FACT CHECK: Marcos not impeached, replaced by Sara Duterte

There is no vacancy in the presidency, nor is there any ruling or order from the Supreme Court that impeaches President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., allowing Vice President Sara Duterte to replace him A claim that Vice President Sara Duterte will replace President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. after his impeachment is false. The Supreme Court has no authority to oust an incumbent president, and Marcos remains the duly recognized president. Impeachment complaints against Marcos have been dismissed, and he is constitutionally protected from new proceedings until February 2027. This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors. Claim: Vice President Sara Duterte will replace President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. after his impeachment. The Supreme Court (SC) also ordered Marcos’ arrest. Rating: FALSE Why we fact-checked this: A YouTube channel named “PINAS NEWS INSIDER” with over 1 million subscribers posted the claim on November 2. The video is titled: “BIG NEWS NAGDISISYON NA SUPREME COURT CHIEF & JUSTICES! VPSARA MAG TAKEOVER KANA LAHAT IKUKUL0NG NA?” (Big news! Supreme Court Chief & Justices have decided! VP Sara takes over now; all will be jailed?). The video’s thumbnail claims the SC convicted Marcos, alleging he will face detention and impeachment. This allegedly cleared the way for Duterte to take over the presidency. As of writing, the video has garnered over 81,000 views, 4,000 likes, and around 377 comments — many of which praise the High Court for supposedly doing its duty and refusing to be swayed by money. The facts: Marcos remains the duly recognized President, while Duterte continues to serve as the Vice President. Based on Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution, the Vice President may only assume the presidency in four specific instances: death, permanent disability, removal from office, or the incumbent president’s resignation. None of these conditions have occurred as of writing. Supreme Court’s power: Although the SC is the country’s highest court, the judiciary has no constitutional authority to oust an incumbent president. Under Article XI, Section 3, the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all impeachment cases. Marcos may only be removed from office “on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.” While impeachment complaints were previously filed against Marcos, these were junked by the House of Representatives in February 2026. The complaints were separately endorsed by Pusong Pinoy Representative Jett Nisay and the three-member Makabayan bloc over Marcos’s supposed role in flood control projects and overall national budget issues, and alleged drug use, among others. The Constitution also states that no impeachment proceeding may be initiated against the same official more than once within a period of one year. This means Marcos is constitutionally shielded from new impeachment proceedings until February 2027. As of writing, only Duterte is undergoing an impeachment trial in the Senate. Furthermore, an incumbent president enjoys immunity from suit, which protects him from criminal prosecution or arrest while in office. Existing case: Marcos does face an existing legal judgment abroad, but not in the Philippines. The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2012 a $353-million contempt judgment against Marcos Jr. and his mother Imelda Marcos. The two violated an injunction that prohibited them from distributing assets meant for Martial Law human rights victims. The contempt judgment named Bongbong and Imelda as representatives of Ferdinand E. Marcos’ estate. Lack of evidence: The video presents no verifiable evidence to substantiate its claims of Marcos’ impeachment or Duterte’s takeover. Instead, the video strings together unrelated public footage lifted from past press briefings and public appearances of government officials from Malacañang, the Senate, and former chief justice Alexander Gesmundo. Accompanying the visuals is an unidentified female voiceover offering commentary on Philippine political and budgetary issues. The narration cites decisions concerning the constitutionality of the General Appropriations Act, criticizes congressional budget insertions, and expresses dismay toward the current Marcos administration. None of these tackle the claims presented in the post. Debunked: Rappler has debunked false claims regarding alleged criminal charges issued by the Supreme Court against Marcos: FACT CHECK: No reports of SC order ousting Marcos FACT CHECK: Supreme Court did not file charges vs Marcos over PhilHealth fund transfer FACT CHECK: Supreme Court did not file charges vs Marcos Fact checks were also published debunking claims that Duterte replaced Marcos as president: FACT CHECK: No, Sara Duterte won’t be proclaimed president over Marcos health rumors FACT CHECK: Sara Duterte did not replace Marcos as president FACT CHECK: Sara Duterte not replacing Marcos as president following flood control protests – Lyndee Buenagua/Rappler.com Lyndee Buenagua is a Metro Manila-based journalist who primarily covers Bicol and Baguio. She is also an alumna of Aries Rufo Journalism Fellowship of Rappler for 2024. Keep us aware of suspicious Facebook pages, groups, accounts, websites, articles, or photos in your network by contacting us at factcheck@rappler.com. Let us battle disinformation one Fact Check at a time. How does this make you feel? Loading