MANILA, Philippines — Lawyer Tony La Viña, Sen. Loren Legarda’s spokesman, on Friday denied that her son, Batangas 1st District Rep. Leandro Legarda Leviste, owes the government P10 billion or P24 billion over his solar energy projects, insisting that no government money wasused, wasted or stolen in the ventures.
“There is no plunder here. There’s no government money that was stolen or lost here. Both Congressman Leviste and Senator Legarda have no money that was stolen or borrowed from the government, as in zero,” La Viña said during Friday’s ‘Pandesal Forum’ at the Kamuning Bakery and Cafe in Quezon City and hosted by columnist Wilson Lee Flores.
La Viña was defending the mother and son - both reportedly in France as she has been on an extended medical leave from the Senate - against the plunder and graft allegations being investigated by the Office of the Ombudsman in connection with Leviste’s renewable energy businesses.
The Ombudsman has ordered a preliminary investigation into Legarda, Leviste and former Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi over allegations involving more than P10 billion worth of solar projects.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla has alleged that Leviste’s companies obtained numerous solar energy service contracts but failed to deliver the electricity they had committed to produce.
La Viña rejected the characterization of the projects as “ghost electricity,” saying Leviste’s companies had actually delivered electricity from several projects.
He also disputed claims that Leviste had a monopoly over solar or renewable energy service contracts.
“There is no monopoly of solar contracts or renewable energy contracts,” La Viña said, adding that projects linked to Leviste represented less than 10 percent of the country’s solar and renewable energy projects.
He said Leviste’s businesses should be assessed individually because some projects progressed beyond the pre-development stage and delivered electricity, while others did not.
La Viña acknowledged that some projects failed to move beyond pre-development but said this did not automatically establish criminal liability.
Pre-development, he explained, could involve unresolved issues such as land availability, solar resources, wind conditions, indigenous communities, farmers and connection to the power grid.
“There are many reasons why projects don't proceed,” he said.
La Viña also disputed the amount being attributed to Leviste as financial obligations arising from unsuccessful projects.
He said Leviste had paid financial obligations involving projects that did not proceed beyond pre-development. He further said the amount being attributed to Leviste did not necessarily involve a company that he still controlled.
“In one company, he is no longer the majority owner. Another big company is already the majority owner,” La Viña said.
The lawyer also defended the Solar Para sa Bayan (SPB) franchise, saying it did not give Leviste an exclusive monopoly over solar energy.
The franchise was approved by Congress, with La Viña stressing that it was passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
He said the franchise was not implemented because the Department of Energy failed to issue the necessary rules and regulations and did not identify the areas where it could be implemented.
According to La Viña, the law itself provided that the franchise would be revoked if it was not implemented within the prescribed period.
“It was not the fault of Leandro Leviste,” he said as he rejected claims that Legarda used her position as a senator to secure projects for her son.
He said Legarda was not part of Leviste’s corporate group and argued that the allegation that she intervened to obtain a project for her son was not supported by the complaint.
He also dismissed as “absurd” the claim that a congressman would approach a senator to secure a government project, saying lawmakers seeking projects would ordinarily deal with the appropriate committee chair or the House leadership.
La Viña maintained that Legarda should not be implicated simply because she is Leviste’s mother.
He has previously said there were no corporate documents showing that Legarda owned, operated or benefited from Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. or other Solar Philippines companies.
The lawyer also argued that Leviste’s unsuccessful projects should be viewed in the context of the risks involved in developing renewable energy projects in the Philippines.
He said the country needed more investors willing to put money into renewable energy because electricity costs remain high.
“If these people are fired, it will be a signal to all renewable energy (investors): Don’t go to the Philippines because you will face plunger if your project will not push through,” he said.
La Viña said Leviste had been an innovator in renewable energy and had succeeded in delivering electricity through some of his projects.
La Viña also reiterated his accusation that the Ombudsman proceedings amounted to “lawfare” and were politically motivated.
“Clearly, this is a political persecution. This is lawfare. This is a political law,” he said.
He linked the case to Leviste’s public campaign against corruption, saying the lawmaker had not previously been investigated for corruption before the current complaints emerged.
La Viña said the timing of the cases raised questions about whether the investigation was intended to stop Leviste from continuing to speak about corruption.
The anti-graft office, however, has maintained that it is investigating allegations involving Leviste’s solar projects, including claims that companies connected to him obtained numerous service contracts and failed to fulfill their commitments.
The investigation remains at the preliminary stage.
