Sara Duterte denies owning restaurant franchises

Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte has denied owning any restaurant franchises, following discussion of her links to GenCorp during her impeachment trial. In reports dated 18–19 October 2026, she maintained that investing in a company was not the same as owning or operating its individual franchises.

Duterte says her role was as an investor

According to a GMA News report on 18 October, Duterte said she had previously invested in a company that was part of a legitimate business organisation. She described the people behind it as reputable individuals.

Her central argument was that investing in a corporation did not automatically mean she owned, managed or operated every business or franchise under it. Bombo Radyo reported the same explanation from the Vice President on 19 October.

In these statements, she did not deny having invested in a company. Instead, she distinguished between being an investor and owning or managing individual franchises. This distinction was central to her denial of reports linking her to those businesses.

Documents and the prosecution’s response

The denial followed discussion at the trial of restaurant franchises linked to GenCorp. According to GMA News, proceedings covered the company’s alleged ownership of several restaurant outlets and receipts said to substantiate that connection.

GMA News also reported that Duterte had declared shares in GenCorp in her Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth, known in the Philippines as a SALN. Bombo Radyo reported that testimony and Securities and Exchange Commission records discussed at the trial were among the sources of the claims.

Terry Ridon, one of the prosecutors from the Philippine House of Representatives, challenged the Vice President’s explanation. In a One PH report on 19 October, he said the documents showed Duterte’s connection to the franchise through her shareholding.

In a separate GMA report, Ridon explained his position: if GenCorp held an ownership interest in the franchised business, a shareholder in the company also had an indirect ownership interest in that business. This was the prosecutor’s position, contrary to Duterte’s explanation, rather than a final court ruling.

Business reputations also feature in the denial

Alongside denying franchise ownership, Duterte expressed concern about the possible impact of the controversy on the businesses involved. According to GMA News, she said the apparent targeting of legitimate businesses could damage their reputations and commercial activity.

Bombo Radyo also reported that she criticised what she called a misinformation campaign. That description was Duterte’s allegation about the reports; it was not independent confirmation that the documents or testimony presented at the trial were false.

For the franchising community, it is important to be clear about the source of each statement. An investor’s denial, a prosecutor’s interpretation and the contents of documents under discussion are distinct elements of the dispute. None should be treated as a definitive ruling on liability or on who actually manages the business.

Clarify each party’s role before reaching a conclusion

The dispute centres on the nature of Duterte’s relationship with the company and the franchises linked to it. Her explanation concerns the distinction between investment and direct ownership or operation. Ridon’s response focuses on the implications of holding shares in a company connected to a franchise.

Practical lesson: When assessing a franchise, request and understand the documents identifying the franchise agreement holder, the company’s owners and those responsible for day-to-day operations. Do not assume their roles are interchangeable without clear evidence.