Legitimate questions

The controversy surrounding the renewable energy projects linked to Rep. Leandro Leviste should prompt a broader conversation that extends well beyond the personalities involved. Regardless of how the Office of the Ombudsman’s preliminary investigation ultimately unfolds, the case raises a fundamental question of public policy: What standards should the government apply before entrusting private entities with projects that are critical to the country’s energy future?

This is not about whether entrepreneurship should be encouraged. It should. Neither is it about condemning businesses simply because projects encounter setbacks. Every industry carries risks, and not every venture succeeds. But renewable energy service contracts are unlike ordinary commercial opportunities. They involve public resources, government approvals, and the allocation of opportunities that directly affect the country’s electricity supply, economic competitiveness, and long-term energy security.

That is why the public naturally asks difficult questions when reports indicate that a company with a reported capitalization of only P1 million at the time became associated with projects and opportunities involving tens of billions of pesos and extensive renewable energy commitments. That fact, repeatedly cited by critics of the project, does not by itself establish wrongdoing or disqualification. It does, however, raise legitimate questions about the level of financial and technical scrutiny applied before the government granted such significant opportunities.

Those questions become even more compelling when viewed alongside the Department of Energy’s own regulatory actions. The DOE terminated numerous renewable energy service contracts associated with companies linked to Rep. Leviste after determining that contractual commitments had not been fulfilled and announced that it is pursuing approximately P24 billion in contractual obligations and penalties. The Office of the Ombudsman has likewise opened a preliminary investigation into allegations involving Sen. Loren Legarda, his son Leandro, and former energy secretary Alfonso Cusi.

The controversy has also been fueled by allegations regarding how those opportunities were obtained.

Former deputy speaker Lito Atienza has publicly alleged that Sen. Legarda used her influence to help secure a congressional franchise for her son’s company while she occupied one of the Senate’s most powerful positions. Sen. Legarda has categorically denied those allegations, and they remain unproven. They are now among the matters being examined by the Office of the Ombudsman.

Whether those allegations are ultimately substantiated is for the Ombudsman, and, if charges are filed, for the courts, to determine. But they underscore why the public is demanding answers. When immediate family members of powerful public officials obtain government-granted privileges involving critical national infrastructure, citizens are entitled to ask whether the process was governed exclusively by merit, technical capability, and financial capacity, or whether political influence played any role. Public trust depends not only on the absence of impropriety but also on confidence that the process was fair and free from conflicts of interest.

These questions are not directed solely at one company or one individual. They also concern the agencies responsible for evaluating applications, monitoring compliance, and protecting the country’s energy security. Renewable energy service contracts are public grants.

They reserve opportunities that other qualified investors could otherwise develop. If projects remain unrealized for years, the consequences extend far beyond the contracting parties. Consumers may continue paying higher electricity costs, investors may face uncertainty, and the country’s transition to cleaner and more reliable energy may be slowed.

That is why qualification standards matter.

When government awards projects of national significance, the public expects a rigorous evaluation of an applicant’s financial capacity, technical capability, operational readiness, and ability to complete the project within the agreed timetable.

Those standards exist not to discourage investment but to protect the public interest. They are intended to ensure that valuable public opportunities are awarded to developers capable of turning commitments into functioning infrastructure.

The recent controversy therefore raises legitimate institutional questions. Were the government’s due diligence procedures sufficiently rigorous? Did regulators have adequate safeguards to ensure that project commitments were realistic? Were performance milestones strictly enforced from the outset? And if warning signs emerged, were corrective measures taken promptly? Could the existing qualification framework for renewable energy projects be strengthened to protect the public interest better?

Those policy questions need to be answered.

The Philippines cannot afford a renewable energy framework in which major projects remain unrealized while critical generating capacity is tied up. Nor can it afford a system in which public confidence is undermined because citizens are left wondering whether project awards were subjected to the highest possible standards of scrutiny.

This case should therefore become more than a legal controversy. It should become an opportunity to strengthen the country’s renewable energy governance.

Congress and regulators should examine whether existing rules on capitalization, financial capability, technical expertise, project milestones, and continuing performance remain adequate for projects of national importance. Greater transparency in the evaluation process and stronger accountability mechanisms would help restore public confidence while ensuring that qualified developers have a fair opportunity to participate.

The country’s energy future is too important to depend on promises alone. Every government approval, every service contract and every franchise should ultimately be judged by one standard: Did it deliver reliable electricity for the Filipino people?

That is the question the public is asking today. It is also the question that every future energy project should be prepared to answer.

For comments, email at [email protected].