Franchise Probe Raises Questions of Timing, Motive, and Power

Supporters of Batangas Rep. Leandro Leviste are questioning whether the ongoing probe into his renewable energy franchise is less about compliance—and more about pressure.

While Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla maintains that the investigation is procedural, critics point to the timing of the inquiry and Leviste’s known possession of sensitive files involving powerful figures as a possible backdrop to the case.

Leviste has consistently argued that the transaction in question involved corporate share sales—not the direct transfer of a congressional franchise. Legal analysts note that this distinction is critical and has been recognized in previous energy-sector transactions without triggering impeachment-level scrutiny.

Supporters also raise concerns about selective enforcement. Similar deals in the power and infrastructure sectors have historically passed without comparable public escalation, prompting questions on why this case is being amplified now.

“No one is above the law,” allies say—but neither should the law be weaponized.

As of writing, no formal charges have been filed. The case remains under review. Yet for many observers, the issue is no longer just legality—but whether accountability mechanisms are being used to uncover truth or suppress it.

In politics, timing is never accidental.

When investigations become loud before evidence is settled, the public has a right to ask:
Is this justice—or pressure?