By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — The billions of pesos being linked to Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste’s solar ventures do not represent money that he borrowed from or took from the government, according to lawyer Tony La Viña.
La Viña, spokesman for Sen. Loren Legarda, challenged the financial and criminal allegations surrounding the congressman’s renewable energy businesses as the Office of the Ombudsman proceeds with a preliminary investigation involving Leviste, his mother and former Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi.
The inquiry covers solar projects valued at more than P10 billion. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla has alleged that companies connected to Leviste secured several solar energy service contracts but failed to meet their promised electricity output.
La Viña disputed that account, saying the circumstances of the projects varied and that several actually reached the point of producing electricity.
His central argument was that a renewable energy project failing to reach commercial operation cannot, by itself, establish that a crime was committed.
“There is no plunder here. There’s no government money that was stolen or lost here,” La Viña said during the Pandesal Forum in Quezon City on Friday.
Some of Leviste’s ventures, La Viña acknowledged, remained at the pre-development stage.
But he said renewable energy projects can encounter problems long before construction or power generation begins.
He cited land availability, the quality of solar or wind resources, issues involving indigenous communities and farmers, and the ability to connect a facility to the power grid as among the factors that can derail a project.
“There are many reasons why projects don’t proceed,” he said.
La Viña therefore rejected the description of the unsuccessful ventures as “ghost electricity,” pointing to other projects associated with Leviste that, he said, actually delivered power.
The lawyer also questioned the characterization of the financial obligations being attributed to Leviste.
He said obligations involving projects that failed to advance from pre-development had been paid, while emphasizing that Leviste no longer holds majority ownership in at least one company being associated with the claims.
“In one company, he is no longer the majority owner. Another big company is already the majority owner,” La Viña said.
He also rejected the suggestion that Leviste controls an overwhelming share of the country’s solar or renewable energy projects.
According to La Viña, projects connected to the lawmaker account for less than 10 percent of the country’s solar and renewable energy projects.
La Viña separately defended the congressional franchise granted to Solar Para sa Bayan, arguing that it did not create an exclusive solar monopoly for Leviste.
He pointed out that the measure passed both chambers of Congress.
Its intended operations, however, never materialized, La Viña said, because the Department of Energy did not issue the required implementing rules or designate the areas where the franchise could operate.
The law itself provided for revocation if the franchise was not implemented within the required period, he added.
La Viña said the failure to implement the franchise should not be attributed to Leviste.
The lawyer likewise pushed back against allegations that Legarda used her Senate position to advance her son’s business interests.
He said Legarda was not part of Leviste’s corporate group and maintained that no corporate records showed her ownership, operation or financial benefit from Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. or other Solar Philippines companies.
La Viña also questioned the allegation that Legarda intervened to secure a government project for her son, saying lawmakers seeking projects would ordinarily coordinate with the appropriate congressional committees or House leadership.
His position was that Legarda’s family relationship with Leviste should not, by itself, establish wrongdoing.
La Viña went further by accusing the Ombudsman proceedings of being politically motivated.
“Clearly, this is a political persecution. This is lawfare. This is a political law,” he said.
He tied the investigation to Leviste’s public campaign against corruption, saying the congressman had not previously been subjected to a corruption investigation before the current complaints.
La Viña questioned whether the cases were intended to discourage Leviste from continuing his criticism of corruption.
The Ombudsman, however, is continuing to examine the allegations involving the solar contracts and the performance of companies linked to Leviste.
At this stage, the proceedings remain a preliminary investigation, with the allegations still subject to evaluation by the anti-graft office.
ia/xf
