed by petitioners asking the high court to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the 2024 public-private partnership (PPP) concession agreement for NAIA.
The petitioners, lawyers Rico Domingo and Cesar Oracion, argued that increased airport charges under the agreement would raise operating costs for airlines and related industries, and such costs would ultimately be passed on to passengers.
They warned of “grave and irreparable financial harm,” especially amid rising oil prices and ongoing global tensions.
The concession agreement, awarded to NNIC led by San Miguel Corporation, is also being challenged as unconstitutional, with petitioners claiming it violates due process, equal protection, and the right to travel.
NNIC, however, maintained that the public should be fully informed about existing safeguards and exemptions already in place.
The firm noted that overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) are exempt from both the travel tax and international terminal fees at NAIA, which, the benefits, it said, directly address concerns raised by advocacy groups.
It also pointed out that domestic airlines operating at NAIA have long been granted a 65% discount on landing and takeoff fees, helping mitigate operational costs.
The operator further explained that NAIA was not covered by the government’s temporary fee relief measures because the program applies only to airports managed by the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP).
Other major airports under PPP arrangements, such as those in Cebu and Clark, were similarly excluded.
NNIC emphasized that while it recognizes the burden of rising fuel and transportation costs, these are separate issues from airport charges and require targeted solutions.
“For many years, NAIA’s fees remained unchanged even as the airport grew busier and more strained,” the company said, adding that underinvestment had led to congestion and aging facilities and “service limitations that travelers experienced firsthand.”
The concession agreement, it stressed, is intended to modernize NAIA through sustained investment, backed by government oversight and accountability mechanisms.
The firm also underscored that the deal underwent an open and competitive bidding process.
As of writing, the Supreme Court has yet to act on the renewed plea for a TRO, which reiterates earlier motions filed in 2025 seeking to suspend the agreement and related administrative orders issued by the Manila International Airport Authority.