Coalition bewails lack of transparency in Piatco deal

A coalition of tour operators, travel agencies and cargo forwarders has bewailed the lack of transparency in the negotiations that led to the government-Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. original and amended agreement, resulting in many onerous provisions.

Robert Lim Joseph, chairman of the Save Our Skies (SOS) Movement, said the country, including the travel and air transport industry, was kept in the dark as to the contents of the concession agreement between the Department of Transportation and Communications and PIATCO, bolstering suspicion of anomalies in the contract.

"We are learning of the contents of the concession agreement and its amendments and their (amendments’) supplements only now, a number of years after these were signed by the two parties. And it is on a piecemeal basis," he said.

Joseph said judging from published reports, the government is again at the losing end. "Based on the details of the concession agreement and its amendments, the government, particularly the DOTC, has lots of explaining to do to the public."

He said among the alleged onerous provisions in the DOTC-PIATCO agreement that the government needs to justify are:

• Why has PIATCO been allowed under the amended and restated concession agreement to postpone payments to the government if PIATCO is unable to pay its loans to its lenders.

• Why should the government assume PIATCO’s financial obligations to its foreign lenders if it defaults in payment?

• Why is PIATCO and its affiliate, the Philippine Airport and Ground Services, being given total and exclusive control of Terminal 3 operations?

• Why is PIATCO authorized to unilaterally adjust, at its sole discretion and at any time without need for the consent of the government or any government agency, the rates of the dues, rentals, charges, fees or assessments collect and levied by PIATCO for the use of Terminal 3 complex, including all works, appliances, facilities or concessions?

• Why is PIATCO entitled to indefinitely retain the facility of NAIA 3 and its complex should the agreement be terminated until the liquidated damages due it from the government is fully paid? Why is it also authorized to mortgage the facility?

• Why were contracts worth more than P300 million awarded to a company with paid-up capital of P625,000 and despite having no track record on demolition jobs?

Joseph also asked how the Terminal 3 could attain the 13-million passenger target with only one runway.

"Likewise, what will happen to NAIA 1 in the light of reports that the government still does not have a plan for it?" he asked.

Joseph said they are concerned about a provision in the government-PIATCO agreement limiting passengers to be accommodated in the Clark International Airport to only 850,000 annually unless Terminal 3 consistently reaches or exceeds 10 million passengers per year for three consecutive years.

"This will no doubt stunt the tourism potential and development of Central Luzon, which, in turn, could have far-reaching impact on the travel and tourism industry," he said.