TRANSCRIPT OF AMBUSH INTERVIEW WITH
SEN. FRANKLIN DRILON after PNCC hearing

DRILON: The government should be entitled in the NLEX to the 6% franchise fee. In other words, our position is that the PNCC, since it no longer has a franchise, has no business appropriating for itself the 6% which is part of the toll collection in the NLEX. They are now saying that this has nothing to do with the franchise. That's not true because as testified to when we were renewing the franchise of PNCC in 2006 and 2007, the 6% was in effect a royalty fee paid by NLEX to PNCC since PNCC was the franchise holder. And since that franchise has expired, the 6% already pertains to the national government and PNCC has no business appropriating it for themselves.

Q: Can the PNCC be held liable?

DRILON: No they cannot be held liable. That collection is authorized. But PNCC cannot spend that 6% but must remit it to the national government.

Q: On the corporate realm, they have joint venture agreements with other companies and then those other companies collect for them. And then they say that it's not theirs to give to you... so from the corporate layering, nadi-dillute yung interest ng government...

DRILON: I didn't get that one.

Q: Babaguhin ba yung schedule niyo sa budget dahil walang pasok tomorrow?

DRILON: No. We'll stick to that. We took into account the fact that November 29 is a holiday. But tomorrow, it's not a material for our budget calendar because we will present the budget on the floor only on the 22nd.

Q: Magkakaroon ba ng reduction ang proposed budget ng PNCC?

DRILON: PNCC is not in the budget. It's not in the GAA. PNCC is outside of the budget.

Q: On PNCC having chairman emeritus without amending the by-laws.

DRILON: The chairman emeritus is illegal. It's not provided in the by-laws. Only officers that are provided in the by-laws can be elected.

DRILON: It was Art Aguilar who influenced the board and agreed to the desire letter because Mr. Aguilar wanted to stay in the board, according to Mr. Antonio Vilar who is a member of the PNCC board. But that's precisely what we are talking of here. These are illegal acts. How can you just make a position without amending the by-laws? And the by-laws can only be amended by stockholders' action.

Q: Paano maaalis yung 6% sa PNCC?

DRILON: The 6% is there but the PNCC should remit it to the national government.

Q: How much is that sir?

DRILON: I would not know.

ANTONIO VILAR: There are two sides of that. In NLEX, we collect 6%, in SLEX it's 1.75%.

DRILON: Our position is that the 6% in the NLEX and 1.75% in SLEX... these are payments given to PNCC by virtue of their franchise. Because this in effect is a royalty fee paid to the PNCC by virtue of its franchise. Now, the franchise has expired, and therefore it is the national government who should be entitled to the 6% in NLEX and 1.75% in SLEX. That is why now, PNCC is saying 'it has nothing to do with our franchise' which is a lie. In the hearings in 2007, it was clearly stated that this was a royalty fee by virtue of PNCC being the holder of the franchise.

Q: Are they remitting it to the national government?

DRILON: No they are not.