SC acquits Imelda Marcos in graft case over Swiss foundations

The Supreme Court has overturned former First Lady Imelda Marcos’ graft conviction over her alleged financial interests in seven Swiss foundations.

In a decision dated June 10, 2026, but made public on Wednesday, September 9, the SC First Division reversed the Sandiganbayan’s November 2018 ruling that found Marcos guilty of seven counts of graft and sentenced her to six to 11 years in prison for each count.

Marcos allegedly had pecuniary interests and participation in the management of several non-government organizations in Switzerland from 1978 to 1984 during her time as Minister of Human Settlements, Metro Manila Governor, and interim member of the Batasan Pambansa.

The Sandiganbayan said the seven foundations—Maler Foundation, Trinidad Foundation, Rayby Foundation, Palmy Foundation, Azio-Verzo-Vibur Foundation, Rosalys-Aguamina Foundation, and Avertina-Xandy/WintropCharis/ScolariNalamo/Spinus Foundation—were established primarily to benefit the Marcos family.

It said that the foundations were "put up primarily for the entrepreneurial activity of opening bank accounts and deposits, transferring funds, earning interests and even profit from investment, for the private benefit of the Marcos family as beneficiaries."

Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, prohibits public officials from having a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any business, contract, or transaction in which they intervene in their official capacity or are prohibited by law from having such an interest.

Acting on Marcos' appeal, the SC found the prosecution’s testimonial and documentary evidence inadmissible and lacking in probative value.

"In sum, the relevant Swiss documents were not properly authenticated. The prosecution was not able to present any credible witness who could have attested to the genuineness and due execution of the documents," the SC said through Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda.

The ruling stated that the act of opening bank accounts, transferring funds, and earning interest or investment profits does not by itself make an entity a commercial enterprise.

The SC said such activities were no different from maintaining a bank deposit or an investment portfolio.

“Bank depositors lend banks their money in exchange for the payment of interest,” the SC said, noting that this does not, by itself, make depositors business operators.

Likewise, the Court said placing investments and earning income from them do not necessarily constitute carrying on a trade or business, as these could simply be activities of a passive investor.

“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 SC said.

"All told, the prosecution failed to establish that the subject foundations are businesses as the term is ordinarily understood. Any financial or pecuniary interest in the subject foundations is not covered by Section 3(h) of Republic Act No. 3019 and Article IX, Section 7 (then Section 8) of the 1973 Constitution. Doubts on the coverage of the term 'business' should be resolved against the State and in favor of the accused-appellant," it said. — VBL, GMA News