Consumer advocates and transport groups descended on the House of Representatives to challenge the controversial privatization of Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Congress has launched an inquiry into the deal amid growing public outrage over its impact on passengers, overseas Filipino workers, airlines, airport staff and small businesses.
Speakers during the protest outside the legislature building sounded the alarm on soaring airport charges and passenger fees, while raising sharp questions about transparency, accountability and constitutional compliance.
The airport handles more than 50 million passengers a year, and its privatization has turned a public gateway into a billionaire’s playground, an industry group said.
“The privatization of NAIA was sold to Filipinos as the ‘golden ticket’ to modernization. But months into the deal, the public is now asking: modernization for whom? Certainly not for the ordinary traveler, worker, OFW, or small entrepreneur,” it added.
A spokesperson for the group indicated, “Instead of relief and efficiency, what Filipinos got were soaring fees, additional charges, shuttered businesses, mass lay-offs, and even collapsing airport ceilings. “It feels like just a new packaging for the same old problems.”
“Except this time, the public is paying even more. Far more,” the head of the group said.
The industry group is calling for a full review, and if necessary, the revocation of the agreement between the Department of Transportation and the San Miguel Corp.led New NAIA Infra Corp.
The contractor immediately dumped the burden of modernization onto ordinary Filipinos through higher airport fees and travel costs at a time when the peso is weak and prices of basic goods continue to rise, the group alleged.
Skyrocketing rental rates forced many businesses inside the airport to close or drastically scale down, resulting in job losses, the group said.
Transparency failure
“More alarming is the apparent failure to uphold transparency and accountability from day one. Until now, the DoTr and NNIC have yet to appoint the required Independent Consultant — a direct violation of the agreement itself. In plain terms: “boxing had started but there is no referee,” it added.
Organizers provided updates during the House hearing on three petitions pending before the Supreme Court that seek to declare the contract unconstitutional and void. Legal counsels involved in the filings presented key arguments focusing heavily on the legality of the concession agreement and the public-interest impact of turning over the primary