In this paper I investigate what are facts in Searlean Social Ontology relying on the tools of contemporary analytic metaphysics. Searle’s pluralistic foundation of social ontology emerges: in fact, Searle’s distinction between brute and institutional facts can be read both as Humean facts and as functorial facts. I then investigate how the different options concerning the nature of facts may fit the bill of Searlean Social Ontology and put forward what I call the “institution dilemma”, i.e. the difficult status (brute or institutional?) of the Searlean thesis according to which institutions are sets of constitutive rules.