In a complaint filed before the Angeles City Regional Trial Court, the petitioners asked the court to annul and "declare without any legal cause and effect" the terms in the PIATCO contract restraining the full development of Diosdado Macapagal International Airport (DMIA) as the country’s premiere aviation facility.
Named defendants in Civil Case 10354 for "Annulment of contract and damages" were PIATCO, Transportation and Communications Secretary Pantaleon Alvarez, and NAIA general manager Edgardo Manda.
The petitioners — a multi-sectoral mix of government officials, businessmen, civic leaders, private citizens, and NGOs led by Angeles City councilor Alexander Caguiran — were accompanied by more than a thousand supporters when they filed the complaint.
In addition to the nullification of specific provisions in the PIATCO contract, the class suit sought P2 million in damages plus P600,000 in lawyers’ fees and litigation costs.
In a 16-page complaint, the petitioners stressed that as stakeholders of DMIA, formerly known as Clark International Airport, they are "directly prejudiced" by certain provisions in the PIATCO contract involving DMIA.
Foremost of the objectionable provisions is a clause in the contract that limits the passenger capacity of DMIA to 850,000 passengers annually until such time that Terminal 3 attains a traffic of 10 million passengers per year for three consecutive years. DMIA’s capacity is pegged at 1.5 million passengers yearly.
Still reeling from the ill economic effects of the closure of the US bases in 1991 and the eruption of Mount Pinatubo the same year, the petitioners told the court they had pinned their hopes for economic recovery on the full development of DMIA as the country’s premier international airport, as decreed in Executive Order 174 issued by then President Fidel Ramos in 1993.
They said the provisions in the PIATCO contract pertaining to DMIA "obliterates" the only hope of Pampanga province and Central Luzon for economic recovery because the development of the "catalyst" — DMIA — would be curtailed.
On a broader scale, the class suit assailed the PIATCO contract as violative of constitutional provisions against monopolies and on the promotion of a just and dynamic social order.