President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has expressed relief and happiness after the Supreme Court overturned the graft conviction of his mother, former first lady Imelda Marcos, ending a criminal case that had remained unresolved for decades.
Speaking to reporters in New Delhi, India, Marcos welcomed the Supreme Court First Division’s June 10, 2026 decision acquitting his mother of seven counts of graft.
He said the case had been “hanging over our heads” for about 40 years.
Marcos also said he was particularly relieved that his mother would no longer have to worry about the long-running case.
Supreme Court overturns 2018 conviction
The Supreme Court reversed the Sandiganbayan’s 2018 conviction of Imelda Marcos on seven counts of graft under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The cases involved allegations that Marcos, while serving in government during the administration of her late husband, Ferdinand Marcos Sr., maintained financial interests in several private foundations based in Switzerland.
The Sandiganbayan had sentenced her to six years and one month to 11 years in prison for each count and ordered her permanently disqualified from holding public office.
She remained out on bail while the case went through the appeals process.
The Supreme Court’s ruling ultimately found that prosecutors had failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Court questions key evidence
A major issue in the Supreme Court decision was the evidence used to establish Marcos’ alleged financial interests in the Swiss foundations.
The high court ruled that important Swiss documents presented by prosecutors had not been properly authenticated.
The prosecution was also unable to present a credible witness who could personally attest to the documents’ authenticity and execution.
The court therefore found the records inadmissible and said their contents could not establish the allegations against Marcos.
The Supreme Court also ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that the foundations qualified as “businesses” covered by the anti-graft law.
Simply maintaining bank accounts, transferring funds or earning investment income did not, by themselves, establish that the foundations were commercial enterprises under the law.
Acquittal does not settle separate ill-gotten wealth cases
The Supreme Court’s decision specifically concerned Imelda Marcos’ criminal liability in the seven graft cases.
It did not determine whether assets associated with the foundations constituted ill-gotten wealth.
That distinction is important because separate civil forfeiture proceedings involving wealth accumulated during the Marcos administration have been litigated for decades.
The Supreme Court has previously ruled in a separate case that hundreds of millions of dollars in Swiss deposits were ill-gotten wealth and should be forfeited to the Philippine government.
The latest acquittal therefore does not erase those separate civil findings.
Case dates back to 1986
The graft cases against Imelda Marcos were among a series of cases filed after the Marcos family was removed from power in 1986.
The proceedings stretched across several administrations and decades of litigation before reaching the Supreme Court.
The Sandiganbayan eventually convicted her in 2018 on seven of the cases and acquitted her in three others.
The latest Supreme Court decision now removes the seven graft convictions that had remained under appeal.
For Marcos, the ruling represents the end of one of the longest-running criminal cases involving his family.
A deeply personal ruling for the President
Marcos’ reaction highlighted the personal dimension of the decision.
Rather than focusing only on the legal implications, he spoke about the relief of seeing his elderly mother no longer facing the uncertainty surrounding the criminal case.
Imelda Marcos turned 97 in July 2026.
The President said the long-running litigation had been a source of concern for his mother and expressed particular happiness that she would no longer have to carry that burden.
The decision closes one major chapter in the Marcos family’s decades-long legal history, even as separate cases and disputes concerning wealth accumulated during the family’s rule continue to shape the country’s political and judicial landscape.
Leave a Reply