Lawyer Estrella Elamparo countered her former professor Antonio La Viña’s defense of Sen. Loren Legarda and her son, Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, saying the senator’s track record in supporting pro-environment bills does not clear her of allegations that she pulled favors to help her son secure a franchise.
In a Facebook post, Elamparo said she “strongly disagrees” with his arguments in defense of the mother and son.
The Office of the Ombudsman is conducting a preliminary investigation on a plunder complaint against Legarda and Leviste in connection with unfulfilled obligations of his solar companies. Legarda is also included because of allegations that she used her position to help him secure a solar franchise.
La Viña, a prominent lawyer and environmentalist, described this as “lawfare” and said there was no basis to file criminal charges against them.
“Being pro-environment for 30 years does not mean someone cannot also have used her office to help her son. Plenty of officials with long, respected careers have also been found to have crossed a line. If anything, three decades of institutional standing is exactly what would give someone the leverage to help a family member — not evidence that she wouldn’t,” Elamparo said.
She also said Legarda’s non-involvement in Leviste’s Solar Para sa Bayan as a shareholder, officer, or beneficiary is of no moment because this is not what was alleged against her.
She noted that Ombudsman’s theory was that Leviste, as a 21-year-old, could not have secured a national solar franchise without the help of his mother, who chaired the Senate finance committee at that time, and that she used her position to help him.
Elamparo also said calling Leviste’s actions that of an “innovative entrepreneur” dodges the issue in the complaint.
She said the allegation was not the underperformance of his companies, but that Leviste’s firm secured a franchise, did not build the power infrastructure committed, and terminated the contract with unpaid obligations of over P10 billion.
“I don’t see where the innovation was exactly, other than the ‘innovative’ way Leviste was able to earn a reported P24–34 billion while the specific projects tied to his congressional franchise were never delivered,” she said.
She also questioned La Viña’s argument that the complaint was a weaponization of the law for political reasons.
She said that while Leviste was subjected to greater scrutiny after he spoke out against corruption, this could also be that the complaint against him took time to build because investigations take time, or it became politically viable to pursue when he became a public figure.
“Timing alone doesn’t establish motive. In any case, the presence of motive does not disprove the allegations,” she said.
Elamparo said she is not saying that Legarda and Leviste are guilty, noting that they have not even been charged over the allegations.
“But it makes me uncomfortable how big of a halo the statement puts on both of them,” she added.