January 17, 2026 – Manila, Philippines. In a statement, Batangas Representative Leandro Leviste declared that if the court orders Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro to pay damages, he will donate the ₱110 million to victims of substandard flood control projects. 

“Yung 110 milyon pesos na babayaran ni Usec. Claire Castro sa akin ay ibibigay ko sa mga biktima ng mga substandard proyekto ng flood control. Kaya, umaasa ako, huwag nang magsinungaling si Eusebio Castro. Aminin na niya ang katotohanan. Magbayad siya ng multa ng 110 million pesos at ipamamahagi ko po ito sa mga biktima ng mga substandard flood control projects,” he said.

Leviste recently filed a ₱110 million civil libel case against Castro before the Regional Trial Court in Balayan, Batangas, accusing her of making defamatory statements in her vlogs and public pronouncements. Castro had alleged irregularities in Leviste’s solar energy business, claims the lawmaker insists were false and damaging to his reputation.

The dispute also ties into Leviste’s earlier release of documents he claimed showed anomalies in flood control projects worth billions of pesos. Malacañang, however, clarified that the so-called “Leviste files” were not conclusive evidence, stressing that authentication rests with the Office of the Ombudsman. Castro, in her capacity as Palace Press Officer, dismissed Leviste’s claims, sparking the libel case.

Leviste’s pledge to donate the damages, if awarded, has drawn attention from advocacy groups who say it underscores the need for accountability in infrastructure spending. The case remains pending before the Batangas RTC, with both parties expected to present their arguments in the coming weeks.

This development adds to the growing public pressure on government agencies to ensure that flood control projects meet proper standards and that officials are held accountable for lapses that put communities at risk.

Gesture or Strategy

Leandro Leviste’s pledge to donate potential libel damages to flood victims lands with force. On one side, it signals empathy in a country scarred by failed flood control projects and repeated disasters. Redirecting money to those harmed feels corrective, even just. 

On the other hand, the promise sits inside an active legal fight. It reframes a personal libel case into a moral contest and places critics on defensive ground. The donation is conditional, the court is undecided, and the victims are still waiting. 

Gesture or strategy, the move works politically. The harder question remains. Are flood victims being helped or positioned in this battle?