ASEAN Beat | Society | Southeast Asia

Philippine Court Acquits Former First Lady Imelda Marcos of Corruption

In 2018, the mother of the current president was accused of using Swiss foundations to transfer at least $200 million abroad during her 1975-1986 term as Manila governor.

A portrait of former Philippine First Lady Imelda Marcos at the Marikina Shoe Museum in Manila, Philippines, May 10, 2026.

The Philippine Supreme Court yesterday overturned a corruption conviction against Imelda Marcos, the mother of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., more than three decades after the initial charges were filed.

In November 2018, the Sandiganbayan, the Philippines’ special anti-corruption court, convicted the former first lady, now 97, of seven counts of graft and sentenced her to sentenced her six to 11 years imprisonment for each charge. It also barred her from holding political office for life.

In a decision dated June 10 but made public yesterday, the 1st Division of the Supreme Court overturned the Sandiganbayan’s ruling, Rappler reported. In a 50-page ruling, Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda said that the prosecution had failed to prove her guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” and said that the key testimony and documentary evidence used against her were “inadmissible and lacked sufficient probative weight.”

The cases stemmed from allegations that Marcos and her late husband, deposed President Ferdinand Marcos Sr., used a network of Swiss foundations to hold and transfer at least $200 million abroad during her 1975-1986 term as Manila governor.

The Supreme Court decision did not dispute that the transactions had taken place, but ruled that the prosecution failed to meet the evidentiary requirements necessary to sustain criminal convictions.

In its 2018 ruling, the Sandiganbayan claimed that Imelda Marcos had “a direct or indirect financial interest” in the Swiss foundations and had “participated in the management of the same.” It attempted to substantiate this using documents retrieved from Swiss banks that, according to Rappler, were “authenticated in accordance with Swiss legal procedure.”

In his ruling, however, Zalamenda argued that the Swiss documents “were not properly authenticated” and that the prosecution “was not able to present any credible witness who could have attested to the........

© The Diplomat