Benipayo clarifies law firm’s role in NAIA-3 case

Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo clarified yesterday that White and Case LLP is a law firm hired to help the government in two arbitration cases against Germany’s Fraport AG.

"It is therefore with deep regret that the Solicitor General sees the name of White and Case LLP dragged into the lobbying contracts controversy," he said in a statement.

"White and Case LLP is not a lobbying firm, it is a law firm. The retainer agreement is not a lobbying agreement, it is a straight contract for legal services. United States law does not include rendering of legal services as acts of lobbying."

Vouching for White and Case, Benipayo said it is regarded as one of the top international arbitration law firms in the world.

The partners Carolyn Lamm and Abby Smutny have been named as top international arbitration lawyers for 2005, he added.

The legal services of White and Case are meant to save Filipino taxpayers from paying Fraport and the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. (Piatco) the more than $1 billion they are demanding from the government, Benipayo said.

In February 2003, Piatco sued the government before the International Chamber of Commerce-International Court of Arbitration (ICC-ICA) for the amount of $565 million.

The suit is based on the government’s alleged refusal to honor the 1997 Concession Agreement, its 1998 amended and revised version, and the three supplements to the latter, which it had entered into with Piatco for the construction and operation of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3.

The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee later found these contracts to be grossly disadvantageous to the government and urged the Executive department to probe those allegedly involved.

In November 2002, President Arroyo announced that her administration would not honor the concession contracts and the supplemental contracts with Piatco.

In a decision in May 2003, the Supreme Court declared void the awarding of the airport terminal project to Piatco and the contracts entered with it.

The Supreme Court said all these were found to have been contrary to the Build-Operate-Transfer Law, the Constitution and the fundamental public policies on public bidding.

"In doing so, the Supreme Court affirmed in part, the President’s conclusion that there was no legal basis to honor contracts that would be manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government," said the Office of the Solicitor General.

"The appropriate criminal cases are now pending before the Sandiganbayan."

In September 2003, Fraport AG, a German multinational firm claiming ownership of 61.44 percent of the Terminal 3 project, also sued the government for no less than $425 million before the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes.

Fraport claimed that the government violated the RP-German Bilateral Investment Treaty when it refused to honor the contracts and denied it a fair and equitable treatment. – Evelyn Macairan, Mike Frialde