Facts:

The case involves two consolidated petitions: G.R. No. 169914 filed by Asia's Emerging Dragon Corporation (AEDC) against the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC), Secretary Leandro R. Mendoza, and the Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA), and G.R. No. 174166 filed by the Republic of the Philippines against the Court of Appeals and Congressman Salacnib Baterina. The background of the case traces back to the awarding of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) project to the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO). In 1994, AEDC submitted an unsolicited proposal for the development of NAIA IPT III under a build-operate-transfer arrangement. The DOTC published an invitation for competitive proposals in 1996, leading to the prequalification of the Paircargo Consortium, which later became PIATCO. AEDC contested the qualifications of PIATCO, leading to a series of legal battles. The S...

Facts:

Background of the NAIA IPT III Project:
The Ninoy Aquino International Airport International Passenger Terminal III (NAIA IPT III) project was a significant infrastructure initiative in the Philippines. The project involved the construction, financing, operation, and maintenance of a new international passenger terminal at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) under a Build-Operate-and-Transfer (BOT) arrangement. The sheer magnitude of the project, its substantial cost, expected high profits, and remarkable impact on the Philippine economy raised significant interest from various quarters.

Initiation of the Project:
In August 1989, the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) engaged Aeroport de Paris (ADP) to conduct a comprehensive study of NAIA to determine whether it could cope with traffic development up to 2010. ADP submitted a Draft Final Report in December 1989. In 1993, six business leaders formed Asia's Emerging Dragon Corp. (AEDC) and submitted an unsolicited proposal for the NAIA IPT III project in October 1994.

Government Approval and Competitive Bidding:
On December 2, 1994, the DOTC issued Department Order No. 94-832, constituting the Prequalification Bids and Awards Committee (PBAC) for the project. AEDC's proposal was endorsed by the DOTC Secretary to the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) in March 1995. NEDA approved the project on February 13, 1996. The PBAC invited competitive proposals in June 1996, and amendments to the bid documents were issued in August 1996.

Submission of Competitive Proposals:
On September 20, 1996, the Paircargo Consortium (composed of People's Air Cargo and Warehousing Co., Inc., Phil. Air and Grounds Services, Inc., and Security Bank Corp.) submitted their competitive proposal. The PBAC prequalified the Paircargo Consortium on September 24, 1996. AEDC raised objections regarding the consortium's financial and corporate capabilities, but the PBAC dismissed these objections and proceeded with the evaluation.

Legal Proceedings:
The project's awarding to the Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO) led to several petitions and legal disputes. The Supreme Court had already resolved issues in prior cases, Agan, Jr. v. Philippine International Air Terminals Co., Inc. and Republic v. Gingoyon, but new petitions concerning the NAIA IPT III project were brought before the Court.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

The Supreme Court based its decision on the following legal principles:

1. The BOT Law (RA 6957, as amended by RA 7718) provided the legal framework for the project.
2. The PBAC's actions were in compliance with the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the BOT Law.
3. Financial capability at the time of prequalification, not future potential, was the basis for evaluation.
4. Just compensation must be determined in accordance with law and equity, considering the investment made by PIATCO.
5. Legislators and taxpayers have standing to question the use of public funds in cases involving constitutional issues and matters of transcendental importance.
6. The Court's judicial discretion allows it to lay down legal parameters for expropriation and compensation in similar cases.