THE Office of the Ombudsman’s decision to commence a preliminary investigation into complaints against Sen. Loren Legarda, Rep. Leandro Leviste and former energy secretary Alfonso Cusi is significant because it identifies issues serious enough to warrant formal scrutiny by one of the country’s highest anti-corruption institutions.
The facts and allegations publicly discussed by the Ombudsman deserve careful attention because they raise important questions about governance, conflicts of interest, and the stewardship of public resources.
One of the pillars of the controversy is the Department of Energy’s own regulatory action. The DOE has reported terminating numerous renewable energy service contracts associated with companies linked to Rep. Leandro Leviste after finding that contractual milestones had not been met. The department also announced that it is pursuing approximately P24 billion in contractual obligations and penalties arising from those terminated projects.
Those actions are independent of the Ombudsman’s investigation. They are regulatory decisions made by the agency tasked with overseeing the country’s energy sector. Whether those actions are ultimately sustained through the appropriate legal processes is a separate matter, but they form part of the factual backdrop against which the Ombudsman is evaluating the complaints.
The Ombudsman has likewise emphasized what it considers the broader public impact of the controversy. Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla described the allegations as involving “ghost electricity” — projects that allegedly promised electricity that ultimately did not materialize. He further observed that while the contracts themselves involved billions of pesos, the economic opportunities allegedly lost by the country could reach hundreds of billions of pesos when unrealized investments, delayed power generation and missed economic activity are taken into account. Those figures remain part of the Ombudsman’s assessment and will necessarily be subject to evidentiary examination should the proceedings advance.
Another aspect of the case concerns how these opportunities were obtained. Former congressman Lito Atienza has publicly stated that he intends to testify before the Ombudsman. He has said that he opposed the congressional franchise from the beginning because he questioned the company’s reported capitalization and its capacity to undertake projects of such scale. He has also publicly alleged that Senator Legarda personally lobbied lawmakers to support her son’s franchise and attempted to persuade him after he opposed the measure.
These are serious allegations.
Senator Legarda has categorically denied any wrongdoing, describing the accusations against her as false and baseless. Rep. Leandro Leviste has likewise defended his companies and has disputed the characterization of the projects as “ghost projects,” maintaining that no government funds were released to his firms. Former energy secretary Alfonso Cusi has also denied any unlawful conduct. Under our legal system, each respondent is entitled to the full presumption of innocence unless and until proven otherwise.
Yet the importance of this case extends beyond the question of criminal liability.
It invites a broader examination of whether the country’s safeguards against conflicts of interest are sufficiently robust. When immediate family members of high-ranking public officials obtain government-granted privileges involving critical national infrastructure, the public naturally expects the highest level of transparency. Even where no legal violation is ultimately established, confidence in public institutions depends on the perception that opportunities are awarded through objective, merit-based processes insulated from political influence.
The controversy also highlights the importance of rigorous qualification standards in the renewable energy sector. Public debate has focused on reports regarding the company’s capitalization during its early years and the scale of the opportunities it later obtained. Whether those circumstances complied with all applicable laws and regulations is ultimately a matter for the proper authorities. But the broader policy question remains: Are the government’s financial, technical and performance standards adequate for projects involving infrastructure essential to national development?
The Philippines cannot afford prolonged uncertainty in a sector as critical as energy. Renewable energy service contracts are not merely commercial opportunities; they affect electricity supply, investor confidence, industrial growth, and the country’s transition toward cleaner sources of power. Every project that succeeds benefits the public. Every project that stalls imposes costs that extend far beyond the contracting parties.
Ultimately, the Ombudsman’s investigation should be viewed as an opportunity for accountability and institutional learning. If the evidence supports the allegations, then the law must be applied without fear or favor.
The public deserves clear answers.
The central question is no longer simply whether renewable energy projects were awarded or canceled. It is whether the institutions responsible for granting, monitoring and enforcing those projects operated in a manner that upheld the public trust. That is the question the Ombudsman is now examining, and it is a question whose answer matters not only to those involved in this case but to every Filipino who expects government decisions to be guided by competence, fairness and accountability.
