What It Means
- The $4 travel fee per direction, totaling ₱480 round trip at current exchange rates, will be charged to all international passengers entering and leaving the Philippines once the Bureau of Immigration’s new border security system goes live.
- The fee funds a ₱10.74 billion infrastructure project under a Public-Private Partnership with Virginia-based Securiport LLC, approved by the Department of Justice on December 2, 2025.
- The $4 travel fee is denominated in US dollars, not pesos, meaning Filipino passengers absorb the foreign exchange risk for the duration of the contract term.
- Securiport carries audit findings, contract breach reports, and ongoing corruption investigations across its passenger user fee arrangements in Mali, Gambia, and the DRC.
- The fee replaces what would have been an annual budget item with a private collection arrangement, removing border infrastructure financing from yearly legislative review.
The Bureau of Immigration confirmed in its February 27, 2026 Project Information Memorandum that international passengers will pay a $4 user fee each way, or roughly ₱480 round trip, to finance the country’s new Civil Aviation and Immigration Security Services platform. The fee will be collected directly through airline tickets. The total project cost is ₱10,744,100,033.50, financed entirely by a private partner under the Build-Train-Maintain-Transfer modality permitted by the Public-Private Partnership Code.
Most of the public conversation will focus on the cost layered on travelers. That conversation is real but it is also the easier conversation. The harder one sits underneath it.
The Cost Stack Before the New Fee Arrives
A Filipino economy passenger departing Ninoy Aquino International Airport on an international flight already pays ₱1,620 in travel tax to the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority, plus ₱950 in passenger service charge under the New NAIA Infra Corp concession. That is ₱2,570 in mandatory charges before the ticket itself, before the fuel surcharge, before any airline ancillary fee. Add the new $4 travel fee in both directions and the cost stack reaches ₱3,050 for a single round trip, at current exchange rates.
OFWs are statutorily exempt from travel tax and terminal fees under Republic Act 8042, as amended by Republic Act 10022. The Bureau of Immigration’s public document on the CAISS project does not state whether OFWs will be exempted from the $4 travel fee. That silence is itself a question that should be on record before the system goes live.
For the casual middle-class traveler, ₱480 per round trip is absorbed. For OFW families making multiple trips per year, for MSME exporters with recurring cross-border business, and for the thinner tourism segments competing against Vietnam, Thailand, and Indonesia destinations, the stacked cost matters at the margin.
A Public Function Funded Through a Captive Base
Border security is a public function. Immigration control, biometric capture, passenger risk screening, and watchlist matching are core state responsibilities. In most countries, they sit inside the annual national budget, debated and approved each year through the legislative appropriations process. The cost is borne by the general tax base, distributed across the population according to taxable capacity.
The Philippine government has chosen a different path. A ₱10.74 billion border infrastructure investment that would otherwise compete for space inside the General Appropriations Act has been moved off-budget entirely. It will be paid by international passengers through a ticket-embedded user fee, collected by a private partner, recovered over the life of the contract. The captive base is anyone who flies into or out of the country.
The middle-class outbound traveler absorbs the cost directly. The OFW family visiting home absorbs it, pending clarification on whether the existing statutory exemption covers the CAISS fee. The MSME exporter making cross-border trips absorbs it as operating cost. None of them voted on this allocation the way they vote indirectly on every line item in the GAA. The BI’s project was approved by the Department of Justice as its parent agency. The public memo does not document review by the Investment Coordination Committee or NEDA Board, which under the NEDA-ICC Guidelines is the standard approval path for PPP projects of this size.
This is what the consensus framing misses. The travel tax and terminal fee debates focus on whether existing charges are too high. The CAISS fee is a different question. It is whether a sovereign state function should be funded through a charge on a captive group with no annual say in how much is collected, for how long, or for what.
Foreign Control of a Sovereign Function
If the Philippine state outsources border infrastructure to a private operator, the operator should at minimum sit fully under Philippine jurisdiction. A Filipino corporation, registered locally, governed by Philippine corporate law, with shareholders and directors reachable by Philippine courts, is one thing. A foreign-incorporated operator is a different proposition.
Securiport LLC is incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Its primary regulatory environment is American. Its corporate governance answers to home-country obligations first, and its fiduciary duties run to shareholders who are not Filipino. When the function being performed is the operation of the country’s border security stack, including biometric capture of every passenger entering and leaving the country, the jurisdictional gap matters.
Foreign operators act on home-country shareholder interests, not Philippine national interest, when the two diverge. They are governed by foreign law in areas Philippine law cannot fully reach, particularly around data handling, corporate disclosure, and dispute resolution. Different jurisdictions follow different rules on what records must be kept, what can be subpoenaed, what can be shared with home-country agencies, and what survives a parent-level corporate restructuring. When the system processes the personal biometric data of every Filipino crossing the border, those gaps are not theoretical.
The argument is not against private participation. The argument is that when the function is sovereign, the operator should be reachable by Philippine institutions in full. A foreign operator is not.
The Dollar Denomination of the $4 Travel Fee
The $4 travel fee is priced in US dollars. The ₱480 round-trip figure is a conversion at current exchange rates. As the peso moves against the dollar, the peso cost moves with it. Filipino passengers absorb the FX risk for as long as the contract runs.
Most Philippine government fees, from travel tax to terminal fee to BIR documentary stamp tax, are peso-denominated. A USD-denominated user fee on Filipino passengers is unusual. It hedges the operator against peso depreciation while shifting that exposure to the captive collection base. It also signals where the operator’s economic interests sit.
A Philippine state agency has priced a mandatory passenger charge in a foreign currency, on Filipinos, collected over a multi-year contract. The peso could weaken substantially during that term. The fee in peso terms would rise accordingly. No new approval, public consultation, or legislative review would be required.
The Securiport Pattern in Other Jurisdictions
Securiport was the original proponent of the unsolicited proposal submitted to the BI in May 2023. The same company operates passenger user fee arrangements in several African countries.
In Mali, Securiport’s contract at Bamako-Sénou Airport is the subject of an ongoing investigation into allegations of corruption, embezzlement, and financial misconduct, with former ministers questioned and missing contract pages raising concerns about how the state’s share of fees has been accounted for. In Gambia, the National Audit Office documented contract breaches including non-collection of security fees from diplomatic passport holders and revenue diversion concerns serious enough that the former Auditor General publicly described the arrangement as a scam. In the DRC, leaked contract excerpts in November 2025 triggered public controversy over a $30 air passenger security fee the government had not previously disclosed in detail.
None of this proves the Philippine arrangement will follow the same trajectory. It does establish that the operator’s track record in comparable jurisdictions includes audit findings, corruption investigations, and contracts where transparency about revenue allocation has been a recurring problem. That record belongs on the Philippine public record before the contract is awarded.
Explainer: Assessing Securiport contract breach and its subsequent chaos
The Window for Scrutiny Is Narrowing
The PBAC bidding process is active. The pre-qualification conference has been postponed once already and the winning proponent has not yet been announced. The window for structural scrutiny is open but narrowing. Once a contract is awarded, the conversation shifts from financing design to contract execution, and the harder questions about denomination, exemption coverage, jurisdiction, and revenue allocation become less easy to surface.
For operators in tourism, MSME export, and business travel, the cost stacking is the visible exposure. For anyone tracking how Philippine sovereign functions are increasingly financed, the precedent is the larger one.
Track more regulatory shifts that affect your business in Policy & Regulation section of Hemos PH.
