MANILA, Philippines — The legal battle surrounding Sen. Loren Legarda and her son, Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste, is intensifying, with their spokesperson calling the ongoing Ombudsman investigation a “waste of prosecution resources” while accusing authorities of turning the case into political persecution.
Lawyer Tony La Viña, who recently became Legarda’s spokesperson, said the allegations involving the senator and her son’s solar-energy ventures do not establish criminal wrongdoing.
“I see this as a waste of prosecution resources,” La Viña said in a recent interview, arguing that the controversy should not be treated as a criminal case simply because Leviste’s business ventures have come under government scrutiny.
The Ombudsman, however, maintains that the matter warrants a preliminary investigation.
What is the ₱10.44-billion controversy?
Legarda and Leviste are being investigated over alleged irregularities involving solar-energy projects connected to companies associated with Leviste, including Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. (SPBC).
The Ombudsman has cited alleged obligations and irregularities amounting to about ₱10.44 billion in connection with solar projects that investigators say were not fully implemented.
According to the Philippine News Agency, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla said investigators were examining possible violations involving plunder, graft and conflict-of-interest provisions. The investigation is intended to determine whether there is probable cause to pursue formal complaints.
The accusations include claims that promised solar projects under a government-related energy program and congressional franchise were not delivered as expected.
Legarda has repeatedly rejected the accusations, describing them as false and baseless and maintaining that no government funds were used in the projects.
Legarda camp: No corporate connection
La Viña has strongly defended the senator, arguing that there is no corporate documentation showing that Legarda was a shareholder, officer or beneficiary of SPBC or other Solar Philippines companies associated with her son.
He also stressed that being Leviste’s mother does not establish legal responsibility for his business dealings.
“Responsibility is personal,” La Viña said, arguing that motherhood cannot be used as evidence of criminal conduct.
He further maintained that the congressional franchise granted to SPBC was non-exclusive, did not itself provide government subsidies and required regulatory action from the Department of Energy before it could be fully implemented.
The spokesperson described the investigation as “classic lawfare” and “political persecution,” claiming that scrutiny of Leviste’s business activities intensified after the lawmaker became vocal about alleged government corruption.
The camp insists that entrepreneurial experimentation, failed implementation or policy gaps should not automatically be transformed into criminal liability.
Ombudsman says investigation is not over
Despite the defense, the Ombudsman continues to pursue the preliminary investigation.
Remulla recently confirmed that both Legarda and Leviste had submitted their counter-affidavits. Although the filings were reportedly late, the Ombudsman said they would still be considered in keeping with due process.
The bigger issue for investigators, however, is that both lawmakers have been outside the Philippines.
According to reports, Legarda and Leviste were believed to be in Paris and had also traveled to Switzerland. Remulla said their absence could make it difficult for investigators to seek clarification if additional questions arise from their submissions.
The preliminary investigation panel has 60 days to complete its proceedings before the matter moves toward resolution.
Authorities have also discussed possible legal steps to ensure the two remain available to the process if their absence becomes prolonged.
Medical leave adds another layer to controversy
Legarda’s extended medical leave has also become part of the public controversy.
The senator first went on medical leave in early August, around the time the Ombudsman announced the preliminary investigation. Her leave was subsequently extended, with ABS-CBN reporting on Sept. 7 that she had extended her medical leave until mid-September.
The Ombudsman previously questioned the repeated extensions, although Senate officials have said Legarda was dealing with a serious illness. Inquirer also reported that the Ombudsman’s spokesperson had expressed doubts about the repeated medical-leave extensions.
Legarda’s camp, meanwhile, has rejected suggestions that her absence should be interpreted as an attempt to evade the investigation.
Separate government action adds pressure on Leviste’s solar business
The controversy has also expanded beyond the Ombudsman investigation.
ABS-CBN reported that the Department of Energy had recovered only about ₱80 million out of ₱24 billion in fines involving Solar Philippines companies associated with Leviste, adding another dimension to the government’s scrutiny of the company’s energy projects.
Earlier, the government had also pursued action concerning alleged violations involving Leviste’s solar operations and franchise-related obligations.
These developments do not, by themselves, establish criminal liability against Legarda or Leviste. The allegations remain subject to investigation and due process.
Probe vs. political persecution
At the heart of the controversy is now a sharply contrasting narrative.
The Ombudsman says the allegations involve potentially serious issues concerning the implementation of major solar-energy projects and their implications for government energy planning.
Legarda’s camp argues that the case is being driven by politics and that the senator is being dragged into her son’s business affairs without evidence establishing that she owned, controlled or benefited from the companies involved.
La Viña has therefore urged authorities to stop what he describes as the weaponization of the legal system against political figures.
For now, however, neither side has delivered the final word.
The Ombudsman has yet to determine whether the evidence is sufficient to establish probable cause for formal criminal charges.
Until that determination is made, Legarda and Leviste remain respondents in a preliminary investigation—not convicted offenders.
And with their counter-affidavits now on record, the next major question is no longer whether the controversy will continue—but whether the Ombudsman will find enough evidence to push the case into the next stage.
That decision could determine whether the ₱10.44-billion solar controversy becomes a major corruption case—or ends with the allegations being dismissed.
Leave a Reply