POLITICS, not proof of wrongdoing, is driving the investigations into Sen. Loren Legarda and her son, Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste, according to the senator’s spokesman.
Lawyer Tony La Viña said a review of the allegations and records showed no illegal or improper act by either Legarda or Leviste, arguing that legitimate private business activities had been recast as criminal conduct.
“After intensive review, I am convinced that she and her son have absolutely not done anything illegal or improper with respect to the latter's solar energy business,” La Viña said.
He described Leviste’s solar ventures as entrepreneurial initiatives that sought to introduce new approaches to the country’s energy transition, saying regulatory and policy failures that prevented some projects from taking off should not be mistaken for criminal wrongdoing.
La Viña added that neither Legarda nor Leviste has been formally charged and that the matters involving them remain at the preliminary-investigation stage.
“It bears emphasizing that no formal charge has been filed against Senator Legarda or Representative Leviste,” he said.
La Viña accused the Ombudsman and other officials of making public pronouncements that create the impression that liability has already been established even though the cases have yet to reach the point where prosecutors determine whether formal charges should be filed.
He rejected attempts to implicate Legarda in her son’s businesses simply because of their family relationship.
The senator, he said, does not own, operate or participate in Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. (SPBC) or any Solar Philippines company. No corporate documents identify her as a shareholder, officer or beneficiary, he added.
“Responsibility is personal,” La Viña said. “Senator Legarda should not be shielded from scrutiny because Leviste is her son. But neither should motherhood become evidence against her.”
He challenged assertions surrounding the congressional franchise granted to SPBC, saying it was nonexclusive, carried no government subsidy and depended on regulatory action by the Department of Energy (DOE).
Legarda did not vote for the franchise, La Viña said, disputing claims that the franchise was subsequently sold. He argued that it was never fully operationalized because the DOE did not issue the required implementing rules or identify the areas where the company could operate.
La Viña said the controversy has also been muddled by the treatment of separate corporate entities and government instruments as though they were the same.
“SPBC is one corporation. Other Solar Philippines companies are separate entities,” he said, noting that a congressional franchise is distinct from a renewable-energy service contract.
He maintained that neither instrument, by itself, constituted the grant of government funds to Leviste’s companies.
La Viña also dismissed the notion that Leviste’s business activities had shortchanged the government or Filipino consumers.
He said the solar ventures had contributed additional renewable energy to the country’s energy mix, arguing that the fact that Leviste earned money as a businessman did not make his activities criminal.
“Leandro introduced new ideas and approaches to fast-track the energy transition, and there may have been policy gaps that prevented the successful implementation of some of those ideas. But that is not a criminal act,” he said.
But the sharper accusation from Legarda’s camp involved the timing of the investigations.
La Viña said scrutiny of Leviste’s projects intensified after the lawmaker exposed alleged corruption in late 2025.
“The timing speaks for itself,” he said, characterizing the subsequent investigations as “classic lawfare, the weaponization of the law for political purposes.”
La Viña said the alleged pattern was consistent with political retaliation against critics and warned that government investigative powers should not be used to harass political opponents.
