FOR no particular reason whatsoever, what comes to mind instantly upon being confronted by the La Viña–Leviste–Legarda solar energy contract case is an L Triad. And as by my impulsive tendency whenever I’m faced with this kind of phenomenon, I search the internet.
Does this triple L connote some kind of an abomination, a curse or a legacy?
What I get is this: first L for Lucifer; second L for Leviathan; and the third L for Lilith.
Do yourselves the trouble of searching the genders of those Ls and progress to your own conclusions to relate the matter to this day.
Here are the facts.
Solar Philippines was founded by Leandro Leviste in 2013. The Department of Energy (DOE) awarded Solar Philippines power projects and agreements spanning 2014 to 2019, which included 33 projects secured under the Green Energy Auction Program.
Former president Rodrigo Duterte signed Republic Act (RA) 11357 in July 2019, granting Solar Para sa Bayan (SPSB) a 25-year congressional nonexclusive franchise. Under the franchise, SPSB committed to deliver P10 billion worth of solar energy consisting of 12,000 megawatts (MW). Over the course of 2024 and 2025, SPSB had failed to deliver on its commitment.
That failure can trigger automatic revocation of its franchise under RA 11357. And Energy Secretary Sharon Garin did file criminal complaints in that regard.
At the same time, the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) issued show-cause orders against SPSB for operating generation facilities in Paluan, Occidental Mindoro, without an authority to operate or a certificate of compliance. Affected consumers complained that the company charged high power rates, up to P18 per kilowatt-hour.
The Solar controversy shines out in the legal skirmish. Leading the battle for Solar is a no mean lawyer — lawyer Tony La Viña.
Get this from the net:
“Tony La Viña (Antonio Gabriel Maestrado La Viña) is a prominent Filipino lawyer, academic, environmentalist and human rights advocate.
“He is the former dean of the Ateneo School of Government, and chairs the jurisprudence and legal philosophy department at the Philippine Judicial Academy. He has taught law, philosophy and governance in several universities.
“He serves as the associate director for climate policy and international relations at the Manila Observatory, and has frequently acted as a lead negotiator for the Philippines in international climate change and biodiversity conventions.”
A well-meaning political analyst refuses to hide his respect for the lawyer’s professional character.
But La Viña already proclaims Leviste and Legarda as having “absolutely done nothing illegal or even improper and should be rewarded, not punished.”
This is where the revelation of a hidden character creeps in.
“Coming from a climate justice advocate, that is an extraordinary way to frame the issue,” the analyst asserts. “This is not simply about an entrepreneur who tried something innovative and failed. To wit: In October 2024, the Department of Energy disclosed during a Senate budget hearing that 21 of 42 service contracts awarded to Solar Philippines were being processed for termination because of alleged failure to meet scheduled targets. At the time, only 174.41 MW out of roughly 10,000 MW committed by Solar Philippines and its affiliates had reportedly reached commercial operations. By January 2026, DOE said it had terminated 33 Solar Philippines service contracts covering approximately 11,427 MW of potential renewable-energy capacity and was pursuing around P24 billion in penalties and other contractual and financial obligations.”
The analyst argues, “Surely La Viña understands that 11,427 MW of potential renewable-energy capacity is not merely a business statistic. Shouldn’t a climate justice advocate be among the first to ask why?”
That does not mean declaring Leviste guilty. It means demanding answers.
La Viña argues that government was not disadvantaged because Leviste’s companies received no government subsidy and because his businesses contributed solar power to the energy mix.
But that misses the larger question.
Climate accountability cannot be measured only by what a company delivered, rather by what it committed to deliver but failed, why it failed, and the consequences.
DOE said the terminated contracts represented approximately 11,427 MW of potential renewable-energy capacity, enough to cover the country’s annual increase in electricity demand.
La Viña could have said: Let the investigation proceed. My clients deny wrongdoing. Let the evidence determine the truth.
Instead, he declared they had “absolutely done nothing illegal or improper,” declaring the investigation as retaliation for Leviste’s exposé of alleged corruption in late 2025.
But the DOE was already publicly moving against 21 Solar Philippines contracts in October 2024 — more than a year earlier.
Now forming the giant obstacles the L Triad must overcome are the earlier cited criminal complaints against SPSB and the Paluan, Occidental Mindoro non-ERC-permitted operation, topped finally by the state claim that the stalled projects left over P10.44 billion in unpaid obligations to the government.
Getting Legarda and Leviste out of town for ostensible medical treatment might do the trick.
But that will prove La Viña has grown wise at long last to doing his inherent job right.
