FACT-CHECK: Court did not ask director to stop promoting controversial film

By Joseph Bernard A. Marzan

The Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) did not order filmmaker Daryl Yap to halt promotions for his upcoming film, The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, despite reports from other media outlets.

In a Jan. 9, 2025, order, Muntinlupa RTC Branch 205 Judge Liezel Aquiatan directed Yap to submit a verified return of the writ of habeas data within five days of receiving the order.

Administrative Matter No. 08-1-16-SC (The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data), issued by the Supreme Court on Jan. 22, 2008, defines a writ of habeas data as “a remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.”

Section 10 of the same administrative matter, as cited in the order, requires respondents to file a “verified written return together with supporting affidavits within five (5) working days from service of the writ[.]”

The said section also requires the writ to contain the following statements:

• The lawful defenses such as national security, state secrets, privileged communications, confidentiality of the source of information of media and others;
• In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data or information subject of the petition;
• a disclosure of the data or information about the petitioner, the nature of such data or information, and the purpose for its collection;
• the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the security and confidentiality of the data or information; and,
• the currency and accuracy of the data or information held; and,
• Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the proceeding.

This means that the order did not tell Yap to stop promotions of the film, but rather merely to state the facts on their side and the defenses that they may use against the petition filed by television host Vic Sotto.

The order also sets a summary hearing on January 15, 2025, to determine the merits of Sotto’s petition, giving both parties to have their sides heard within the court.

Section 16 of the Rule provides that the court shall render their judgment within 10 days from the time that the petition is submitted for decision.

“If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence, the court shall enjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion, destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or information and grant other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; otherwise, the privilege of the writ shall be denied,” the provision stated.

Sotto’s petition accompanies 19 counts of cyberlibel filed against Yap, citing individual posts related to the film.

The film delves into allegations of sexual violence against Delia Dueñas Smith, popularly known as Pepsi Paloma. For decades, accusations of rape have been leveled against Sotto, his brother Vicente Sotto III, co-host Joey De Leon, and the late comedian Ricardo Reyes (Richie D’Horsie).

No criminal charges have been filed against the accused. Smith was found dead on May 31, 1985, in her apartment in what was reported as a suicide by hanging.

In 2018, news site INQUIRER.net removed opinion pieces on the Pepsi Paloma controversy following a request from Vicente Sotto III, citing the negative impact on his reputation.