La Viña disputes allegations vs. Legarda, Leviste; urges review of records
9/28/2026 11:34:00 PM
Levis
Atty. Antonio “Tony” La Viña, spokesperson for Senator Loren Legarda, disputed allegations against the senator and her son, Batangas First District Representative Leandro Leviste, describing them as unsupported by the documentary and financial records cited by their camp.
Speaking before members of the digital media on Wednesday, La Viña questioned the basis of the allegations being examined by the Office of the Ombudsman and called on the Department of Energy (DOE) to review its records and correspondence concerning the renewable energy projects involved.
La Viña maintained that neither Legarda nor Leviste received or misappropriated government funds in connection with the projects under scrutiny.
“Una sa lahat, walang pera galing sa gobyerno na kinuha at binulsa ni Senator Loren o ni Representative Leandro. Walang plunder, walang government funds na kinuha in any of the projects. Dapat very clear sa atin yan,” La Viña said.
He argued that the renewable energy projects in question were privately funded and that the failure of a project to proceed does not, on its own, establish liability for plunder or graft.
Corporate entities and financial obligations
La Viña also sought to clarify reports involving multibillion-peso financial obligations that have been publicly associated with Leviste.
He said the amounts cited involved different corporate entities and maintained that obligations properly assessed against companies associated with Leviste had already been settled.
As an example, La Viña cited a DOE demand letter addressed to Emmanuel Rubio of SP New Energy Corporation (SPNEC), which, according to La Viña, is a separate corporate entity from Solar Para sa Bayan Corporation and other Solar Philippines companies.
He urged the DOE and other authorities to distinguish among the companies involved when assessing financial obligations and other liabilities.
“Malinaw naman ang resibo na yung letter nila asking for twenty-four billion to be paid, na later binago nila to ten billion, ay doon sa kay Mr. Emmanuel Rubio at hindi kay Leandro Leviste, hindi sa kanyang mga kumpanya,” La Viña said.
The distinction among the companies is central to La Viña’s argument that financial obligations attributed to one entity should not automatically be treated as obligations of another.
Solar Para sa Bayan franchise
La Viña also discussed the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise, which he said was non-exclusive and later ceased to exist under an automatic revocation provision after failing to become operational. He attributed the non-implementation of the franchise to the absence of implementing rules and designated areas from the DOE.
“Hindi siya na-implement dahil sa gobyerno. Hindi naglabas yung Department of Energy ng rules and regulations to implement the solar franchise. Hindi rin naglabas ang gobyerno, ang DOE, ng mga lugar kung saan siya pwedeng i-implement,” he said.
The statement represents La Viña’s explanation for why the franchise did not proceed. The significance of the franchise and the responsibilities of the parties involved remain matters for the relevant government agencies and legal proceedings to determine.
Renewable energy service contracts
La Viña also disputed claims that Leviste had monopolized renewable energy service contracts. He said the 42 solar contracts attributed to Leviste represented only a portion of the 518 solar service contracts nationwide.
He further explained that a renewable energy service contract generally covers exploration and pre-development activities and does not guarantee that a project will ultimately be constructed or become operational.
According to La Viña, projects can fail to proceed because of factors such as land availability, grid connectivity, financing, and other feasibility concerns. He said private investors assume the financial risks associated with such projects and remain responsible for applicable obligations.
On this basis, La Viña questioned whether the failure of a privately funded renewable energy project to proceed could, by itself, establish the elements of plunder or graft.
Legarda's involvement
La Viña separately rejected allegations linking Senator Legarda to her son's renewable energy ventures. He maintained that Legarda did not participate in the management of Leviste's companies and did not use her public office to advance their business interests.
“There’s nothing in the charges of the Ombudsman na kasama si Senator Loren Legarda. So, yun, bakit siya nakasama?” La Viña said.
He called on authorities to identify specific evidence showing that Legarda personally participated in any alleged wrongdoing. Legal proceedings La Viña described the allegations against Legarda and
.png)
0 comments