THE lawyer-spokesperson of Senator Loren Legarda has rejected allegations that the senator and her son, Batangas First District Representative Leandro Leviste, profited unjustly from the mega solar franchise his company secured years ago, and called the case pending against them with the Ombudsman as baseless and ridiculous.
Atty. Antonio ‘Tony’ La Viña maintained that the accusations are contradicted by the documentary and financial records.
Speaking before members of the media on Wednesday, La Viña challenged the Department of Energy (DOE) to review its own correspondence, distinguish the companies involved, and correct what he described as fundamental errors underlying the complaint against Legarda and Leviste. He also questioned the Office of the Ombudsman’s basis for pursuing the allegations of plunder and graft, urging it to examine the documentary evidence.
‘Una sa lahat, walang pera galing sa gobyerno na kinuha at binulsa ni Senator Loren o ni Representative Leandro. Walang plunder, walang government funds na kinuha in any of the projects. Dapat very clear sa atin yan [Firstly, no government money was pocketed by Senator Loren or Representative Leandro. There was no plunder, no government funds taken in any of the projects. That should be clear to us all] ,’ La Viña said.
The renewable energy projects under scrutiny were privately funded and the failure of a project to proceed does not, by itself, constitute plunder or graft, he asserted.
Addressing the multibillion-peso financial obligations publicly attributed to Leviste, La Viña clarified that the amounts involved different corporate entities. He maintained that the financial obligations legitimately assessed against Leviste’s companies had already been fully settled.
La Viña identified a DOE demand letter addressed to Mr. Emmanuel Rubio of SP New Energy Corporation (SPNEC), which has been majority-owned and controlled by Meralco’s generation company, MGen, since 2024. He urged the DOE to distinguish SPNEC from Solar Para sa Bayan Corporation and the other Solar Philippines companies, emphasizing that the financial obligations of one corporate entity cannot simply be attributed to another.
‘It is clear that their letter asking for twenty-four billion to be paid, which was later changed to 10 billion, is for Mr. Emmanuel Rubio and not Leandro Leviste, and not the latter’s companies,’ La Viña said, partly in Filipino.
He also clarified that the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise was non-exclusive and had ceased to exist under the law’s automatic revocation provision after it failed to become operational. He attributed its non-implementation to the DOE’s failure to issue the necessary implementing rules and identify the areas where the franchise could operate.
‘It wasn’t implemented because the government, the Department of Energy, failed to issue the rules and regulations to implement the solar franchise. The government, or DOE, also did not release a list of the places where it can be implemented,’ La Viña said.
He rejected allegations that Leviste had monopolized renewable energy service contracts, explaining that the 42 solar contracts awarded to him represented only a portion of the 518 solar service contracts nationwide.
A Senate Energy committee hearing in 2024 had elicited from the DOE a report that nearly half of the companies issued show-cause orders for failure to have operational projects longer after the usual period of 1-3 years belonged to Leviste.
La Viña emphasized that a renewable energy service contract involves exploration and pre-development and that projects may not proceed because of land availability, grid connectivity, and other feasibility concerns. Investors bear the financial risks and must settle applicable obligations when projects do not proceed.
He questioned whether the failure of a privately funded renewable energy project to proceed could constitute plunder or graft, stressing that the nature of service contracts must be properly understood in evaluating the allegations before the Ombudsman.
La Viña separately rejected allegations linking Legarda to her son’s renewable energy ventures, maintaining that the senator neither participated in the management of Leviste’s companies nor used her public office to advance their business interests.
He stressed that Legarda’s relationship with her son does not establish her participation in the transactions or contractual obligations of his companies.
‘There’s nothing in the charges of the Ombudsman that involves Senator Loren Legarda. So, why was she dragged into it?’ La Viña said.
He questioned the basis for including Legarda in the complaint and challenged the authorities to identify evidence establishing her personal participation in any alleged wrongdoing.
He said both had submitted their counter-affidavits within the prescribed period, disputing claims that their submissions had been delayed.