‘MIAA can’t tap unused terminal fees’

By Rey E. Requejo

THE Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) cannot use for capital expense purposes the more than P1.2 billion in unclaimed passenger service charges (PSCs) remitted by airline companies for unused tickets, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a legal opinion issued last July 25, Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla explained that “the unrefunded PSCs in question are government funds, and that the MIAA was merely a custodian of the money.

The legal opinion addressed to MIAA general manager Cesar Chiong underscored that the MIAA “acts as the trustee on behalf of the passengers, and is not free to unilaterally utilize such funds.” However, Remulla clarified that the legal opinion was issued as “information and guidance only.”

“Sound administrative practice, more than official courtesy, demands that the DBM (Department of Budget and Management) and the COA (Commission on Audit) should be accorded first opportunity to consider and resolve the issue presented,” he stressed.

The MIAA has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with domestic and international airline firms for the collection of the PSCs which are terminal fees imposed by the MIAA on departing passengers and integrated in the airline tickets at the point of sale so that travelers no longer have to line up at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) to pay such fees.

But passengers who cancelled their flights can seek refund of the PSCs.

In its request for legal opinion, the MIAA informed the DOJ that “as of March 31, 2023, the total PSC on unused tickets remitted by airline carriers has reached P1.2 billion, of which only P26,000 were claimed or refunded.” It then sought the DOJ’s legal opinion, citing major equipment that “need to be replaced or refurbished.”

CARTLOAD OF DOGS. A couple pushes their cart loaded with dogs along Legarda in Sampaloc, Manila to the awe of onlookers who believe that feeding so many pets will be a big dent on the family income, particularly those who can barely make both ends meet.

“There exists no legal or constitutional constraint for the procurement of an insurance policy from private insurance providers to cover for the money claims and repatriations costs of the workers hired under a G-to-G arrangement, provided, that, the premiums for such shall be drawn against the FEFG (Foreign Employers Guarantee Fund),” Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla said,