A sharp new conflict has erupted between Vice President Sara Duterte and the online news organization Rappler, after the outlet published an article linking her to Gencorp Industries Inc., a company that runs several Jollibee fast-food franchises in Davao City. The Vice President responded with a strongly worded statement accusing Rappler of spreading disinformation and of twisting her past investments into something they were not. She insisted that she does not own a Jollibee franchise or any other franchise, and that her earlier investment in a company should not be misread as direct ownership or management of that company’s individual business operations. Rappler, however, refused to back down. In a counterstatement, the news organization defended its reporting, saying it was based on Duterte’s own declared shareholding in Gencorp, as shown in her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, and on the testimony of the prosecution’s financial forensic expert, Alex Cabrera, during her impeachment trial before the Senate. The clash quickly became more than a simple dispute over one article; it reopened old wounds between the Duterte family and one of the Philippines’ most prominent and controversial media outlets, and it highlighted how easily questions about business ownership can become battlegrounds for political reputation.
Rappler’s defense of its article rests on two main pillars: the Vice President’s own financial disclosures and the proceedings of the impeachment trial. The outlet pointed out that Duterte had long declared herself a stockholder of Gencorp, a company that operates several Jollibee branches in Davao City. In Rappler’s view, that declaration alone was enough to justify reporting a connection between her and the company. “The Vice President has declared that she is a stockholder of Gencorp. She owns a stake in the company,” Rappler said. The news organization also noted that its article had established the link between Gencorp and the fast-food outlets even before Cabrera took the witness stand, and that the prosecution’s evidence later supported what Rappler had already reported. For Rappler, the story was not a speculative or malicious invention but a straightforward account of publicly available information and sworn testimony. The outlet expressed frustration at being accused of disinformation when, in its view, it had done exactly what journalism is supposed to do: base a report on the Vice President’s own words and on expert evidence presented in a legal forum. “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 article at the center of the dispute was tied directly to the impeachment proceedings, where prosecutors presented evidence meant to shed light on the Vice President’s alleged business interests. During the trial, receipts from five Jollibee branches in Davao City were presented, each identifying Gencorp as the franchise operator. The branches were located at Centerpoint Plaza in Matina Crossing, Gaisano Mall, Abreeza Mall, Times Square Plaza, and Bolton Street. Those receipts were used to establish Gencorp’s connection to the restaurants, though they did not, by themselves, prove that Duterte personally owned or operated each franchise. Cabrera, the prosecution’s financial forensic expert, then presented an analysis of financial records and estimates involving business interests allegedly linked to Duterte and her husband, lawyer Manases Carpio. The defense, however, challenged key aspects of his analysis during cross-examination, particularly the availability of corporate documents that would be needed to establish the couple’s alleged ownership interests and to determine their value. These exchanges became part of a broader defense strategy aimed at undermining the prosecution’s financial assessment. Rappler’s article, meanwhile, wove these strands together, examining Gencorp’s role in the Davao City Jollibee branches and the implications of Duterte’s declared shareholding. The result was a report that presented her connection to the company as a matter of record, while also acknowledging the limitations of what the receipts and testimony could actually prove.
Duterte, for her part, rejected the portrayal of her business history with a categorical denial. In her statement dated October 17, she said she did not own a Jollibee franchise or any other franchise, and she argued that her previous investment in a company should not be interpreted as direct ownership or management of that company’s individual businesses. She described Rappler’s report as part of a series of disinformation campaigns, and she expressed concern about the outlet’s journalistic standards, accuracy, and commitment to responsible journalism. “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,” she said. The Vice President explained that 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. She argued that investing in a corporation does not automatically make a person the owner or operator of the individual franchises run by that company. “A basic level of research and due diligence should make this clear,” she said. “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 also warned that the article could cause reputational and commercial damage to legitimate businesses, and she called for accurate reporting that includes factual verification, a proper understanding of business ownership, and adherence to basic principles of responsible journalism.
Rappler responded with equal firmness, insisting that its reporting had been both factual and responsible. In its statement, the outlet said it did not know what more could be expected of a news organization if reporting based on a public official’s own financial disclosures and a forensic expert’s testimony in an impeachment trial was not considered legitimate journalism. “If these, in the Vice President’s view, do not make for factual and responsible journalism, then we do not know what does,” Rappler said. The exchange illustrates a fundamental disagreement about what it means to report on a public figure’s business ties. For Rappler, a declared shareholding in a company that operates well-known fast-food branches is a legitimate subject of public interest, especially during an impeachment trial where financial matters are being examined. For Duterte, the distinction between being a stockholder in a corporation and being the owner or operator of its individual franchises is crucial, and she believes that blurring that distinction amounts to a misleading attack on her character. The broader context only deepens the significance of the dispute. At the heart of it is a question that goes beyond one article: how should the public understand the difference between investing in a company, owning a company, and running its businesses? The Vice President says Rappler has ignored that distinction; Rappler says it simply reported what she herself declared and what a prosecution expert testified to under oath.
The latest confrontation is not an isolated incident. It is the newest chapter in a long and bitter history between the Duterte family and Rappler, one that has often played out in legal and political arenas. On January 16, 2018, then-President Rodrigo Duterte called Rappler a “fake news outlet” during a media interview in Pasay City. That remark came after Rappler 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 had intervened in the procurement process and dismissed Rappler’s reporting as false. Rappler fired back the next day, rejecting the accusation and suggesting that the president should look within his own administration for those responsible for spreading fake news. This war of words unfolded just days after the Securities and Exchange Commission had issued a decision on January 11, 2018, revoking the certificates of incorporation of Rappler Inc. and Rappler Holdings Corp. over alleged violations of constitutional restrictions on foreign ownership of mass media. The legal battle continued for years. 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 limits 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 its legal remedies. Then, in August 2024, the Court of Appeals reversed the SEC’s orders and directed the commission to restore Rappler’s certificates of incorporation, finding that the SEC had committed grave abuse of discretion. That ruling was a significant victory for the embattled news organization, but it did nothing to ease the underlying tensions. The relationship between Rappler and the Dutertes remains deeply strained, and this latest dispute shows that even a single article about a business connection can reignite old accusations, sharpen political divisions, and raise lasting questions about the role of the press in a democracy.