|
THE
Supreme Court has rejected the bid of the Manila Hotel
Corp. to grab the right to operate the controversial
Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal,
saying that its December 2005 decision on the case has
long become final and executory.
In a
three-page resolution issued on March 11, the High
Tribunal denied the motion to intervene with prayer for
alternative compliance in the case filed by MHC. The
court, though, has yet to act on the petition filed by
the Lucio Tan-controlled Asia’s Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC)
asserting its right to operate the airport as the
“unchallenged original proponent” of the project. The
MHC is also an intervenor in the AEDC case.
“Our
2005 decision has long become final and executory.
Generally, after judgment has become executory, the
court cannot amend the same. On the other hand, a motion
for intervention may be allowed only before rendition of
judgment in the case. Clearly, the present intervention
attempt is unauthorized under our rules of procedure,”
the SC stressed.
In its
2005 ruling, the Court directed the government to pay
Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (Piatco)
P3 billion representing the proffered value of the Ninoy
Aquino International Airport Terminal 3.
It also
ordered the Regional Trial Court to determine just
compensation due to the claimants.
The MHC
anchored its claim to operate the Naia 3 on the ground
that it had bought 20 percent of Piatco in 2005, and
that it had an agreement with Fraport AG Frankfurt
Services Worldwide for the purchase of its 30-percent
equity shareholdings in Piatco for $200 million.
The MHC,
which is controlled by Philtrust Bank owner Emilio Yap,
urged the SC justices to allow it to operate and manage
the Naia Terminal 3 for 25 years, with 82.5 percent of
the profits to be distributed to various government and
charitable institutions.
It has
proposed to donate annually 50 percent of any net profit
from the Terminal 3 operations to the Philippine
National Red Cross, the Department of Social Welfare and
Development, the Caritas program of the Catholic Church,
the Armed Forces and the police.
Besides
this “nationalistic fervor,” petitioner MHC asserted
that it has legal interest in the case because it was
partly-owned by a government controlled corporation,
namely the GSIS, and also because it has acquired the
Piatco shares.
Since
the December 2005 ruling has not yet been fully
executed, the petitioner said it wanted to propose an
alternative plan to “ease compliance with the said
decision by relieving the government of the huge
financial burdens” involved in following the ruling.
On the
other hand, the AEDC, in its petition, asked the High
Tribunal to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO)
enjoining respondents—Transportation and Communication
Secretary Leandro Mendoza and the Manila International
Airport Authority—from negotiating, rebidding or
awarding the concession contract with Piatco or any
other parties, including the MHC.
AEDC
stressed that the May 5, 2003 decision of the Court
declaring null and void the award of contract for the
construction and operation of Naia–IPT III to Piatco has
restored the group’s status as the “unchallenged
original proponent” of Naia-IPT III project.
Being
so, AEDC said it is automatically entitled to the award
of the contract in accordance with Section 4 of Republic
Act 6957, as amended by Republic Act 7718 or the Build,
Operate and Transfer (BOT) Law.
The
provision, according to AEDC, “grants the original
proponent with an incentive and advantage where, in the
absence of any comparative or competitive proposal, the
BOT project is automatically awarded to the original
proponent. Or, in the event a lower price proposal is
offered, the original proponent is given the right to
match.”
The
petitioner recounted that the AEDC, upon the request of
the government, submitted its unsolicited proposal for
the development of Naia-IPT project on October 5, 1994
following the required procedures under the BOT law. |
