A group of legal experts has filed a comprehensive 182-page petition before the Supreme Court, seeking to nullify the PHP170.6-billion concession agreement that transferred the management of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) to New NAIA Infrastructure Corp. (NNIC), a consortium led by San Miguel Corporation. The petitioners, lawyers Joel Butuyan, Ma. Soledad Derequito-Mawis, Antonio Gabriel “Tony” La Viña, Roger Rayel, and Jose Mari Benjamin Francisco Tirol, are urging the Supreme Court to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), Writ of Preliminary Injunction, or a Status Quo Ante Order to suspend both the agreement and the Manila International Airport Authority’s (MIAA) Revised Administrative Order No. 1 (RAO1), which sharply increased airport fees.
The petitioners assert that the NAIA Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project is plagued with multiple constitutional, legal, and procedural flaws. Among their primary claims is that the bidding and awarding process violated Republic Act No. 11966, or the newly enacted PPP Code. According to them, the project was awarded under the now-repealed Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Law, with no effort made to align with the legal requirements of the updated PPP framework.
Respondents in the case include Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin and various agencies such as the Department of Transportation, MIAA, the PPP Governing Board, and NNIC. The petition emphasizes that none of the affected stakeholders, including the flying public, were consulted before the rushed finalization of the concession deal and the issuance of RAO1. The lawyers argue that this violates due process, public participation, and the constitutional principles of separation of powers and equal protection.
The Revised Administrative Order permits massive increases in fees, such as the passenger service charge rising from PHP550 to PHP950 for international travelers, and PHP200 to PHP390 for domestic passengers beginning September 2025. The petitioners also criticize the classification of various fees as “non-regulated,” allowing NNIC to impose charges without oversight. Unlike other airport revenues, the government is reportedly not entitled to an 82.16% share of these specific charges under the new agreement.
The petition further warns that the public is now burdened with substantially higher costs without proper justification or recourse.
More critically, the legal team alleges that the government has “completely relinquished its regulatory power” to the concessionaire, potentially giving NNIC unchecked authority over airport operations and pricing.
If the Supreme Court grants the requested relief, the current fee structures could be rolled back, and operational control of NAIA may return to the government or another public entity pending further legal review.