‘No ill-gotten wealth, no way’
The Supreme Court had ruled that several assets linked to the Marcos family must be forfeited, including Swiss deposits and the Arelma assets.
Text size
The Supreme Court had ruled that several assets linked to the Marcos family must be forfeited, including Swiss deposits and the Arelma assets.
A coalition associated with the slain former Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. accused President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of repeating what it called a decades-old pattern of deception after the Chief Executive rejected allegations that his family’s wealth was acquired through corruption during the dictatorship of his late father.
The August Twenty-One Movement (ATOM), in a statement, disputed Marcos Jr.’s claim that his family’s assets were “not ill-gotten wealth,” stressing that what he said was “untrue and absolute fake news.”
“We will not just let this pass without disputing this new claim of his,” ATOM said.
On Friday, Marcos Jr. defended his family’s wealth in a forum hosted by the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP), pushing back against accusations the Marcos family had illegally acquired its assets.
The dispute over the Marcos family’s wealth has persisted for decades, with the government creating the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) after the 1986 People Power Revolution to recover assets allegedly accumulated through corruption under Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s regime.
The Supreme Court had ruled that several assets linked to the Marcos family must be forfeited, including Swiss deposits and the Arelma assets.
ATOM said Marcos Jr.’s latest remarks ignored court records and government efforts to recover assets allegedly amassed during his father’s presidency.
“Getting to Malacañang does not entitle him to distort Philippine history,” the group said.
ATOM also criticized Marcos Jr. for his defense of his family’s legacy, recalling controversies surrounding Ferdinand Marcos Sr.’s 20-year rule, including the imposition of martial law, human rights abuses, and corruption allegations.
The group said the non-imprisonment of members of the Marcos family after the 1986 People Power Revolution allowed the disputes over their accountability to persist.
“A Marcos has lied again — why are we not surprised?” the group said.
Court records show forfeited assets
The President’s claim that his family won civil cases regarding its assets because they were proven not to be ill-gotten went against the legal record that showed Philippine courts had ordered the forfeiture of specific assets linked to the Marcoses.
The rulings did not cover the family’s entire fortune, and the government did not win every case it filed. But in several major cases, the Supreme Court ruled that particular assets were ill-gotten and ordered their return to the country.
$658-million in Swiss deposits
The most significant amount was the $658.18 million (approximately P40.46 billion) in Swiss deposits linked to the Marcos family.
In 2003, the Supreme Court ordered the forfeiture of the $658,175,373.60, plus applicable interest, in favor of the Republic. The Court subsequently denied the Marcos heirs’ motions for reconsideration with finality.
The case involved deposits held through Swiss foundations. The Court found that the Marcoses failed to establish the lawful acquisition of the funds and upheld their forfeiture to the government.
Arelma assets
The Supreme Court also ordered the forfeiture of the assets of Arelma S.A., a corporation Marcos Sr. established that maintained an account with Merrill Lynch in New York.
In 2012, the Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan ruling forfeiting the assets in favor of the Republic. The holdings were valued at about $3.37 million (approximately P207.1 million) in 1983, excluding subsequent interest income.
The Court found the assets acquired by the Marcos spouses were “manifestly and grossly disproportionate” to their aggregate salaries as public officials and ruled that the Marcoses failed to overcome the legal presumption of ill-gotten wealth.
Jewelry, artwork
The courts likewise upheld the forfeiture of the Malacañang Jewelry Collection, which was recovered after the Marcoses fled the country in 1986.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s finding that the jewelry was ill-gotten and ordered its forfeiture in favor of the Republic.
Separately, the Sandiganbayan’s 2026 resolution identified $17 million (approximately P1.045 billion) in proceeds from paintings and artwork among properties covered by earlier partial summary judgments.
Not every case succeeded
The court record, however, did not support a claim that every asset associated with the Marcos family was declared as ill-gotten.
On 2 June 2026, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the government’s remaining claims in Civil Case No. 0141 involving properties not covered by four earlier partial summary judgments.
The case had been pending since 1991. The government, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government, told the court it would no longer present evidence on the remaining properties.
The dismissal ended those unresolved claims but did not overturn the earlier judgments involving the Swiss deposits, Arelma assets, jewelry and artwork proceeds. That distinction is crucial.
The courts rejected some government claims while ordering the forfeiture of other assets after finding sufficient evidence that they constituted ill-gotten wealth.
The estate tax paper trail
The Marcos family’s legal history also includes a separate, longstanding estate tax dispute.
In Ferdinand R. Marcos II v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled that the deficiency estate tax assessment against the estate of Marcos Sr. had become final and unappealable.
The assessment cited by the Court amounted to P23.293 billion.
A 2022 Supreme Court ruling again cited the final and unappealable nature of the assessment.
The legal record therefore offers no blanket ruling covering the Marcos family’s entire wealth. But neither does it show that the courts simply cleared the family’s assets.
