'Ghost electricity': Sen. Legarda, Rep. Leviste Leave Philippines Amid Ombudsman Probe Over ₱10-Billion 'Ghost' Solar Projects – What To Know
By TFCN Correspondent
Photo by Leandro Leviste: Senator Loren Legarda, 66, with her son, Batangas 1st District Representative Leandro Leviste, 33
MANILA — Senator Loren Legarda and her son, Batangas 1st District Representative Leandro Leviste, departed the Philippines on separate flights on August 2, 2026, days after the Office of the Ombudsman announced a preliminary investigation into plunder and graft complaints linked to alleged irregularities in solar energy projects valued at over ₱10 billion.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) confirmed the departures on Friday, August 7.
NBI Director Melvin Matibag told local media that Leviste flew to Hong Kong, while Legarda traveled via Hong Kong with France as her final destination.
Separate flights
The Bureau of Immigration (BI) corroborated the information, noting both left on separate flights that day and had no derogatory records at the time of departure.
Senate President Sherwin Gatchalian said Legarda does not need Senate approval for a personal trip abroad. Reports indicated she filed for medical leave covering August 3–5, which her office and Senator Erwin Tulfo confirmed.
Ombudsman Jesus Crispin “Boying” Remulla expressed confidence they would return, remarking that they might “want to come home in handcuffs” if they do not.
Background on the Solar Case
On July 31, 2026, Ombudsman Remulla announced that his office had ordered a preliminary investigation into Legarda, Leviste, and former Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi.
The complaints involve plunder (a non-bailable offense), multiple violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Republic Act 3019, including Sections 3(e), 3(h) for conflict of interest, and 3(i)), and related ethical standards.
Investigators alleged that the trio conspired to secure "exclusive government rights" over solar energy resources through legislative and regulatory actions.
25-year Franchise
Leviste’s firm, Solar Para sa Bayan Corp. (SPBC), obtained a 25-year legislative franchise to produce and sell solar energy, but many projects were never developed as promised under the Philippine Energy Plan — described by Remulla as “ghost electricity.”
What SPBC's 25-year franchise means
Congress can give a company a franchise authorizing it to generate and/or distribute electricity within a specified area for a period of time.
But the company still has to comply with the Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC), DOE and other applicable regulatory requirements before particular projects can actually operate. So, if SPBC obtained a franchise but promised or proposed numerous solar projects, the government can ask: “Did you actually develop the projects you said you would?”
What “ghost electricity” means
When Remulla calls them “ghost electricity,” he is essentially describing power capacity or projects that existed on paper but did not materialize into actual electricity generation.
That becomes particularly significant if the unused franchise or project rights prevented other companies from developing viable projects in the same areas.
Why DOE rules matter
The Philippine power sector operates under a planning and regulatory framework in which generation projects are expected to be developed in accordance with government-approved energy plans, permits, approvals and timelines.
But there's an important distinction: A project being listed in an energy plan does not automatically mean the developer is legally guaranteed to build it.
And conversely, failure to complete a proposed project isn't automatically proof of a crime or corruption. Authorities would need to establish what obligation actually existed, what deadline applied, whether it was breached, and who was responsible.
Why this could become a serious investigation
The potential concern is the "opportunity cost". Imagine a 1,000-MW solar project is awarded/authorized to Company A: Company A doesn't build it, so now Company B can't develop the same opportunity, which means 1,000 MW of expected supply doesn't materialize, leading to tighter electricity supply, and Filipino consumers potentially paying more.
The investigation could examine whether the franchise was being used, developed and maintained in accordance with its conditions and the applicable energy regulations, rather than simply assuming that an unused franchise itself constitutes wrongdoing.
The Ombudsman stated that terminated contracts resulted in more than ₱10.44 billion in "unpaid financial obligations to the government", with broader economic damage potentially reaching hundreds of billions due to higher electricity costs and exclusion of other investors.
Some service contracts were reportedly transferred to affiliated corporations that existed only on paper.
Latest media reports show the Ombudsman is not simply investigating Leviste and Legarda because the solar projects failed. The preliminary investigation concerns allegations that the failure was part of a broader scheme involving government contracts, regulatory privileges, political influence and possible financial benefit.
As of July 31, 2026 the Ombudsman said the complaints involve possible violations of three major laws:
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,
the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials, and the
Plunder Law.
Former Energy Secretary Alfonso Cusi was also named.
1. The core allegation against Leviste
The Ombudsman's theory is roughly: Leviste's companies obtained numerous solar-energy service contracts → many projects were not developed → competing investors were allegedly prevented from pursuing those opportunities → government obligations worth more than ₱10.44 billion remained unpaid → the country allegedly suffered much larger economic losses.
