Listen to the article
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on President Marcos’ medical records disclosure case, despite viral claims suggesting otherwise.
In response to widespread online misinformation, fact-checkers have clarified that the Supreme Court has only requested comments from President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Executive Secretary Ralph Recto regarding a petition seeking disclosure of the President’s medical examination report—not issued any verdict on the matter.
The clarification comes after a Facebook post published on May 1 gathered significant traction online, accumulating over 1,200 reactions, 337 comments, and 141 shares. The misleading content featured a composite image of President Marcos, Vice President Sara Duterte, and Supreme Court officials, including Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo, with text falsely claiming “Junior has been sentenced. Medical records have been leaked in the Court.” Additional text suggested “VP Sara new president. Supreme Court issues an ultimatum.”
A similar YouTube video posted on April 30 perpetuated the same claim, attracting more than 62,000 views and 4,400 likes. The video’s narrator incorrectly stated that Marcos would soon undergo a drug test, referencing news reports about the petition.
Official court documents tell a different story. According to an April 22 press briefer, the Supreme Court merely “directed respondents to comment within a non-extendible period of 10 days from receipt of notice,” without giving due course to the petition itself.
The case stems from a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by former House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, Virgilio Garcia, Juan Raña, and Raymundo Junia. Their petition seeks to compel the President to undergo physical and mental examinations, including a hair follicle drug test, and to disclose medical reports confirming his fitness to serve as president.
Malacañang has indicated it will comply with the Supreme Court’s request for comment while maintaining that President Marcos remains in good health. Both the President and the Palace have previously denied rumors about Marcos facing serious health issues.
The viral posts also misused an image of Chief Justice Gesmundo that was actually taken in February 2025 during an unrelated event—the signing of an agreement between the Supreme Court and Bulacan State University for a new Hall of Justice in Malolos City.
This isn’t the first instance of misinformation regarding President Marcos’ health circulating online. Fact-checking organizations have previously debunked similar false claims, highlighting the persistent challenge of combating health-related disinformation about public officials.
As the legal process continues, the Supreme Court has yet to make any substantive ruling on whether the President must disclose his medical records. The Constitution does provide for public disclosure of the President’s health in cases of serious illness, though the parameters of this requirement remain subject to legal interpretation.
For now, citizens are advised to verify information through official channels and credible news sources rather than relying on unsubstantiated social media claims about high-profile legal proceedings or the health status of government officials.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Interesting fact-check. It’s concerning to see such widespread misinformation circulating about the Marcos health disclosure case. I’m glad the Supreme Court is taking the petition seriously and seeking comment from all parties before issuing a ruling.
Yes, it’s crucial that the legal process is allowed to play out without undue speculation or rumor-mongering. I hope the Supreme Court can reach a fair and well-reasoned decision on this important matter.
It’s good to see the fact-checkers stepping in to counter the false claims circulating online. With so much disinformation these days, it’s crucial that the public has access to accurate, verified information from reliable sources.
As a mining and commodities investor, I’m curious to see how this health disclosure case could impact Marcos’ policies and initiatives in the natural resources sector. Transparency is key for building trust and confidence in the industry.
Agreed. Investors will be closely watching this case, as it could set an important precedent around disclosure requirements for elected officials. A lack of transparency can undermine faith in the system.
I appreciate the Supreme Court’s prudent approach of requesting comments from all parties before issuing a ruling. This helps ensure a fair and thorough review of the petition, rather than rushing to judgment based on hearsay or speculation.
Absolutely. The courts should uphold the rule of law and due process, even in high-profile cases that generate a lot of public interest and commentary. Maintaining judicial independence is crucial for preserving the integrity of the legal system.
As an energy and commodities analyst, I’ll be closely following this case for any potential implications on the Philippines’ mining and natural resource policies. Transparency around elected officials’ health records is an important governance issue.