Listen to the article
In a development that has drawn significant attention across social media, claims that the Supreme Court has approved a mandatory drug test for President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. have been debunked as false.
The misleading assertion gained traction after a YouTube video posted on April 16, 2026, by a channel called “PINAS BALITA TV” garnered over 7,300 views. The channel, which presents itself as a legitimate news outlet and boasts 170,000 subscribers, titled its video with the sensational claim: “Heto na! Mandatory hair follicle D-test kasado Korte Suprema matinding utos. Marcos fam, mabibisto na!” (Here it is! A mandatory hair follicle drug test is set as the Supreme Court issues a strong order. The Marcos family will be exposed soon!)
Investigation reveals no such order has been issued by the Supreme Court. The high tribunal has not granted any petitions compelling the President to undergo drug testing, nor are there any official reports confirming such a directive.
The claim appears to stem from a petition for mandamus filed before the Supreme Court on April 10, 2026, by the United People’s Initiative (UPI). The group requested that the Court order the release of Marcos’ health information, require him to undergo a hair follicle drug test, and mandate the issuance of medical bulletins regarding conditions that might affect his capacity to govern.
UPI’s petition cites Article VII, Section 12 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which requires public disclosure in cases of serious illness affecting the President. The group, composed primarily of pro-Duterte retired military officials, has previously sought Supreme Court intervention in cases involving former President Rodrigo Duterte and matters related to the International Criminal Court.
The allegations connecting President Marcos to illegal drug use have a complex history in Philippine politics. These claims intensified following the circulation of a “polvoron” video in July 2024, which government agencies quickly dismissed as fabricated. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. characterized the video as an attempt to destabilize the administration.
More direct accusations have come from high-profile political figures. In 2024, former President Rodrigo Duterte publicly claimed that Marcos had been included in a Davao City drug watchlist in the early 2000s—an allegation the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency later refuted, stating that Marcos was never included in any watchlist or “narco-list.”
The political tension escalated when Duterte repeated similar accusations in February 2025 during a political rally, alleging that Marcos was a long-term heroin user whose habit could affect his capacity to govern. No evidence was provided to support these claims.
Perhaps most notably, in November 2025, the President’s own sister, Senator Imee Marcos, accused her brother of long-term cocaine addiction supposedly dating back to their father’s presidency. She suggested this addiction had influenced governance decisions and contributed to corruption issues within the administration.
President Marcos has consistently denied all allegations. His spokesperson has characterized the claims as recycled and politically motivated, particularly given the timing amid ongoing corruption investigations involving allies of the Duterte camp.
The circulation of such unverified claims highlights the increasingly contentious political landscape in the Philippines, where social media has become a battlefield for information and misinformation alike. The case demonstrates how channels posing as news outlets can rapidly spread false information to thousands of viewers, potentially influencing public perception on critical issues of governance and leadership.
As the political rivalry between the Marcos and Duterte camps continues to intensify, observers note that health-related accusations have become an increasingly common political weapon in Philippine politics, requiring vigilance from media consumers to distinguish between verified reporting and unsubstantiated claims.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
12 Comments
Interesting fact check. It’s good to see the media verifying claims thoroughly before spreading potentially misleading information. I’m curious to learn more about the background of this petition and whether there are any legitimate concerns around the President’s health or potential drug use.
Agreed, it’s important to separate fact from fiction, especially when it comes to high-profile political figures. The lack of an official Supreme Court order suggests this was likely an unfounded rumor.
This appears to be yet another case of misinformation spreading rapidly online. I’m glad the Disinformation Commission took the time to investigate the facts and debunk the false claims. It’s crucial that credible news sources combat the proliferation of fake news.
Absolutely. Fact-checking and transparency are essential for maintaining public trust in institutions and the democratic process. This serves as a good reminder to be cautious about unverified claims, especially those with sensational headlines.
While I understand the public’s interest in the President’s health and potential drug use, making unsubstantiated claims helps no one. I hope this fact check encourages more responsible reporting and discourages the spread of misinformation, even if it’s politically motivated.
Agreed. Responsible journalism and fact-based discourse are the best ways to address legitimate concerns, rather than fueling unfounded rumors. This highlights the need for greater media literacy and critical thinking among the public.
It’s disappointing to see such blatantly false claims being spread, especially by a channel that presents itself as a legitimate news outlet. This underscores the need for greater media literacy and critical thinking skills among the public to avoid falling for misinformation.
Absolutely. We must be vigilant about the sources we trust and the claims we choose to believe, especially in the digital age where misinformation can spread rapidly. Kudos to the Disinformation Commission for setting the record straight.
This fact check serves as a valuable reminder that we should always approach sensational claims with a critical eye and verify information from credible sources before accepting it as truth. I’m glad the Disinformation Commission took the time to investigate and debunk this misleading assertion.
Well said. Responsible journalism and fact-based reporting are essential for maintaining a healthy, informed public discourse. This case highlights the importance of media literacy and the need to be discerning consumers of information, especially on social media.
This is a good example of why it’s important to verify claims, especially those involving high-profile figures and sensitive issues. I appreciate the Disinformation Commission’s efforts to provide a factual account and prevent the spread of misinformation.
Definitely. It’s concerning to see how quickly unverified claims can gain traction online. Fact-checking and debunking efforts like this are crucial for maintaining trust in our institutions and democratic processes.