AN INTERNATIONAL arbitration court in Singapore has ordered the Philippine government to ?give up possession? of Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) Terminal 3 to its builder, the Philippine International Air Terminals Co. Inc. (PIATCo), until a valid writ of possession is issued by a Philippine court.

?The respondent, its officers and agents, are ordered to cease occupation and give up possession of Naia Terminal 3 and not to obstruct the claimant in entering into occupation and taking up possession of Naia Terminal 3,? the Singapore-based International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Arbitration Tribunal said in a 14-page decision dated August 23.

The decision was signed by tribunal chair Prof. Michael Pryles.

The tribunal, nevertheless, said that ?nothing in this order is intended to prohibit or restrain the respondent from entering into occupation or taking up possession of NAIA Terminal 3 pursuant to a valid and enforceable writ of possession issued by a court in the Philippines authorizing the same.?

The respondent is the Philippine government, while the claimant is PIATCo, the consortium that built and originally owned NAIA 3.

PIATCo filed an arbitration case in the tribunal seeking interim measures to maintain the status quo, following the government?s expropriation of NAIA 3 in 2004.

A Pasay City court had ordered the government to pay PIATCo three billion pesos for NAIA 3.

For its part, the government, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, questioned the jurisdiction of the ICC.

In deciding the case, the tribunal recognized the Philippine Supreme Court?s decision of December 19, 2005, holding the writ of possession issued by a Pasay City Regional Trial Court in abeyance, ?pending proof of actual payment of the proferred value of three billion pesos to the claimant.?

The writ was issued on the government by the late Pasay Judge Henrick Gingoyon on December 21, 2004.

The tribunal also took note of the fact that in answering a question posed by Pryles, Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura ?conceded that the (government), through the MIAA (Manila International Airport Authority), purported to enter Terminal 3 in reliance upon the writ of possession.?

?It is now clear from the Supreme Court?s ruling in the Gingoyon case that the writ of possession should not have been issued and that it is effectively in abeyance until the proferred value of 3 billion pesos is paid,? the tribunal said.

?Mr. Nachura also stated that the MIAA was still present in Terminal 3 together with personnel from the contractor Takenaka. He sought to justify the continued presence of personnel from MIAA on the basis of police powers which were not clearly established to the satisfaction of the tribunal,? the ICC added.

The government had continually deferred payment of the three billion pesos to PIATCo on one pretext or another, despite averring that the money was in an escrow account in Land Bank.

The government, through the MIAA, on August 24 finally moved to pay PIATCo the P3 billion.

Payment was withheld, however, after the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order against MIAA and the bank on a petition of Rep. Salacnib Baterina.

The following day, PIATCo lawyer Eduardo de los Angeles wrote Nachura saying PIATCo should still be paid the three billion pesos.

De los Angeles said that PIATCo and its authorized representatives ?shall enter into occupation and take up possession? of NAIA 3 on Aug. 31, or within five days of receipt of the letter.

?We expect that you will properly advise GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines), its officers and agents and its authorized representatives not to obstruct PIATCo and its representatives in doing so,? De los Angeles said.

MIAA general manager Alfonso on Monday Cusi told reporters government lawyers will file today a motion to quash the TRO so that the three billion pesos payment to PIATCo could proceed.

Cusi also said that PIATCo should bring before Philippine courts the Singapore tribunal?s decision ?if they want that enforced.?

?The ICC decision has no jurisdiction here,? Cusi said, echoing the government?s stand.

(1 dollar = 51.21 pesos)