What Supreme Court's Imelda Marcos acquittal means, and what it doesn't

MANILA, Philippines — First family matriarch Imelda Marcos' latest acquittal raises an apparent contradiction: How could a graft conviction involving Swiss foundations collapse when courts have already ruled that hundreds of millions of dollars in Marcos Swiss deposits were ill-gotten?

The public release of the 2026 ruling in September was belated, having been handed down in June this year, but the ruling was clear on the lack of original documents and witnesses presented by the government. It adds to a pile of decades-old cases involving Marcos family members weakened due to evidentiary problems, particularly prosecutors' reliance on photocopied and unauthenticated documents or hearsay.

In 2007, the Regional Trial Court found authentication and hearsay issues in the prosecution's case, deciding to acquit Marcos for violations in overseas foreign-currency accounts and foreign exchange earnings.

In 2012, the Supreme Court similarly considered photocopies submitted by prosecutors as deficient evidence in establishing that Marcos' children—particularly politicians Bongbong Marcos and sister Imee—participated in accumulating ill-gotten wealth. Bongbong is now the president, while Imee is a senator.

In 2023, the high court similarly excluded unauthenticated documents from the pool of evidence in upholding the dismissal of a 2019 civil case on the alleged role of the Tantoco family acting as fronts for Marcoses. Imelda herself was accused of benefiting from duty-free shops' tax payments by diverted to foundations.

But the Swiss money itself has already been the subject of a separate and final ruling. In 2003, the Supreme Court ordered $658.2 million in Swiss deposits, plus interest, forfeited to the Philippine government as ill-gotten wealth. The accounts were held through foreign foundations, including several of the same entities mentioned in Imelda's more recent graft cases.

The court found that the deposits, which originally amounted to about $356 million, were far beyond Ferdinand and Imelda's known income of just $304,372.43 while they ruled over an authoritarian regime in the 1970s to 1980s. The Marcoses failed to show that the money had been lawfully acquired.

That ruling, however, was a civil forfeiture case. The criminal conviction of Imelda, which prosecutors attempted to push forward, was the case the high court decided on in June.

Why did the conviction fall through?

1. Records not properly authenticated

Most recently, the high court reversed the Sandiganbayan's 2018 ruling and acquitted the former first lady of seven violations of Section 3(h) of Republic Act 3019 for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Prosecutors failed to properly authenticate vital Swiss records and prove that the foundations qualified as "businesses" covered by the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the high court said in its ruling on June 10, 2026, but released only on Wednesday, September 9.

"The relevant Swiss documents were not properly authenticated," the Supreme Court said in its decision with Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda as ponente. "The prosecution was not able to present any credible witness who could have attested to the genuineness and due execution of the documents."

Former Solicitor General Francisco Chavez, former Philippine ambassador to Switzerland Luis Ascalon and a Presidential Commission on Good Government records officer could establish how the records came into government custody, the court said, but could not testify from personal knowledge about their contents or execution.

The court consequently treated the documents as inadmissible. It also ruled that their contents amounted to hearsay and lacked probative value even if they were considered admitted into evidence.

2. Foundations not proven to be businesses

The Supreme Court separately found that prosecutors failed to establish another key element of the offense: that the foundations in which Marcos allegedly held financial interests were "businesses" within the meaning of the anti-graft law.

The Sandiganbayan had treated activities such as maintaining bank accounts, transferring funds and earning investment returns as entrepreneurial activities.

But the high court found no evidence that the foundations regularly sold goods or services for profit.

"Just because the subject foundations may not be charitable does not mean that they are already businesses," the high court said.

It added that opening bank accounts, transferring money and earning interest or investment income "do not, by themselves, make an entity a commercial enterprise."

The court also faulted prosecutors for failing to present the applicable foreign laws needed to establish the legal character of the foundations. Several of the entities, including Maler, Trinidad, Rayby and Avertina, were organized under Liechtenstein law.

3. Wrong capacity alleged in four cases

The Supreme Court found an additional due process problem in four of the seven cases.

The Informations for the Maler, Trinidad, Rayby and Palmy foundations charged Marcos based on her position as a member of the Interim Batasang Pambansa.

The Sandiganbayan, however, convicted her based on a constitutional prohibition applicable to Cabinet members, who were barred under the 1973 Constitution from participating in the management of businesses.

The Supreme Court said the distinction mattered because different constitutional restrictions applied to the two positions.

Marcos could not be convicted in a capacity different from the one alleged against her, the court ruled, as doing so would violate her right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

2018 conviction reversed

What the Supreme Court reversed was the Sandiganbayan Fifth Division's conviction of Marcos in 2018 on seven graft counts involving Maler Establishment and the Trinidad, Rayby, Palmy, Vibur, Aguamina and Avertina foundations.

She was sentenced to six years and one month to 11 years in prison for each count and perpetually disqualified from holding public office.

The cases were among 10 graft charges filed against Marcos beginning in 1991. The Sandiganbayan acquitted her in the other three cases.

The Supreme Court stressed that its ruling concerns Marcos' criminal liability under the anti-graft law and does not determine whether the assets held through the foundations constitute ill-gotten wealth.

That question, the court said, belongs to separate civil forfeiture proceedings brought by the government.

"Ultimately, when the Court dons its robe, inclinations and personal beliefs are set aside, as they do not have a place in a court of law," the Supreme Court said.

It added that courts must decide cases based only on admissible and relevant evidence. — Camille Diola