BALAYAN, Batangas — Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste is facing mounting scrutiny as allegations of “ghost projects” and supposed misuse of public funds circulate online, even as he positions himself as a vocal critic of corruption in government infrastructure—particularly flood control programs.
The controversy unfolds against the backdrop of a high-stakes legal fight. On Friday, Leviste filed a civil libel complaint against Malacañang Press Officer Claire Castro, accusing her of spreading false claims about his business dealings in the energy sector. Accompanied by his new counsel, Ferdinand Topacio, Leviste lodged the case before the Balayan Regional Trial Court, seeking ₱100 million in moral damages, ₱10 million in exemplary damages, and ₱1 million in legal fees.
“I could have pursued criminal charges, but I chose not to,” Leviste told reporters, underscoring that the case was civil in nature. He said the filing was meant to defend his name and push for transparency amid what he described as efforts to discredit him.
Allegations, counterclaims, and public backlash
Online, critics have intensified attacks linking Leviste to alleged ghost projects and supposed losses of government funds—claims he has repeatedly denied. The debate has spilled over to social media, where netizens have coined biting labels comparing him to other embattled figures.
Komento ng ilang netizens: “Kung si Zaldy Co daw ay Flood Control King, si Leviste naman daw ay Kuryente King.”
Leviste, for his part, says the timing of the attacks is no coincidence. In his court filing, he alleged that criticism escalated after he disclosed possession of documents—dubbed the “Cabral files”—which he claims detail how certain officials, lawmakers, and contractors allegedly colluded to insert ghost and substandard infrastructure projects into the national budget in exchange for kickbacks.
“These attacks aim to destroy my credibility,” Leviste said in the complaint, framing himself as a whistleblower at the center of exposing systemic corruption in flood control projects. He stressed that his lawsuit targets Castro in her personal capacity and is not an attack on the Marcos administration.
Castro, meanwhile, rejected the accusations and questioned Leviste’s motives. “Who is really behind this case? Who wants to silence me?” she asked, describing the lawsuit as an attempt to stop public discussion of the issues.
Energy sector troubles
Complicating matters is a recent Department of Energy (DOE) ruling that slapped a ₱24-billion fine on Solar Philippines Power Project Holdings Inc. (SPPPHI)—a firm founded by Leviste—for failing to deliver power under more than 30 government service contracts. The DOE also ordered the cancellation of 163 contracts nationwide, citing risks to the country’s power supply if promised capacity does not materialize.
Energy Secretary Sharon Garin warned that non-delivery could lead to thinner reserves and higher electricity prices. “Hindi ka nag-deliver kung ano ang sinabi mo,” she said, adding that the government is coordinating with the Department of Justice, Office of the Ombudsman, and the Office of the Solicitor General.
Leviste disputes the finding, arguing that many projects were delayed because permits were not granted. He has also drawn a distinction between his companies, saying the franchise of Solar Para Sa Bayan Corp. became moot after the DOE failed to issue implementing rules, and that the firm he sold to Meralco—SP New Energy Corp. (SPNEC)—did not hold a congressional franchise.
A reputation battle far from over
Between 2023 and 2025, Leviste sold billions of shares in SPNEC to Meralco and public investors, transactions he says were driven by the success of his solar projects in Batangas, Tarlac, and Nueva Ecija. Yet the financial milestones have done little to quiet allegations now echoing across digital platforms and political circles.
As investigations loom and legal battles intensify, Leviste finds himself at the center of a widening storm—one that pits claims of reform and transparency against allegations of ghost projects and public loss. For now, the questions remain unresolved, and the court of public opinion continues to deliberate alongside the courts of law.
No comments:
Post a Comment