October 21, 2025 | 1:40pm
MANILA, Philippines — The Independent Commission for Infrastructure must widen its probe to include the controversial trillion-worth public-private deal with the New NAIA Infrastructure Corp., critics of the airport’s privatization said Tuesday.
PUSO ng NAIA, a coalition of concerned citizens, aviation workers and labor groups, in an open letter dated October 21, urged the ICI to investigate the concession deal between the Department of Transportation (DOTr), the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) and the New NAIA Infrastructure Corp (NNIC).
The group cited alleged procedural lapses, conflicts of interest, noncompetitive bidding and the lack of oversight over the San Miguel Corporation-led NNIC, which acts as the concessionaire.
What’s the deal about? The public-private partnership, finalized in March 2024, grants the NNIC control over the operation and maintenance of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) for 15 years, extendable by another 10.
It is part of the government’s effort to tap the private sector for NAIA’s rehabilitation, operation and expansion to address long-standing capacity and service issues.
San Miguel Corp. was awarded the P170.6-billion contract in 2024.
While the coalition is in favor of the long-overdue modernization of the NAIA, it warned that the process must remain transparent and free from “opaque and compromised arrangements.”
“The airport belongs to the Filipino people — its rehabilitation should embody transparency, accountability, and public benefit, not private enrichment,” the letter read.
Unregulated fee hikes
The concerned stakeholders believe the government may have railroaded the concession agreement without “genuine public participation or accountability,” citing the apparent lack of consultation, disclosure and regulatory oversight.
They said the lack of transparency in how the deal was approved raises doubts, asking the ICI to determine whether legal safeguards protecting due process were bypassed.
The group also questioned the NNIC’s “near-unchecked power,” saying provisions in the agreement allow it to impose fee hikes without government approval.
“This provision contradicts public policy and effectively transfers regulatory authority to a private corporation. It risks excessive financial burden on passengers and airlines while eroding state control over a critical public facility,” it added.
According to the government, the concession agreement is expected to generate P900 billion in revenue over the 25 years that the NNIC is permitted to operate the country’s main airport.
Meanwhile, President Ferdinand “Bonbong” Marcos Jr. said the government also stands to gain around P1 trillion from the public-private partnership.
However, the group argued that the projected P36 billion in annual revenue would require relentless rate increases, given that current collections from such fees amount to only around P16 billion a year.
This concern became more apparent after the 2024 order under the concession agreement took effect, which allowed NAIA to impose significantly higher terminal, landing and take-off, parking, and other fees.
The group has since questioned the fee hikes before the Supreme Court, particularly the 95% increase in terminal fees for domestic passengers and the 73% increase for international travelers.
Unfair bid?
On top of these hikes, Puso ng NAIA also criticized how the government agreed to make a deal with NNIC when San Miguel Corp.’s bid was “reportedly far higher than competing offers.”
“Combined with redacted contract disclosures and limited stakeholder consultation, the process appears to have lacked the transparency and fairness required under the PPP framework,” the group said.
Former Transportation Secretary Vince Dizon, who now heads the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) said the concession agreement was “properly bidded out” and was advised by the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
The coalition expressed confidence in the ICI, urging it to investigate possible graft, review the rate-setting process for airport fees, and suspend related activities until independent consultants are engaged.
The group also asked the ICI to recommend remedies, including revising or canceling the contract, if bad faith is found.
