Open house
Open house
Updated 00:24am (Mla time) Oct 11, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 11, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
WHAT game is it playing? In the last week of September, the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. hosted an open house of sorts at the controversial Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
On Sept. 27 and 28, ambassadors and other members of the diplomatic corps were taken on a tour of the hundred-million-dollar facility, which is at the center of litigation in the Philippines and abroad. On Sept. 29, it was the turn of airline and travel agency representatives. And on Sept. 30, PIATCo rolled out the red carpet for Senators Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile and Alfredo Lim.
The following week, however, the company turned back a high-level delegation from the Arroyo administration, which included the executive secretary, Eduardo Ermita; the transportation secretary, Leandro Mendoza; and the President's own spokesperson, press secretary Ignacio Bunye. The officials, in other words, were denied entry.
An angry Bunye waxed speculative. "They must be hiding something that they don't want us to see."
But Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, who represents PIATCo president Cheng Yong, was quick to reply. "NAIA Terminal 3 is a state-of-the-art, fully functional and modern international airport terminal." She then added: "What PIATCo is opposed to is an inspection by biased non-experts or government lawyers with no avowed purpose other than fault-finding in aid of the government's defense before the ICC and ICSID arbitration panels."
The former Bureau of International Revenue commissioner was referring to the arbitration case PIATCo filed with the International Chamber of Commerce and a similar case that Fraport, its German partner, filed with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. These cases were filed after the Supreme Court last year voided PIATCo's contract to build and operate NAIA 3.
Parse Chato's statement, however, and more questions are raised than answered. One issue at stake in the arbitration cases is the status of project completion: Is the new terminal fully operational? Government representatives have previously said that more millions of dollars are needed to complete the terminal. But completion is a question of fact. In PIATCo's view, the terminal is already fully operational. The company hosted the diplomats, the airline and travel agency representatives, and the senators the other week precisely to press this case.
Why deny some of the highest officials in the administration the same opportunity?
Another issue at stake is the proposed government buyout of PIATCo; the administration had offered to pay the contractor $350 million. But both PIATCo and Fraport, (which on paper owns 30 percent of the contractor), found the amount ridiculously low. At the ICSID, Fraport's brief is for the Philippine government to reimburse what it says is a $425 million investment.
An inspection of the facilities, even by "biased non-experts," would have been a great opportunity to impress upon the administration exactly where all that money went, to make it appreciate the company's valuation of the project's costs. Why did PIATCo refuse to present itself-and the terminal-in the best possible light?
The terminal is not only the subject of contention in the ongoing cases; it is also the principal evidence. The notion that one party to the cases cannot have even temporary access to the evidence is contrary to the requirements of both reason and the law. Will the government be forced to make its defense without the opportunity to inspect the terminal thoroughly?
But the most telling question Chato's statement raises-but does not answer-is even more fundamental. Does PIATCo think that it is beyond the reach of the law? The national government has oversight responsibility for all airports in the country. On the most basic level, the general manager of the Manila International Airport Authority has the power to inspect the terminal. But even though he was one of the officials who came visiting last week, the Malacañang delegation was still denied entry.
This is not only poor form, an outrage in a culture famous for its open arms. It is also a challenge to the long arm of the law.
Updated 00:24am (Mla time) Oct 11, 2004
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the October 11, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
WHAT game is it playing? In the last week of September, the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. hosted an open house of sorts at the controversial Terminal 3 of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
On Sept. 27 and 28, ambassadors and other members of the diplomatic corps were taken on a tour of the hundred-million-dollar facility, which is at the center of litigation in the Philippines and abroad. On Sept. 29, it was the turn of airline and travel agency representatives. And on Sept. 30, PIATCo rolled out the red carpet for Senators Edgardo Angara, Juan Ponce Enrile and Alfredo Lim.
The following week, however, the company turned back a high-level delegation from the Arroyo administration, which included the executive secretary, Eduardo Ermita; the transportation secretary, Leandro Mendoza; and the President's own spokesperson, press secretary Ignacio Bunye. The officials, in other words, were denied entry.
An angry Bunye waxed speculative. "They must be hiding something that they don't want us to see."
But Liwayway Vinzons-Chato, who represents PIATCo president Cheng Yong, was quick to reply. "NAIA Terminal 3 is a state-of-the-art, fully functional and modern international airport terminal." She then added: "What PIATCo is opposed to is an inspection by biased non-experts or government lawyers with no avowed purpose other than fault-finding in aid of the government's defense before the ICC and ICSID arbitration panels."
The former Bureau of International Revenue commissioner was referring to the arbitration case PIATCo filed with the International Chamber of Commerce and a similar case that Fraport, its German partner, filed with the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. These cases were filed after the Supreme Court last year voided PIATCo's contract to build and operate NAIA 3.
Parse Chato's statement, however, and more questions are raised than answered. One issue at stake in the arbitration cases is the status of project completion: Is the new terminal fully operational? Government representatives have previously said that more millions of dollars are needed to complete the terminal. But completion is a question of fact. In PIATCo's view, the terminal is already fully operational. The company hosted the diplomats, the airline and travel agency representatives, and the senators the other week precisely to press this case.
Why deny some of the highest officials in the administration the same opportunity?
Another issue at stake is the proposed government buyout of PIATCo; the administration had offered to pay the contractor $350 million. But both PIATCo and Fraport, (which on paper owns 30 percent of the contractor), found the amount ridiculously low. At the ICSID, Fraport's brief is for the Philippine government to reimburse what it says is a $425 million investment.
An inspection of the facilities, even by "biased non-experts," would have been a great opportunity to impress upon the administration exactly where all that money went, to make it appreciate the company's valuation of the project's costs. Why did PIATCo refuse to present itself-and the terminal-in the best possible light?
The terminal is not only the subject of contention in the ongoing cases; it is also the principal evidence. The notion that one party to the cases cannot have even temporary access to the evidence is contrary to the requirements of both reason and the law. Will the government be forced to make its defense without the opportunity to inspect the terminal thoroughly?
But the most telling question Chato's statement raises-but does not answer-is even more fundamental. Does PIATCo think that it is beyond the reach of the law? The national government has oversight responsibility for all airports in the country. On the most basic level, the general manager of the Manila International Airport Authority has the power to inspect the terminal. But even though he was one of the officials who came visiting last week, the Malacañang delegation was still denied entry.
This is not only poor form, an outrage in a culture famous for its open arms. It is also a challenge to the long arm of the law.
posted by Dante at 12:08 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home