Pay for good service or complain about bad service

I think I can safely say that if given a logical choice, most of us would be willing to pay the price for good, quick and efficient service rather than suffer and constantly complain about bad service for which we don’t even want to pay for, except of course if we know someone “powerful” who can help us — which in itself is a form of corruption.

My argument likewise takes into account our “tolerance” for generational corruption even in the simplest form of paying a facilitation fee to a fixer to get just about anything done quickly, examples of which are quite numerous, such as getting a driver’s license, an RFID sticker, car registration, real estate tax payments, renewals of permits, payment of fees, paying scalpers for concert tickets and whatever will lessen the tedious wait and bureaucracy of getting anything done, be it with government or a private transaction.

We all complain about corruption in government, and yet, honestly, it all starts with us because all of us don’t want to equally fall in line and wait for our turn.

We don’t really want equal treatment, we want special treatment, and some will resort to “special” measures to get that special treatment.

But hey, we all scream corruption and yet we really don’t demand accountability, especially if we are somehow a beneficiary of the special treatment, an example of which are the so-called ayuda packages or “free” universal health care, while the burden of paying taxes fall on daily wage earners, and our lawmakers treat our tax payments as their personal piggy banks to pay for their “legislative” hard work and “community development” projects, which are also known as “farm to my house or resort” roads.

But when the private sector decides to put its money to invest in a project where it, of course, intends to make a profit (because that is the object of doing business — to earn and profit) and the private operator does upgrade the service, we the “public” who aid and abet corruption (to be honest about it) complain and insist on restrictions about how much they can earn.

Key examples are the light railway system operators and key utility providers. Of course, the government must and should regulate them providing the needed check and balance so that they do not overcharge the public.

Unfortunately, though, our government has not, and does not really care to provide us the service that we pay for with our taxes. Hence, welcome private-public partnerships.

Instead of the government providing the necessary infrastructure for roads and and bridges,  a lot of taxpayers’ money simply disappears into the pockets of corrupt government officials and lawmakers — a vicious cycle and hydra that is difficult to break or behead.

What we end up with are substandard government infrastructure such as collapsing bridges and non-existent flood control projects and provincial airports and port facilities that lack modern equipment.

The merry-go-round continues with congressional investigations in aid of legislation, with often unenforceable legal action or accountability, perhaps a token fall guy, a symbolic conviction that is promptly pardoned or condoned, or shortened due to compassionate reasons because the convicted individual is already sick and frail, but lo and behold upon release recovers their health and gets a second, third, fourth? chance to seek public office!

Thus, the  current lightning rod for complaints (since tackling government corruption is like a dog chasing its own tail) is Ramon Ang’s New NAIA Infra Corp. (NNIC), the private operator of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA), which is set to implement the scheduled adjustment in passenger service charges (PSC) that was agreed and made quite clear from the start when the firm bagged the right to privatize and operate the NAIA.

The NNIC PSC adjustment has been carefully reviewed, and will be the first adjustment in over 20 years. It  is not an arbitrary increase by the NNIC. It was set by the government under MIAA Administrative Order 1, Series of 2024, and approved by the Department of Transportation (DOTr), and the Cabinet.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB), as adviser of the Philippine government, had also reviewed the rates. Any winning bidder, NNIC points out, would have had to implement the same adjustment.

The NNIC also clarified that overseas Filipino workers (OFWs) will not be affected by the PSC adjustment as  they are fully exempt from paying international PSC as mandated by existing regulations.

The turnover of NAIA’s operation, the NNIC reiterated, was the result of a competitive and transparent bidding process, with safeguards to protect the public interest. The PPP model was pursued by the government precisely to ensure the needed funds, expertise and technology to modernize NAIA without burdening all taxpayers. NAIA’s PSC remains the lowest among major Philippine airports and among the most affordable in Asia.

The PSC would specifically affect those who travel and have the funds for leisure or business travel. Even after September 2025, the adjusted rates of P950 for international and P390 for domestic will remain below inflation-adjusted values of P1,300 to P1,400 and P480 to P520 respectively, had the fees kept pace since 2000. Despite this scale, NAIA’s PSC remains the lowest among major Philippine airports and among the most affordable in Asia.

NNIC explained that the airport fees collected would be used to fund  airport operations and passenger service improvements. Since the takeover, upgrades have been undertaken, with renovated restrooms, new air-conditioning systems, restored elevators and escalators, new gang chairs, more baggage trolleys, better Wi Fi and CCTVs, wider curbside lanes, a centralized TNVS hub, an OFW lounge with rest areas, automated parking, dignitaries’ lounge, more shuttle buses and ambulances, new employee cafeterias and biometric passenger processing systems launching this September