[OPINION] Legal showdown over Pepsi Paloma story is more than a subplot from a film

Pepsi Paloma’s name is no stranger to controversy, but now it’s at the heart of a conflict that cuts deeper than any bottle cap promotional blunder.

Comedian Vic Sotto has taken issue with a film about the rapists of Pepsi Paloma. His argument? It violated his privacy when Darryl Yap reopened a case that had long been closed. 

On January 9, 2025, the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City issued a writ upon receiving Sotto’s habeas data petition. While the actor’s camp sees it as a victory, interpreting it as a temporary restraining order that halts the teaser trailer, the filmmaker insists it’s simply a procedural blip requiring a response — nothing more.

What is the writ of habeas data?

The writ of habeas data, meaning “you have the data,” began in Latin America during military regimes to help families find missing people. In the Philippines, it was introduced in 2008 under A.M. No. 08-1-16-SC to address the rise of killings and disappearances. Over time, it has broadened to protect informational privacy, giving people control over the collection, use, and sharing of their personal data.

The habeas data rule makes the writ available to anyone whose privacy rights are violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of individuals and entities engaged in gathering or storing information. The remedy is extraordinary. It requires a petitioner to demonstrate a clear link between a privacy violation and how it affects one’s right to life, liberty or security. 

However, the writ does not protect purely property or commercial concerns like employment disputes (Manila Electric Company v. Lim [2010]).

Preliminary vs privilege

For those unfamiliar with the legal process, Sotto’s case might seem like a definitive ruling against the film, but that’s far from the truth.

The habeas data rule mandates the grant of the writ “if on its face it ought to issue” (§ 7). A subsequent order from the trial court on January 13, 2025 makes it clear: The writ doesn’t block the film’s release or promotion but merely compels Yap to respond to Sotto’s petition. It’s just an opening act.

The real decision — what is known as the privilege of the writ — will come later, or within ten days after both sides present their evidence in a summary hearing.

For example, in Lee v. Ilagan (2014), the court initially issued a preliminary writ in a petition to compel the production of a sex video and stop its proliferation, but later denied the writ’s privilege after the petitioner failed to show that the video’s release would infringe on his right to life, liberty, or security. 

In Boratong v. De Lima (2020), a writ was granted but ultimately declined because the petitioning high-profile inmate could not demonstrate how his transfer to another prison facility violated his right to privacy or involved the unlawful collection of data.

Recently, in Castro and Tamano v. Lt. Col. Dela Cruz (2023), the Supreme Court issued a writ for environmental activists who claimed abduction and torture. However, when the case reached the Court of Appeals for hearing, the petition was dismissed absent evidence of government involvement or direct threats. Besides, the petitioners failed to specify the information they were seeking.

These cases show that the writ’s issuance does not guarantee success; it simply allows the court to review the merits of the case.

What’s at stake?

If Sotto proves his claims with “substantial evidence,” the court might yank the film’s content or have it tweaked. But it’s not that simple — he faces a high hurdle. 

Unauthorized access alone isn’t enough; he must prove the portrayal risks his life, liberty, or safety, as Vivares v. St. Theresa College (2014) requires, not just that it violates his privacy. He’ll also need to specify what information he seeks to protect beyond what’s publicly available. Most importantly, he must persuade that his expectation of privacy as a public figure outweighs the public’s right to know, particularly in matters of public interest — addressing the larger conflict: can someone like Sotto keep his past on the cutting room floor, or does the truth deserve scrutiny in the spotlight?

Amid a global push to protect fundamental rights from the ever-growing reach of today’s digital age — where information is easily accessible and constantly shared — the lines between public exposure and personal shelter are being tested like never before. Questions about the use of personal data and how far filmmakers and content creators can go in sharing these details have only become more pressing.

Thus, the legal showdown over Pepsi Paloma’s story isn’t just a subplot from a film — it’s a defining moment that could rewrite the script on privacy and artistic freedom.

As the case unfolds, we’ll see whether the court hits pause on the right of artists to tell their story or if it allows the reel of creativity to continue rolling. Either way, the verdict will be one for the books, and the final cut could set a lasting precedent. – Rappler.com

Noel B. Lazaro is a general counsel at a publicly listed company. A UP College of Law graduate, he teaches evidence, special proceedings, and special writs at law schools. Mary Louisse S. Inguillois a senior in-house counsel specializing in corporate law and litigation. A DLSU-Tañada-Diokno School of Law graduate, she lectures on special proceedings and criminal procedure at law schools.