It is simple to assume that there must be fire where there is smoke when public figures are accused. However, the presumption of innocence, the need for proof, and the distinction between association and complicity-principles that safeguard common people-do not vanish just because the accused are public officials. This is the core of what Atty. Tony La Viña, defending Senator Loren Legarda and her son, Batangas 1st District Representative Leandro Legarda Leviste, in the controversy involving the latter’s solar energy ventures. The most crucial information that is frequently overlooked in public discourse is procedural: neither Senator Legarda nor Representative Leviste have been formally charged. The matter is still under preliminary investigation, with authorities determining whether there is sufficient basis to file a case on court. It’s not a technicality. It is a legal protection designed specifically to keep people from being tried and found guilty in public opinion before they have had an opportunity to respond to formal charges, let alone defend themselves in court. Public declarations that imply certainty of guilt prior to the completion of this process undermine a right that all citizens, regardless of political affiliation or family name, are entitled to.
Senator Legarda’s public suspicion seems to rest on no other fact but that Leviste is her son. But kinship does not mean complicity. La Viña has a point-there are no corporate papers showing the Senator as a shareholder, officer or beneficiary of Solar Para sa Bayan Corporation or any of its related entities. If they existed they would have been found by now with the level of scrutiny. Otherwise, the argument is guilt by association: a parent is considered guilty of a child’s business because they are relatives. That’s not how criminal or administrative liability works in any fair legal system. It’s personal responsibility. Just because a public official has a family member running a private business, even a controversial one, does not automatically implicate the official unless there is concrete proof of participation, control or benefit.
Several details are important when it comes to the case’s actual content. Since the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise was non-exclusive, rivals were not barred. It didn’t have any government subsidies, so no public money was used for it. The Department of Energy had to designate operational areas and issue implementing rules in order for it to be fully implemented, but these actions are said to have never taken place. It becomes challenging to accuse a businessman who owns a franchise of defrauding anyone if the franchise could not be operationalized due to a regulatory agency failing to fulfill its own obligations. A scheme to deceive is not a scheme that cannot be executed because there are problems in regulation.
The difference between the various corporate entities and government instruments being discussed is also worth mentioning. The allegations, which tag Solar Para sa Bayan Corporation, other Solar Philippines-branded companies, congressional franchises, and renewable energy service contracts as if they are one interchangeable mass, sound broader and more damning than the facts indicate. Accuracy matters in judging allegations of misconduct. Sometimes entrepreneurs who try bold and unconventional approaches – especially in a complex and heavily regulated industry like renewable energy – won’t see their vision all the way through. That’s business risk’. The question is not whether every idea was a winner, but whether the public or the government was damaged. Most accounts agree that Leviste’s solar projects contributed power to the grid instead of subtracting from it, and that no public funds were lost in the process. There is nothing inherently criminal about making money from a legitimate business that helped increase the nation’s renewable energy supply.
The timing of the scrutiny, coming hard on the heels of Leviste’s public concerns over corruption, is a fair point for the public to consider, not as a charge against any institution, but as context. When criticism is outspoken and investigations are close on its heels, fairness demands that the process be more transparent and evidence-based, not less.
But this is not to say that legitimate scrutiny should be spared Senator Legarda or Representative Leviste. It is worth looking at the business dealings of all public officials and their family members, especially in industries that intersect with public infrastructure like energy. However, scrutiny must be based on proof of actual misconduct, such as falsified documents, misappropriated public funds, or abuse of office, rather than on familial ties or the failure of a business endeavor. And until such evidence is forthcoming, the presumption of innocence should apply to them as it would to anyone else.