NEDA disowns PIATCO contract

The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) did not approve the amendments inserted by the Estrada administration in the contract awarded to Philippine Air Terminals Co. Inc. (PIATCO) for the construction and operation of Terminal III of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA).

This new twist in the long drawn controversy of the $350-million terminal III project appears in the minutes of a board meeting of the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) held last July.

In that meeting, NAIA general manager Edgar Manda disclosed having received written confirmation from the NEDA stating that Supplement I and 2 of the "Amended and Restated Concession Agreement" were not actually forwarded to NEDA for review.

Manda is scheduled to meet with NEDA chief Dante Canlas to discuss the implications of the bypassing of the economic development agency in the procedures for the approval and implementation of the PIATCO contract.

In the same meeting, the MIAA board rejected a provision in the PIATCO contract giving the contractor blanket authority to prepare the operations manual for Terminal III. The board insisted that the preparation of the manual, which will serve as "bible" for Terminal III operations, "be done in a consultative manner" with the proper government agencies.

If proven that the supplements were not approved by NEDA, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Perfect Yasay and other lawyers in cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman and the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City will move for the nullification of the PIATCO contract as void ab initio.

The concession agreement was forged during the Ramos administration, with the late then DOTC Secretary Arturo Enrile signing for the government.

The PIATCO contract was amended by the Estrada government in November 1998. Thereafter, it was supplemented twice – in August 1999 and in September 2000. The amendments and the supplements were approved by then DOTC Secretary Vicente Rivera.

Per the minutes of the MIAA board meeting, the two supplements were not submitted to the NEDA, which is mandated to study vital government contracts, for review. It is not known if the amendments introduced in November 1998 were likewise without NEDA approval.