The decision is a contained in a 14-page full court resolution written by Justice Dante O. Tinga,

The Supreme Court also denied the motions for partial reconsideration filed by two Japanese firms – Takenaka Corp. and Asahikosan Corp. – and the motions for reconsideration-in-intervention filed by Rep. Salacnib Baterina.

Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Antonio T. Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Romeo J. Callejo Sr., Adolfo S. Azcuna, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, and Cancio C. Garcia concurred in the resolution.

Justice Renato C. Corona wrote a dissenting opinion joined by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, and Justices Reynato S. Puno and Conchita Carpio Morales.

It was also ruled that within 60 days from the finality of its decision, the Pasay City regional trial court (RTC) shall determine the just compensation to PIATCO for the construction of Terminal 3.

The decision affirmed with modification the order of the late RTC Judge Henrick Gingoyon allowing PIATCO to get over million in government deposit.

The trial court issued last December a writ of possession in favor of the government but later allowed the release to PIATCO of the million deposit as requirement for the takeover of the Terminal 3.

The government questioned the trial court’s ruling, saying it is only willing to pay a deposit of over R2.8 billion ( million).

On Jan. 14, 2005, the High Court issued a temporary restraining order stopping the implementation of Gingoyon’s rulings in favor of PIATCO.

The decision read: "All told, the Court finds no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC to warrant the nullification of the questioned orders. Nonetheless, portions of these orders should be modified to conform with the law and the pronouncements made by the Court herein.

"Wherefore, the petition is granted in part with respect to the orders dated 4 January 2005 and 10 January 2005 of the lower court. Said orders are affirmed with the following modifications: The implementation of the writ of possession dated 21 December 2005 is held in abeyance, pending payment by petitioners (Republic of the Philippines represented by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, the Department of Transportation and Communications and the Manila International Airport Authority) to PIATCO of the amount of three billion two million one hundred twenty five thousand pesos (R3,002,125,000), representing the proffered value of the NAIA 3 facilities.

"Petitioners, upon the effectivity of the writ of possession, are authorized to start the implementation of the Ninoy Aquino International Airport Passenger Terminal III project by performing the acts that are essential to the operation of the said International Airport Passenger Terminal project...’’

Representing the government, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) through Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo, filed a motion to reconsider the Dec. 19 decision.

The OSG claimed that the decision of the High Court "will further delay, if not virtually foreclosed," the takeover of NAIA’s Terminal 3 and "will work grave injustice to the government and other lawful claimants to the just compensation."

"Contrary to the expectations of the majority, its decision dated Dec. 19, 2005, may have just dealt the deathblow to the only real chance for the government to complete, open and operate the terminal within the foreseeable future," it said.

Also in its motion, the OSG noted the several pending claims for compensation filed by Japanese builder Takenaka and Asahikosan, the actual builders of the terminal, as well as Fraport AG, PIATCO’s German investor.

It also noted the pending case filed by Fraport AG, PIATCO’s German investor, before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Dispute (ICSID) seeking the payment of US5 million from the government.

It stressed that it has an obligation under its Bilateral Investment Treaty with Germany that Fraport AG to take steps to ensure that compensation provided in the just compensation will be paid, in part, to the German investor to the extent of their interest.

The two Japanese firms also filed separate motions for partial reconsideration.

They asked the High Court to defer the release to PIATCO of the more than R3 billion representing the proffered value of Terminal 3.

Takenaka and Asahikosan said the release of the proffered value of Terminal 3 should be held in abeyance until they are assured that they would be paid for the work they did for the facility.

In his motions for reconsideration in intervention, Baterina invoked his prerogative as member of the House of Representatives and as a taxpayer, and claimed that PIATCO should not be paid without appropriation from Congress.

Resolving the three motions for partial reconsideration and the motions for reconsideration-in-intervention, the Supreme Court said: "We first dispose of the motion for partial reconsideration filed by petitioner Republic of the Philippines (government). It propounds several reasons for the reconsideration of the court’s decision dated 19 Dec. 2005. Some of the arguments merely rehash points raised in the petition and already dispensed with exhaustively in the decision.

"This applies in particular to the argument that Republic Act No. 8974 does not apply to the expropriation of the NAIA Passenger Terminal 3 (NAIA 3), which is not a right-of-way, site or location. This resolution will instead focus as it should on the new arguments, as well as the perspectives that were glossed over in the decision.

"On the newly raised arguments, there are considerable factual elements brought up by the government. In the main, the government devotes significant effort in diminishing PIATCO’s right to just compensation as builder or owner of the NAIA 3. Particularly brought to fore are the claims relating to two entities, Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation, who allegedly claim ‘significant liens’ on the terminal, arising from their alleged unpaid bills by virtue of an Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract they had with PIATCO. Because of these adverse claims, the government now claims as controvertible the question of who is the builder of the NAIA 3.

"The government likewise claims as ‘indispensable’ the need of Takenaka and Asahikosan to provide the necessary technical services and supplies so that all the various systems and equipment will be ready and operational in a manner that allows the government to possess a fully-capable international airport terminal.

"The government’s concerns that impelled the filing of its motion for reconsideration are summed up in the following passage therein: ‘The situation the Republic now faces is that if any part of its R3,002,125,000 deposit is released directly to PIATCO, and PIATCO, as in the past, does not wish to settle its obligations directly to Takenaka, Asahikosan and Fraport, the Republic may end up having expropriated a terminal with liens and claims far in excess of its actual value, the liens remain unextinguished, and PIATCO on the other hand, ends up with the R3,002,125,000 in its pockets gratuitously.’

"The court is not wont to reverse its previous rulings based on factual premises that are not yet conclusive or judicially established. Certainly, whatever claims or purported liens Takenaka or Asahikosan against PIATCO or over the NAIA 3 have not been judicially established. Neither Takenaka nor Asahikosan are parties to the present action, and thus have not presented any claim which could be acted upon by this court. The earlier decisions in the Agan vs. PIATCO cases made no declaration as to their rights to any form of compensation. If there is indeed any right to remuneration due to these two entities arising from NAIA 3, they have not yet been established by the courts of the land.

"It must be emphasized that conclusive ruling in the resolution dated 21 Jan. 2004 in Agan vs. PIATCO (Agan 2004) is that PIATCO, as builder of the facilities, must first be justly compensated in accordance with law and equity for the government to take over the facilities. It is on that premise that the court adjudicated this case as it did in its 19 Dec. 2005 decision.’’