Imelda Marcos conviction overturned by Supreme Court; civil society group slams ruling

Civil society group August Twenty One Movement (ATOM) on Wednesday criticized the Supreme Court’s decision reversing the conviction of former first lady Imelda Marcos, saying the ruling was a setback for justice and accountability. "Today was a disappointing day for justice and common decency. We saw what you did today," said the group in a statement. The group said the ruling came just two days after Ombudsman Jesus Crispin Remulla charged former House Speaker Martin Romualdez with plunder, which it described as a “flicker of hope” that justice could finally be served. ATOM said the Supreme Court decision “instantly quashed” that hope. “For decades, Filipinos have looked to the Supreme Court as the last refuge where true and absolute justice can be obtained,” the group said, adding that the ruling reminded it that “the shadow of the conjugal dictatorship never really left our government." ATOM further accused the Marcos and Romualdez families of benefiting from continued political influence and vowed to continue its campaign for what it called historical truth and justice. “To the Marcoses and the Romualdezes, you may have won this round, but we have etched this in stone today,” the group said. GMA News Online sought the Palace side through Press Officer Claire Castro. 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. According to the SC, the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 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. 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. —LDF, GMA News