In pushing this advocacy, I have received negative reports in stride. They ought to be considered as they are being considered in the courts of law. (The latest news on the arbitration hearings in Singapore was a tedious ‘lawyers only’ discussion with a period for all parties to submit their positions. See what I mean why legalities are no help to the public? The process can take forever to their detriment.) The advocacy for a citizens’ lobby for a decent airport would fail if we get embroiled on its negative aspects. There would be no end to accusations and counteraccusations and that is what we are trying to avoid – be part of the battle of titans. Let me say it as strongly as I can in this juncture, this column will not be involved with partisan interests, lawful or unlawful. It seeks a solution on behalf of weary travelers.
In this connection, we wish to concentrate on positive responses such as one I received from former Ambassador Francisco del Rosario, who is a frequent traveler and knows the inconvenience travelers face each time they pass through NAIA 1. Inevitably, the problems of NAIA 1 is linked to the incapacity to open NAIA 3. It eludes all commonsense why we should keep spending on refurbishing NAIA 1 when there is a new and modern airport, NAIA 3, just a few meters away because of ‘legal problems.’ I was told that in other countries with disputes that affect a public service, governments separate the public service from the warring parties until their differences are resolved according to law. The government’s paramount concern should be that the public be served expeditiously and efficiently, more so if they pay through the nose to be given the service. I am publishing the del Rosario proposal in full without adding or subtracting a word from it. It stands on itself as a positive response. Here it is:
"I appreciate the biggest stumbling block in the negotiations between the government and PIATCO is the possible selling price of the new Terminal 3. I do not believe a quick fix is possible unless both parties ie the government and PIATCO, agree there is a need to temporarily set aside the price difference or the pricing, and agree to lease purchase the Terminal 3, whichever is more doable, from a legal standpoint.
I suggest that the government lease Terminal 3 from PIATCO using 3 approaches to arrive at the amount of the lease to be paid:
1. Price offered by the government to buy terminal 3
2. Selling Price asked by PIATCO
3. The average of both prices
I presume that the government would not have the outright cash to pay for the Terminal (even if PIATCO agrees to the government’s offer). This would therefor require the government to borrow funds in the international market to pay for the terminal or issue its own promissary note with interest to PIATCO for an agreed number of years to pay. Here is my suggestion of lease to be paid by the government:
1. Price offered by government, the lease amount should be 8 percent per annum of the offered price.
2. If lease is based on the PIATCO proposed selling price, interest would be 6 percent per annum, and
3. If lease is based on the average proposed government offer and the asked price of PIATCO, lease would be 7 percent per annum.
I am sure a satisfactory formula can be worked out. I believe this approach would be a win-win stiuation for the government and PIATCO for the government and PIATCO because the government could immediately take over the operation of NAIA 3 (assuming a reasonable grace period to complete the airport) and from the income derived by the government it could pay for the lease of the airport, and possibly show a net profit after the lease expense and operating costs.
On the other hand, PIATCO is not deriving any income at present on its total investment in Terminal 3 anyway, and any cash received by PIATCO will be a plus factor to them. I know this may sound like a very simplistic approach and the nitty-gritty would need to be worked out by both the government and PIATCO.
However, if President Gloria is proclaimed President of the Philippines for the next six years, it could be a feather in her cap if she could have Terminal 3 operational in the shortest possible time for the benefit of the country, its image, the attraction of tourists and foreign investors.
Thank you for giving me the chance to ventilate my thoughts on the matter ever mindul that anything is possible in negotiations provided there is a will on all parties to find a solution for the benefit of the whole country.
In the meantime I wonder why some airlines cannot relocate to NAIA 2 to relieve the strain on NAIA 1. Also is it not possible for the management of terminal 1 to install more entrance doors? I am leaving again tomorrow and am very nervous as to what it is going to be like. Travelling to and from Manila is unfortunately a very unpleasant experience and I am sure many tourists who have passed through the terminal do not want to come back and will tell their friends the same. Lastly I wonder if any Congressmen or government officials experience what we have to go through? I doubt it. I am sure they are allowed through some exclusive entrances and exits."