Fairness, Not Surprise Fees

The sudden increase in passenger and parking fees at Iloilo International Airport caught many Ilonggos off guard—not just because of the amounts involved, but because no one bothered to ask them first. Business groups and local think tanks were right to sound the alarm: when public policies affecting livelihoods are imposed without dialogue, governance begins to feel less like service and more like imposition.

But this is not just a matter of price tags or memos. This is a test of how seriously our institutions value participatory decision-making—especially in regions like Western Visayas that are working hard to position themselves as investment and tourism hubs. The people who use and rely on Iloilo Airport daily—travelers, entrepreneurs, workers—deserve more than a PDF memo after the fact. They deserve a seat at the table.

To be fair, the Civil Aviation Authority of the Philippines (CAAP) has a legitimate reason for reviewing airport fees. Operational costs have risen sharply since the last rate adjustment in 2015. Inflation, increased maintenance, and the need for upgraded facilities are real challenges. Infrastructure does not sustain itself, and a well-maintained airport is essential to regional growth.

But necessity is no excuse for opacity. Good governance is not just about balancing budgets—it’s about building consensus.

The absence of public consultation in the rollout of CAAP Memorandum Circular No. 19-2025 is more than a bureaucratic oversight. It undermines the democratic spirit of Republic policies that demand public participation in setting service rates. It also goes against the very logic of decentralization, which was meant to give regions like Western Visayas greater voice in matters that affect their development path.

The Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry–Iloilo Chapter and the Institute of Contemporary Economics (ICE) both highlighted this gap. In their respective statements, they stressed the need for inclusive consultation, better socioeconomic impact assessments, and more transparent communication. They did not reject the idea of reform outright—instead, they asked for it to be done properly, with fairness and dignity.

This is where the opportunity lies.

Western Visayas is not asking to be spared from national policy. It is asking to be heard. The region has contributed significantly to post-pandemic recovery, tourism revitalization, and regional innovation. The least its stakeholders deserve is to be treated not as afterthoughts but as partners in national development.

Moreover, the policy itself presents contradictions that must be revisited. The new parking fee scheme, for instance, may lead to unintended consequences. As ICE warned, exorbitant fees could drive more vehicles to park along the Airport Access Road, creating congestion and safety risks. This defeats the purpose of organized airport parking and might even reduce revenue in the long run.

Fee structures should reflect more than cost recovery—they should be context-sensitive. Iloilo is not Metro Manila. A blanket policy that does not distinguish between urban mega-hubs and regional gateways may only widen existing inequalities in access and economic opportunity.

There are constructive paths forward.

First, the Department of Transportation and CAAP must suspend implementation of the new fee structure in airports like Iloilo until proper stakeholder consultations are held. These consultations should include local governments, business groups, civil society, tourism operators, and frequent flyers—not just to comply with regulations, but to ensure decisions reflect lived realities.

Second, CAAP must explore differentiated fee schemes that consider passenger volume, regional cost-of-living indexes, and the economic role of each airport. What works for NAIA or Cebu may not work for Iloilo, Kalibo, or Roxas.

Third, Congress or the Department of Budget and Management can help by reviewing public service funding models to reduce overreliance on user fees, especially in critical infrastructure. Not all costs must be passed directly to consumers—especially when the socioeconomic burden is regressive.

Finally, CAAP and airport authorities must strengthen their communication protocols. No fee that impacts millions of passengers should be announced without a clear, accessible, and timely explanation. In an era of digital connectivity, public trust depends on transparency and dialogue.

In the end, this issue is not just about airport rates. It is about how institutions treat the people they serve. It is about whether policies are made with—not just for—the public.

The call from Iloilo is not a rejection of reform. It is a reminder: development rooted in respect, consultation, and shared purpose is not just more sustainable—it is more dignified.

The flyers are ready to pay their fair share.

All they ask is to be treated fairly in return.