Sen. Loren Legarda and her son, Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste, have filed their counter-affidavits to the plunder complaint filed against them over “ghost electricity” allegations related to Leviste’s solar companies.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla confirmed the filing of the counter-affidavits, saying these came late but would nevertheless be considered by his office so as not to get them on a technicality.
But Remulla also said their absence from the country could be a problem.
“Pag-aaralan namin yung kanilang counter-affidavits. Ang problema, paano yan pag may questions kami? Nasaan sila?” he said.
The Office of the Ombudsman flagged Legarda and Leviste’s prolonged stay abroad amid its investigations, noting that Legarda had extended her leave multiple times.
Remulla said the office has 60 days to resolve the preliminary investigation of the plunder and graft complaint.
Legarda and Leviste have denied involvement in wrongdoing, with Legarda citing her record in public service.
Meanwhile, Legarda’s spokesperson Tony La Viña also defended her and called the complaint against her and her son “lawfare” or weaponization of the law for political purposes.
La Viña said this is something that previous administrations had done to members of the opposition.
“What is going on is clearly political persecution. It does not matter that such weaponization has been in the past used by all previous administrations against the opposition, journalists, and activists. It has always been wrong. And it must stop now,” he said in a statement.
He said Legarda and Leviste have not committed anything illegal in relation to Leviste’s solar power projects.
“At worst, Leandro has been innovative and out-of-the-box as an entrepreneur. That should be rewarded, not punished,” he added.
He said he has worked with Legarda for 30 years and witnessed the key role she played in passing major environmental legislation.
“I have worked with her in many of these initiatives and I consider it a moral duty to defend her, knowing that there is in the first place no basis for criminal charges against her and Leandro,” he said.
According to La Viña, Leviste’s solar franchise and business model could be criticized and his company questioned over the fulfillment of his obligations, but he said this is a different matter from whether he or Legarda violated the law.
He also questioned whether Legarda’s inclusion in the probe was due to actions she committed or was only due to the political issues concerning Leviste.
He pointed out that Legarda is not involved in any of Leviste’s solar power companies.
“Being a parent and being a senator does not in any way prove she benefited, acted improperly, or committed a crime,” he said.
He said that if there is evidence of Legarda improperly intervening for her son’s solar power franchise, then it should be examined.
“But the record establishes important facts: the franchise was non-exclusive, it did not provide for government subsidy, its implementation depended in part on regulatory actions assigned to the DOE, and Senator Legarda herself did not vote for its passage,” he said.
La Viña also warned that filing a plunder case over unfulfilled service contracts would have a “chilling effect” on renewable energy investments.
He noted that “policy gaps” led to his projects not getting off the ground.
He said Leviste should not be held criminally liable and should be praised instead for his efforts to bring renewable energy to different parts of the country.
“In any case, 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 should be praised not punished for that,” he said.
Leviste should also be lauded for his “crusade against corruption,” he added.