Workers want Piatco contract nullified

Several labor unions at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport have jointly petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify the government’s contract with the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (Piatco) to operate the NAIA Terminal 3.

Up to 12,000 workers stand to lose their jobs because the airport’s two other terminals would be closed once the nearly complete terminal becomes operational in November, said their lead counsel, Steve Salonga.

But Piatco brushed aside yesterday the labor unions’ petition, describing the move as another attempt at "forum shopping by mere pawns being guided by unseen but powerful hands."

Piatco’s lawyer-spokesman Moises Tolentino said that although the petitioners presented themselves as belonging to organized labor at the NAIA, "the hand of (Presidential Adviser for Strategic Projects Gloria) Tan-Climaco was apparent in their action."

Under its contract with the government, Salonga said, Piatco will have an exclusive right to operate the new terminal and it is not bound to hire the workers who would be displaced.

"(NAIA) workers are bound to lose their jobs by Nov. 26. The advent of Terminal 3 will wipe out the entire airline industry. Piatco will have the monopoly," Salonga told a news conference.

Unlike their employers who have "other businesses" to lean on, these airport ground service workers have nothing, Salonga said. "These are the only jobs they can do. They have no other interest except their jobs."

In a statement issued yesterday, Tolentino said the petition was "the latest episode in Tan-Climaco’s epic black propaganda case to seize control of NAIA 3 so that her strategic cohorts could feed off the blood, sweat and tears which Piatco had shed to bring the airport to 97 percent completion."

"This is a simple case of forum shopping because the issues have been fully ventilated and decided in favor of Piatco by the regional trial court, the Ombudsman and two congressional committees," he added.

The Supreme Court made no immediate comment on the lawsuit.

Piatco is a consortium involving Fraport AG of Germany which has the franchise to operate the $500-million Terminal 3, which it is also constructing.

However, the scheduled opening has been clouded by a shareholder quarrel between Fraport and its Filipino partners.

Airlines urged yesterday an "expeditious resolution" of the Piatco issue "so that the international airline community can continue serving the air transportation requirements of the Philippines and its traveling public."

The Board of Airline Representatives also asked the government yesterday to assure that all operational requirements at Terminal 3 have been met so international airlines operating in the country will have a smooth transfer to the new terminal.

Salonga said the workers, organized into 20 labor unions, were "disappointed" that they had to take the first step to try to get the deal nullified if the contract was indeed "onerous" as the government had found.

The unions have banded together and formed a group, Scrap the Piatco Deal Coalition, to oppose the contract.

"We’re surprised that government needs labor to protect itself. Government itself seemed so helpless when, in fact, the contract is full of flawed provisions," Salonga said, describing the provisions as "unconstitutional."

"Senator (Sergio) Osmeña is correct that a renegotiation will only result in further graft and corruption. That’s why we’re asking the Supreme Court to stop the implementation of the contract and scrap the deal altogether."

Osmeña said Monday the contract was the "worst ever" after a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee hearing on suspicions that the contract was awarded in exchange for bribes.

Onerous insertions?

President Arroyo has ordered the contract renegotiated, citing certain "onerous provisions" that her government claims were illegally inserted into the original 1997 document.

Critics also claimed that the some equipment installed in the new terminal were second-hand or overpriced. One of Piatco’s contractors, Japanese firm Takenaka Corp., denied the charge.

"We categorically deny such allegations and assure you that all the material and equipment purchased and installed in your project has been approved by your consultants, is of first-grade quality and is not ‘used’ or inferior in any way," Takenaka general manager Toshio Hori said in a statement yesterday.

Hori said the switchgear assemblies installed by his company were made in the Philippines under license from Asea Brown Boveri, which, he said, was "one of the world leaders in this technology."

"This is part of our policy to encourage all our subcontractors and suppliers to purchase local Philippine-made products wherever possible to help the local economy," Hori said.

Salonga, meanwhile, said he was confident that their petition would not be dismissed outright by the high tribunal even if they did not follow the rule on judicial hierarchy.

Under the rule, complainants have to go to the proper regional trial court first. If they do not agree with the decision, they can seek an appeal before the Court of Appeals. If they lose, only then can they go to the Supreme Court, if they wish.

Salonga said the Supreme Court was the proper venue for their complaint because the issues they raised were questions of law and not of fact. Besides, they are running against time, he added.

"The only quick remedy we have is the Supreme Court," he said.

Scrap organizer Antonio Policarpio, meanwhile, threatened they will do all they can to stop the new terminal from becoming operational, even blocking the runways with equipment.

Meanwhile, two opposition congressmen have sought another inquiry by the House of Representatives on the Piatco contract.

House Minority Leader Carlos Padilla and Rep. Rolex Suplico asked why presidential adviser Gloria Tan Climaco had said the government was willing to pay Fraport a $400-million settlement in exchange for a government takeover of its franchise when the German company had asked $300 million.

Suplico said he and Padilla have received unconfirmed information that the $100 million was a kickback. "Where will the difference go?" Suplico said.

The House committee on good government had just finished its inquiry on the contract and is expected to make its report by the end of the month. — With Rey Arquiza, AFP