Legarda spox calls Ombudsman probe 'political persecution' - GMA Network

A spokesperson for Senator Loren Legarda has described the Ombudsman’s investigation into the senator and her son, Batangas Representative Leandro Leviste, as “lawfare” and “political persecution.”

Legarda and Leviste are facing complaints before the Ombudsman over Leviste’s solar power firm.

In a statement on Friday, Atty. Antonio “Tony” La Viña said Legarda was facing “classic lawfare,” which he described as the weaponization of the law for political purposes and noted that it had traditionally been used against government critics and opposition figures.

“This is classic lawfare, the weaponization of the law for political purposes. Sadly, this is not the first time it has happened. Previous administrations have done it as well to opposition politicians, government critics, journalists, Supreme Court justices, and social and political activists,” said La Viña, a former dean of the Ateneo School of Government.

La Viña, who said he has worked with Legarda for three decades, cited the senator’s environmental legislation and said she had never been investigated or charged with corruption or similar offenses during her decades as a public official.

The Office of the Ombudsman announced in July that it had launched an investigation into Legarda and Leviste following allegations that Leviste’s renewable energy company failed to supply electricity as mandated by its legislative franchise.

Prior to the Ombudsman probe, the Department of Energy (DOE) filed a complaint with the Department of Justice (DOJ) against Leviste and five executives of Solar Para sa Bayan Corporation (SPBC) for alleged violations of the Public Service Act.

Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla claimed Legarda was linked to the case because her son’s company could not have secured its 2019 franchise without her influence as then-chairperson of the Senate finance committee.

La Viña defended Legarda, emphasizing that no formal charges have been filed against her or Leviste. He said, however, that the Ombudsman’s public pronouncements already conveyed an “unmistakable impression that liability has already been assumed,” even though the matters involving them remain at the preliminary investigation stage.

Both Legarda and Leviste have filed their counter-affidavits.

In his radio program on dzRH on Saturday, Remulla said it appeared that Legarda, who is currently on medical leave, did not want to return home from France.

La Viña, in response, said, “Walang sinabi na ganyan sa akin si Senator Loren (Senator Loren never told me anything like that).”

According to La Viña, Legarda’s inclusion in the Ombudsman’s probe and its timing raise questions about whether the scrutiny is based on evidence or driven by political motives.

“The subsequent inclusion of Senator Legarda in an Ombudsman preliminary investigation, and the timing with which that proceeding emerged, inevitably raise questions about whether the scrutiny against her is grounded in evidence of her own acts or is being driven by the wider political issues surrounding her son,” La Viña said.

He noted that Legarda does not own, run, or participate in SPBC or any Solar Philippines company, adding that being both a parent and a senator does not establish that she benefited, acted improperly, or committed a crime.

“Senator Legarda should not be shielded from scrutiny because Leviste is her son. But neither should motherhood become evidence against her,” he added.

La Viña said Legarda should only be scrutinized based on concrete evidence showing that she improperly intervened with government officials or benefited from the grant of the franchise.

“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,” La Viña said.

La Viña also defended Leviste, maintaining that he did not commit any illegal acts and describing him as an “out-of-the-box entrepreneur” who introduced “new ideas and approaches to fast-track the energy transition.”

“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,” La Viña said.

“But that is not a criminal act. He should be praised, not punished, for that. In the same way, he should be lauded and not harassed for his crusade against corruption. Note that harassment against them started only in late 2025 when Leandro exposed corruption,” he added.

La Viña also pointed to the sequence of events leading up to the complaints against Leviste.

He said that after Leviste publicly exposed corruption in late 2025 and called for government-wide investigations, a steady stream of allegations and “investigations” targeting his projects began to surface.

“In conclusion, I reiterate my earlier point that lawfare—weaponization of the law for political ends and gain—is always wrong and in fact unlawful,” La Viña said.

“What is going on is clearly political persecution,” he added. —VBL, GMA News