The Ombudsman characterized this as creating a “virtual monopoly” over solar projects and described the undelivered electricity as “ghost electricity.”
There is an important legal nuance: not building a project is not automatically plunder or graft. Prosecutors would have to establish the additional elements required by those criminal statutes—such as corrupt intent, undue injury, unwarranted benefits, conspiracy or, for plunder, accumulation of ill-gotten wealth.
2. The specific franchise rule is RA 11357
This is particularly important because SPBC received its 25-year franchise under Republic Act No. 11357, enacted in 2019.
The law authorized SPBC to build and operate renewable-energy distributed energy resources and microgrids specifically to serve remote, unserved and underserved areas.
And the franchise was not a blank check.
For example, Section 4 requires the company to secure the appropriate ERC certificates, permits and licenses before constructing and operating its facilities. The ERC has specifically cited this requirement in proceedings involving SPBC.
The franchise also contains a particularly important provision: if the grantee fails to operate continuously for two years, the franchise is deemed revoked.
The ERC announced in January 2026 that it was issuing show-cause orders against SPBC over allegations including unauthorized operations and charging rates without prior ERC approval, saying SPBC had operated in some areas without the required Authority to Operate and Certificates of Compliance.
3. Why Legarda is being investigated
This is a separate issue from whether Leviste's company delivered electricity. The Ombudsman's allegation is essentially that Legarda used her government position to help her son obtain the franchise.
Remulla specifically alleged that Leviste would not have obtained the franchise without his mother's assistance and cited her position as chair of the Senate Finance Committee at the time.
That is why the investigation potentially moves from a business/regulatory violation into public-official misconduct and graft.
The question investigators have to answer is: Did Legarda use her public office or influence to secure an unwarranted benefit for her son or his company?
If prosecutors can establish that, the relevant statutes could include RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and RA 6713, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. The Ombudsman has identified both statutes in the complaints.
4. There is also a potentially important conflict-of-interest question
This is where the case gets more complicated. The investigation can examine whether Legarda's government role intersected improperly with her son's private business interests.
But simply being Leviste's mother does not establish a violation. Investigators would need evidence showing that she actually participated in, influenced or improperly intervened in government action for his benefit.
Legarda has denied the accusations, saying they are “utterly false and baseless” and that no public funds were involved.
5. What about “plunder”?
This is potentially the most serious allegation. Under the Plunder Law (RA 7080), the government generally has to prove more than a bad business decision or failure to perform a contract.
It involves the accumulation of ill-gotten wealth of at least ₱75 million through a combination or series of specified criminal acts.
So the Ombudsman would have to establish a chain: political/regulatory intervention → preferential contracts or privileges → corrupt or unlawful acts → financial benefit/ill-gotten wealth → ₱75M+ threshold.
What the ₱10.44 billion figure means
It is described by the Ombudsman as unpaid government financial obligations associated with terminated contracts. The alleged economic damage is much larger.
The ₱10.44 billion is described as unpaid financial obligations to the government resulting from the terminated contracts. In other words: the government clains it was supposed to receive money under those agreements, but termination left those obligations unpaid.
The much larger “hundreds of billions” figure is another claim: It refers to potential economic damage, including: higher electricity costs, lost investment opportunities, the exclusion of other potential investors.
In other words, it is an estimate of the broader economic consequences allegedly caused by the transactions or their termination.
Investigators are now closely looking into whether Leviste and his mother, Legarda, played a role in the controversial contract terminations and whether their actions or interests contributed to the government’s financial losses and broader economic damage.
Importantly, being investigated or “probed” does not mean they have been found guilty of wrongdoing: It simply means authorities are examining whether there is evidence of responsibility or violations.
How Leviste, then only 21, secured exclusive franchise
Remulla highlighted that Leviste was about 21 years old when the exclusive franchise was secured, arguing it would have been impossible without Legarda’s influence as then-chairperson of the Senate Finance Committee.
Legarda immediately rejected the accusations as “utterly false and baseless,” stating no public funds were involved and that she had not received formal communication from the Ombudsman at the time.
She affirmed her readiness to present the truth.
Leviste’s camp had not issued a detailed public response in the immediate aftermath of the announcement.
Separate DOE complaints earlier in May targeted Leviste and SPBC officials over alleged franchise violations.
The departures also coincided with a separate NBI probe into Leviste over allegations of involvement in a scheme targeting Executive Secretary Ralph Recto; Leviste did not appear for a related subpoena on August 6.
The preliminary investigation remains ongoing, with respondents expected to respond to the allegations. Authorities have not issued any travel restrictions or hold-departure orders as of the latest reports.
