VICE President Sara Duterte accused a national online media outlet of spreading disinformation over its article linking her to Gencorp Industries Inc., a company operating a popular fast-food chain franchise in Davao City, but the news organization immediately stood by its report, citing her declared shareholding and testimony by the prosecution’s financial forensic expert during her impeachment trial.
In a counterstatement, Rappler defended its article, saying it was based on Duterte’s Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and the analysis presented by prosecution expert Alex Cabrera during the impeachment proceedings before the Senate.
“It is deeply troubling that Vice President Sara Duterte would accuse Rappler of engaging in disinformation when our report was based on what she declared in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth; and an analysis made by the prosecution's financial forensic expert Alex Cabrera in his testimony in the impeachment trial,” Rappler said.
The outlet maintained that Duterte had declared herself a stockholder of Gencorp, which operates several Jollibee branches in Davao City.
“The Vice President has declared that she is a stockholder of Gencorp. She owns a stake in the company,” Rappler said.
Rappler added that its original article had established Gencorp’s connection to the fast-food outlets even before Cabrera testified during the impeachment proceedings. It said the prosecution’s evidence subsequently supported its reporting.
“If these, in the Vice President's view, do not make for factual and responsible journalism, then we do not know what does,” the outlet said.
Duterte, in a statement dated October 17, denied owning a Jollibee franchise or any other franchise. She argued that her previous investment in a company should not be interpreted as direct ownership or management of its individual businesses.
“This appears to be part of a series of disinformation campaigns by Rappler, raising serious concerns about its journalistic standards, accuracy, and commitment to the fundamental principles of responsible journalism,” the vice president said.
She said she had previously invested in a company that belonged to a legitimate business organization operated by individuals with established reputations for integrity and good standing.
Duterte argued that investing in a corporation did not automatically make her the owner or operator of the individual franchises run by that company.
“A basic level of research and due diligence should make this clear. Rappler should understand that investing in a company does not automatically equate to owning the company itself, much less owning, managing or operating its individual businesses or franchises,” she said.
She also criticized Rappler for what she described as continued attacks on her reputation, warning that its reporting could cause reputational and commercial damage to legitimate businesses.
“Accurate reporting requires factual verification, a proper understanding of business ownership, and adherence to the basic principles of responsible journalism,” Duterte said.
Rappler’s article examined Gencorp’s connection to Jollibee branches in Davao City amid the prosecution’s presentation of evidence in Duterte’s impeachment trial.
During the proceedings, prosecutors presented receipts from five Jollibee branches identifying Gencorp as the franchise operator. The outlets were located at Centerpoint Plaza in Matina Crossing, Gaisano Mall, Abreeza Mall, Times Square Plaza, and Bolton Street.
The receipts were presented to establish Gencorp’s connection to the restaurants. They did not, by themselves, establish that Duterte personally owned or operated each franchise.
Cabrera, the prosecution’s financial forensic expert, presented an analysis of financial records and estimates involving business interests allegedly linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio.
During cross-examination, the defense challenged aspects of Cabrera’s analysis, including the availability of corporate documents needed to establish the couple’s alleged ownership interests and determine their value. These exchanges formed part of the defense’s challenge to the prosecution’s financial assessment.
Rappler, meanwhile, defended its article by citing Duterte’s declared shareholding in Gencorp and Cabrera’s testimony during the impeachment trial.
Rappler’s history of clashes with the Duterte family
To recall, last January 16, 2018, former president Rodrigo Duterte called Rappler a “fake news outlet” during a media interview in Pasay City, after the news organization reported allegations involving his former special assistant, Christopher “Bong” Go, and the Philippine Navy's P15.7-billion frigate acquisition project. Duterte denied that his office intervened in the procurement process and dismissed Rappler's reporting as false.
Rappler responded the following day, rejecting the accusation and saying the president should look within his own administration for those responsible for spreading fake news.
The exchange took place amid a dispute over the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) decision on January 11, 2018 to revoke the certificates of incorporation of Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corp. over alleged violations of restrictions on foreign ownership of mass media.
The confrontation continued during Duterte's presidency. On June 29, 2022, Rappler chief executive officer Maria Ressa announced that the SEC had upheld its earlier decision to revoke the company's corporate registration. The commission maintained that Rappler's Philippine Depositary Receipts involving the US-based Omidyar Network violated constitutional and statutory restrictions on foreign ownership in mass media. Ressa said the organization would challenge the decision and described the proceedings as irregular. Rappler continued operating while pursuing legal remedies.
The legal dispute took another turn in August 2024, when the Court of Appeals reversed the SEC's orders revoking Rappler's corporate registration and directed the commission to restore the certificates of incorporation of Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corp. The appellate court found that the SEC had committed grave abuse of discretion in handling the case. The ruling marked a significant development in Rappler's years-long legal battle over its corporate status. DEF