Being a mother does not end when your child becomes an adult.
You will worry about them, defend them when you believe they are being treated unfairly, celebrate their successes and probably still remind them about things they should already know how to do.
But when your child is already an adult with his own career, businesses and decisions, how much of what he does should still be attributed to his mother?
That question came to mind during a recent lunch with Dean Antonio Gabriel “Tony” La Viña, spokesperson for Senator Loren Legarda, as he discussed the allegations involving the senator and her son, Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste.
Much has already been said about the controversy surrounding Leviste’s renewable-energy businesses. There have been allegations involving unfinished solar projects, renewable-energy service contracts, billions of pesos in alleged financial obligations and questions about why Legarda herself has been included in the controversy.
With so many numbers, accusations and political statements being shared online, it has become increasingly difficult for an ordinary reader to understand what is actually being alleged.
La Viña presented the Legarda-Leviste side of the story.
His position regarding the senator herself could hardly have been more direct.
“Yung nanay niya has nothing to do with the business except that she’s a mother,” La Viña said.
It is an important distinction, but also one that deserves context.
La Viña is Legarda’s spokesperson and part of her legal team. The statements he made during our conversation represent their defense and explanation of the controversy. They should therefore be understood as their account of events, rather than conclusions about matters that remain disputed.
A mother and her adult son
One of the easiest assumptions to make is that because Legarda is Leviste’s mother, she must somehow have been involved in his renewable-energy businesses.
La Viña disputes that.
According to him, Legarda had no role in those businesses beyond being Leviste’s mother.
That distinction is especially worth remembering when dealing with adult children.
Leviste is no longer a young man starting a business under his mother’s supervision. He is an adult, businessman and elected member of Congress whose commercial decisions can be examined separately from those of his mother.
Whether allegations involving Legarda herself have merit is a question for the appropriate proceedings. La Viña’s argument is narrower: the mother-son relationship by itself should not be treated as proof that Legarda participated in her son’s business activities.
But understanding his defense also requires understanding what these controversial solar projects actually were.
What exactly is a service contract?
This was perhaps the most useful part of our conversation because the term “service contract” can easily give people the wrong impression.
According to La Viña, the renewable-energy projects being discussed were funded by private investment, not by government money released to Leviste.
“No government funds were used,” was his position.
He explained that renewable-energy service contracts involve exploration and development. Investors put their own money at risk while determining whether projects can proceed.
“Risk yun, all the risk is with the investor,” he said.
That means receiving a service contract does not necessarily mean that a completed solar power facility will eventually emerge from it.
Some projects proceed. Some do not.
And La Viña cautioned against automatically treating every unsuccessful project as evidence of a crime.
“Kung sasabihin mo na plunder every time an investor is not able to go to the next stage, wala nang mag-i-invest sa Pilipinas. Why would you?”
At the same time, he did not claim that investors could simply abandon projects without consequences.
La Viña acknowledged that projects that fail to proceed can carry financial obligations.
“Merong ibang hindi nag-succeed. Kung hindi ka mag-succeed, meron kang financial obligations na kailangan i-fulfill.”
According to La Viña, Leviste had approximately P92 million in such financial obligations, which he said had already been paid.
“May resibo kami diyan,” he said.
That is quite different from saying there were no obligations at all.
So where did P10 billion and P24 billion come from?
This is another part of the controversy that can become confusing very quickly.
La Viña strongly disputes the suggestion that Leviste personally owes either amount.
“Kahit anong baliktad-baliktad mo, walang twenty-four billion or even ten billion that Leandro Leviste owes. Walang ganun.”
According to La Viña, the P24-billion demand being discussed was addressed to SPNEC. By the time of the letter he was referring to, he said MGen, or Meralco Generation Company, was already SPNEC’s controlling majority shareholder.
“Pag titignan mo yung letter, the letter is issued to Mr. Emmanuel Rubio of SPNEC, na ngayon ay majority-owned na by MGen.”
La Viña also rejected the characterization that Leviste simply acquired solar projects and later “flipped” them.
“Hindi siya flip,” he said.
He described SPNEC’s development with MGen as a joint venture, with MGen subsequently becoming the majority owner.
Again, these are specific assertions from the Legarda-Leviste camp. But they are also assertions that can be checked against documents—which is exactly what La Viña says people should do.
What happened to the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise?
Another source of confusion is the tendency to lump the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise together with the renewable-energy service contracts.
La Viña says they are different matters.
According to him, the Solar Para sa Bayan franchise granted by Congress was non-exclusive.
“Merong franchise, yung Solar ng Bayan na franchise, na binigay ng Kongreso. [It is] non-exclusive.”
He said its implementation required the Department of Energy to issue rules and regulations and identify areas where the franchise could operate.
La Viña claims those steps were not completed.
He further said that because the franchise was not implemented, it was automatically revoked two years after its approval.
He also disputed claims that the franchise was subsequently sold.
“May resibo ako na hindi ’yun nabenta ever to anyone,” La Viña said. “Revoked na kasi yung franchise.”
Ask for the receipts
There was one line from our lunch that stayed with me.
“Humingi naman kayo ng resibo. Kami, may resibo kami.”
Ask for the receipts.
It is useful advice whether you agree with La Viña or remain skeptical of his explanations.
Because there is a difference between an allegation and an established fact. There is also a difference between defending someone because you like them and examining whether the evidence actually supports what is being said about them.
The same standard should apply to the defense.
La Viña says the financial obligations were paid? Show the receipts.
He says the P24-billion letter was addressed to SPNEC after MGen became its controlling shareholder? Check the letter and the ownership records.
He says the franchise was never sold? Check the corporate documents.
He says Legarda had no involvement in her son’s renewable-energy businesses? Examine the evidence concerning Legarda herself.
La Viña himself invited that scrutiny.
“For those na hindi naniniwala o skeptical, I ask lang for an open mind,” he said. “Humingi naman kayo ng resibo. Kami, may resibo kami.”
For a mother, seeing your child’s name dragged through controversy must be difficult, regardless of how old that child is. The instinct to worry does not disappear simply because your son is already capable of making decisions for himself.
But neither should motherhood make a woman automatically accountable for every business decision her adult son makes.
That is ultimately the distinction La Viña wants people to consider when discussing Legarda and Leviste. Whatever questions need to be answered about Leviste’s renewable-energy ventures should be answered by the people responsible for those ventures. And if there are allegations against Legarda herself, then those allegations should stand on evidence of what she did—not simply on the fact that she is his mother.
There will undoubtedly be more statements, accusations and rebuttals as the controversy continues. For now, perhaps the fairest thing we can do is resist turning family relationships into conclusions.
A mother can stand beside her son.
That does not automatically mean she stood behind his business.
.jpg)
.jpg)
