Defending Loren: Advocacy not an alibi, friendship not proof of innocence

Last Friday, I co-hosted TV5’s Storycon with Philippine STAR editor-in-chief Amy Pamintuan and veteran journalist Regina Lay. We had an interesting discussion with renowned law professor Atty. Tony La Viña, whom we invited for a live interview, about his decision to serve as spokesperson for Sen. Loren Legarda amid the controversies surrounding her and her son, Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste.

Not a few were surprised by Tony’s decision to become a mouthpiece for the mother-and-son tandem, particularly among those who know him as a staunch champion against corruption, the very issue that his clients now find themselves facing. Loren and her son are currently on an extended stay abroad which, if we are to believe them, is purely for health reasons, but which, rather remarkably, coincides with the ombudsman’s preliminary probe into their possible involvement in plunder and graft in connection with multibillion-peso solar projects.

That is precisely why watching Tony argue so passionately for Loren’s side is painful. It is not so much that he has chosen to defend them. Tony is entitled to defend whomever he wishes. What is troubling are the glaring contradictions in the arguments he uses to do so.

On our show, Tony began his defense of Loren by saying that he has known her from way, way back. He pointed to the senator’s legislative record, particularly her years of championing environmental causes. In an earlier Facebook post, he cited Loren’s environmental laws, including the Clean Air Act and Renewable Energy Act, among others. He then used this record to argue that the allegations against Loren have “no basis.”

This argument is as dim as Leandro’s solar projects. It is a non sequitur. So what if a politician has a long list of advocacies? It is not an alibi for plunder or abuse of power. A politician can champion the sun and trees, turtles, dolphins and all the animals in Noah’s Ark and still ransack the nation’s coffers.

Following this logic, the large-scale corruption, extrajudicial killings and election cheating under former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would likewise have “no basis” because she was a pro-life advocate who lifted the death penalty. The accusations against Sen. Pia Cayetano for spreading fake news through a spliced video of Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno would similarly have “no basis” because she is a champion of reproductive health. And allegations of ghost and anomalous projects against Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano would have “no basis” because he is a devout Christian. After all, he is the “Ambassador of Jesus Christ.”

Tony then argued that Loren, who was then chair of the powerful Senate committee on finance, did not use her influence during the Duterte regime to secure an exclusive national solar franchise for Leandro. He said no documents show Loren as an officer, stakeholder or beneficiary of her son’s solar company. He also pointed out that the franchise passed through Congress without any hiccups.

Again, a non sequitur. So what? A politician does not need to be legally listed as an officer, shareholder or beneficiary of a company to wield political influence for his or her own benefit, or for the benefit of family and friends. This was true in the Napoles pork barrel scam. It remains true in the multibillion-peso flood control corruption scandal.

And just because a franchise passed both chambers of Congress does not make it aboveboard or establish that there was no influence-peddling and conflict of interest. If Tony can be fiercely critical of the controversial 2025 budget and the non-renewal of ABS-CBN’s franchise, both of which were approved by Congress, why can’t he exercise the same degree of scrutiny toward Leandro’s solar company which, after securing a congressional franchise, according to authorities, failed to deliver the promised power infrastructure, incurred P10 billion in unpaid obligations and was sold to another entity despite remaining incomplete?

Tony would like us to believe that Leandro, who reportedly secured billions of pesos worth of projects at the age of 21, was simply a young and innovative entrepreneur. He appears convinced that Leandro was some kind of business whiz kid. Never mind that his extraordinary business acumen was hardly celebrated or even talked about in the business community. Nor was his genius particularly evident in his legislative work and debates with colleagues. Then again, perhaps we are simply too stupid, and too mortal, to comprehend the genius that Leandro is.

But the most stupefying of Tony’s defenses of Loren and her son is his claim that they are “victims of political persecution.” Ah, yes. The same “political persecution” line now doing heavy duty in the political vocabulary of twice-impeached Vice President Sara Duterte.

Please. Let us not insult those who actually suffered political persecution, such as ML Representative Leila de Lima who, as a senator, was unjustly and without any basis imprisoned by the Duterte regime for seven years. Whatever political intramurals Loren and her son may have with the administration, these do not erase, or even diminish, the serious allegations they face and the public’s legitimate demand for truth and accountability.

Frankly, it would have been far more understandable and tolerable if Atty. Tony La Viña had simply said that he was choosing Loren’s side because she is a close friend. Period. Tony is free to stand by a friend, just as Loren is lucky to have a friend in him. Friendship may explain why one chooses to defend someone even if it does not prove the absence of wrongdoing.

But to dress up a defense in weak arguments? Now that is something else. Advocacy does not immunize a politician from scrutiny or accountability. And friendship, however genuine, is not evidence of innocence.