The prosecution’s central problem, according to the Supreme Court, was that it never proved the seven private organizations at the heart of the case were actually businesses. In a 50-page ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, the SC First Division concluded that maintaining bank accounts, moving money, and collecting returns on investments do not, by themselves, amount to running a commercial enterprise.
“Absent a showing that the subject foundations are regularly offering goods or services for the main purpose of earning profit, they cannot be considered businesses,” the Court held. It added that any stake Imelda Marcos may have had therefore fell outside Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, read together with Article IX, Section 8 of the 1973 Constitution.
That legal reasoning cleared the former first lady of seven counts of graft. The decision, dated June 10, 2026 and released to the public on Wednesday, September 9, granted her appeal and wiped out the anti-graft court’s judgment against her.
Prosecutors had accused Marcos of holding financial and pecuniary interests in, and taking part in the management of, several non-government organizations in Switzerland between 1978 and 1984 — years during which she served as Minister of Human Settlements, Metro Manila governor, and an interim member of the Batasang Pambansa under the government led by her husband, the late President Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
The named entities were the Maler, Trinidad, Rayby, Palmy, and Rosalys-Aguamina foundations, along with the Azio-Verzo-Vibur and Avertina groupings.
Beyond the question of what counts as a business, the justices faulted the documentary trail the government had relied on. Records pulled from Swiss banks, GMA News Online reported, were treated by the SC as private documents that had not been properly authenticated under Philippine rules of evidence, making them inadmissible. Rappler noted the Court’s finding that no credible witness came forward who could vouch for the papers’ genuineness, and BusinessWorld reported that the prosecution’s witnesses had no personal knowledge of what the documents contained.
“Accused-appellant… is acquitted for the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” the ruling stated.
The judgment overturned the Sandiganbayan’s November 9, 2018 decision, which had found the 97-year-old Marcos, mother of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., guilty on all seven counts and imposed prison terms of six years and one month to 11 years for each, plus a permanent ban from holding public office.
The complaints that produced the charges reach back to 1991, when allegations first surfaced that the Marcos family had used Swiss foundations and bank accounts to park financial interests tied to government funds.
According to BusinessWorld, Wednesday’s ruling leaves untouched the separate forfeiture proceedings that seek to recover wealth alleged to have been illegally acquired.
