[Vantage Point] Solar Para sa Bayan: When public privilege meets accountability
The timing could hardly be worse: Loren Legarda and Leandro Leviste left the country just two days after the Ombudsman disclosed a plunder and graft investigation into their solar ventures. Their departure proves no wrongdoing, but combined with Lito Atienza’s willingness to testify under oath about an alleged P10-million government sweetener, it has turned a complicated solar controversy into an escalating test of credibility, accountability and political survival.
Sometimes the most damaging political statement is the one nobody intended to make.
On July 31, Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla disclosed that plunder and graft complaints against Senator Loren Legarda, her son Batangas Representative Leandro Legarda Leviste, and former Energy secretary Alfonso Cusi had reached preliminary investigation, the final investigative stage before prosecutors decide whether to bring the accusations to court.
Two days later, on August 2, mother and son left the Philippines on separate flights. The Bureau of Immigration says neither had a derogatory record preventing departure. Legarda has urged the public not to connect her travel with allegations she calls “false and baseless.” Legally, she is right that departure proves nothing. Politically, however, the optics could hardly be worse.
The chronology has since grown longer. Legarda went on medical leave from the Senate from August 3 to 5 and has now filed another medical leave covering August 11 and 12.
Again, illness should neither be questioned nor converted into evidence of wrongdoing without proof. But politics does not operate inside a laboratory. Timing, conduct, and credibility inevitably shape public judgment.
Legarda and Leviste were legally free to travel and should not be described as fugitives. Yet the public sees an Ombudsman announcement on July 31, departure on August 2, and continuing absence from the Senate thereafter.
Each event has an innocent explanation. Together, they have created precisely the perception Legarda has asked the public not to draw.
First-hand witness
Then there is Lito Atienza. The former Manila mayor, congressman, and environment secretary says he is prepared to testify about something potentially more consequential than bad optics: a personal encounter. Atienza alleges that Legarda herself sought his support for the solar venture associated with her son and offered to help him obtain P10 million in government funding after he resisted. He says he refused because he had already developed serious reservations about the project.
The allegation remains unproven. But if Atienza executes an affidavit and repeats his account under oath, investigators would have something qualitatively different from an inference based on a mother-son relationship—a purported first-hand witness describing an alleged conversation with Legarda herself.
Atienza’s testimony alone would not establish guilt. His credibility must be tested, his story corroborated where possible, and Legarda given every opportunity to rebut it. But his account could provide what complex corruption investigations often need: connective tissue.
Documents can show what government approved. Corporate records can show who owned what. Financial records can establish where money moved. A credible first-hand witness may help investigators determine why official actions occurred and whether political intervention played any role. That is why Atienza potentially presents a more difficult problem for the defense than another accusation from a political adversary.
![[Vantage Point] Solar Para sa Bayan: When public privilege meets accountability](https://img.youtube.com/vi/7LzrFfr4Q_o/hqdefault.jpg)
The numbers behind the solar controversy explain why the Ombudsman investigation matters. Department of Energy (DOE) records show that 33 renewable-energy service contracts held by Solar Philippines Power Project Holdings Inc. were terminated after projects failed to meet commitments, representing about 11,427.83 megawatts (MW) of prospective generating capacity.
Solar Philippines alone accounted for roughly 64% of the total capacity covered by renewable-energy service contracts terminated or relinquished nationwide during 2024 and 2025. The DOE has estimated about P24 billion in performance bonds and other contractual and financial obligations associated with the failed commitments.
These contracts belonged to Solar Philippines Power Project Holdings—not Solar Para sa Bayan or SP New Energy Corp., an important corporate distinction that should not be blurred.
That distinction, however, does not diminish the public-interest question. Renewable-energy service contracts are not ordinary commercial possessions. They are government-granted rights that reserve development opportunities while imposing obligations to turn those opportunities into generating capacity.
DOE Secretary Sharon Garin has said cancelled contracts will be opened to new developers, underscoring the opportunity cost involved when an awarded project does not proceed. Every undeveloped contract potentially represents electricity that was not generated, capital that was not deployed, and an opportunity another qualified developer might have pursued.
Leviste has argued that projects failed because permits could not be secured and has denied profiting from selling the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise. That defense deserves to be examined precisely rather than rhetorically.
Saying one did not profit from selling a franchise does not necessarily answer whether economic value was created or monetized through shares, affiliated companies or project rights. (READ: Ombudsman Remulla says Leviste being probed for ‘selling’ solar franchise to Pangilinan)
In renewable-energy development, substantial corporate value can exist before a plant produces its first kilowatt-hour. The proper forensic inquiry therefore remains documentary: which companies held which contracts; when equity interests changed hands; at what valuations; what consideration was received; and who ultimately carried the liabilities when projects failed to materialize?
This is also why Legarda’s defense that “no public funds were involved” does not fully dispose of the controversy. Public resources are not confined to money released from the Treasury.
A franchise, concession or exclusive development right is itself a privilege created by the State. If government action gives one private party an economic opportunity unavailable to others, the public is entitled to ask whether the corresponding obligations were fulfilled. That is not proof of plunder or graft. It is the fundamental accountability bargain underlying every government-granted privilege.
The case should now move away from slogans and toward documents, money trails and sworn testimony.
Legarda and Leviste remain presumed innocent. Their departure proves neither conspiracy nor an intention to evade justice, and Atienza’s allegation remains exactly that until tested.
But mother and son face a political problem increasingly difficult to solve with denials alone. An Ombudsman investigation reaches its decisive stage. They leave the country two days later. Legarda’s absence from the Senate continues.
A veteran public official says he is prepared to testify that she personally offered him a P10-million government allocation to support her son’s solar venture. Behind all of this sit 33 terminated contracts, more than 11,400 MW of unrealized projects and roughly P24 billion in potential contractual and financial obligations.
None individually proves criminal guilt. Together, however, they create a formidable credibility problem—and one that can ultimately be resolved only by evidence, under oath. – Rappler.com
Below are Vantage Point articles related to the Leviste solar controversy:
Below are some Vantage Point pieces you might have missed:
Click here for other Vantage Point articles.
