1 month ago
19
Eat Bulaga host Vic Sotto secured first victory after weeks of legal battle with director Darryl Yap, who made the film that implicated the comedian in the alleged rape of 1980s star Pepsi Paloma.
Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 205 Presiding Judge Liezel Aquiatan granted Sotto’s petition for writ of habeas data petition and ordered Yap to delete the 26-second teaser from online platforms, social media, or any other medium.
Although the teaser was taken down, the court, however, allowed the continuation of the film’s production and the film’s eventual release.
The release of the trailer of the film depicting the life of Paloma, an actress during the 1980s, triggered Sotto’s filing of the petition and a complaint against Yap. The teaser shows a scene where the actress depicting Paloma answers in the affirmative after she is asked by another character if she was allegedly raped by Sotto.
The legal battle is far from over as the cyber libel complaint that Sotto had filed against the director remains pending. The suit is still at the prosecutor’s level, and Yap still has to respond to Sotto’s allegation via a counter-affidavit.
Nevertheless, Sotto’s victory on his writ already has implications on free speech.
Not a remedy to reputational harm
Presiding Judge Aquiatan clarified in her 20-page ruling that the writ of habeas data is not the appropriate remedy for cases involving reputational harm:
“To the mind of the Court, the filing of a writ of habeas data could draw more attention to the issue, potentially worsening the reputational damage. Defamation laws or other remedies (e.g., filing a civil suit for damages or criminal case for libel or slander) are more suited for addressing false or damaging statements,” the court said.
This was timely as there was also a recent filing of the same petition involving another public figure. Habeas data is an extraordinary legal remedy used by a party to compel another to destroy or delete information that could cause harm to them.
The writ, which is also a kind of court protection, can be filed by people “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.”
Based on the court’s wording, in cases were reputation was allegedly damaged by any form information, the more appropriate measures are defamation cases like libel or slander. These cases are both criminal in nature, so jail time is part of the punishment. Apart from the traditional libel, the Philippines has a cyber libel law that holds a graver sanction — jail time of up to eight years.
There is an ongoing campaign to call for the decriminalization of the libel, especially from the side of Filipino journalists, since libel laws in the Philippines are used to crack down against dissent. This is what happened to Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Rappler CEO Maria Ressa, whose cyber libel case is still pending with the Supreme Court up to this day.
Ressa and former Rappler writer-researcher Reynaldo Santos Jr. were convicted in 2020, under former president Rodrigo Duterte.
Meanwhile, the court said it has the obligation to find a connection between Yap’s acts and the alleged harm on Sotto’s privacy, life, liberty, or security. And although it said that the writ is not the usual remedy for reputational harm, it ruled that the collection of information in relation to Pepsi Paloma could be a basis for the petition.
“In summary, while his ultimate goal is to create an engaging and compelling narrative rather than a purely factual account, their process involves significant data and information collection as a foundation for storytelling. Thus, this case could be a valid subject for a writ of habeas data,” the court explained.
Limitations of free speech
The case was a petition for writ of habeas data, but the court still took the time to explain the supposed limitations of free speech in connection to the case.
As his defense before the court, Yap said his film is based on public records, news reports, and personal narratives, claiming it was an exercise of free speech and artistic expression. The director added that his film did not unlawfully gather or collect personal data, but rather information publicly available.
Although Yap invoked his constitutionally-protected right to free speech, the court said he should have still adhered “to factual accuracy and ethical storytelling, especially in sensitive matters involving accusations of a crime.” The court said the film’s teaser portrayed Sotto as an alleged rapist even though the case was already dismissed.
“Although the petitioner is a public figure who has a reduced expectation of privacy concerning matters of public interest, however, the portrayal of events must still be accurate and not misleading, especially when it involves allegations of criminal acts. The court also emphasizes the need to avoid unjust harm to individuals based on speculative or unverifiable claims,” the ruling explained.
The court further explained that the teaser committed “misuse of personal information” because Sotto’s name was used in a dialogue between two already dead people.
“It cannot be said that the information portrayed in the film is derived from publicly accessible sources (e.g., newspaper articles, court records, etc.) as it was a conversation between two persons who have long been dead, hence, unverifiable if this confrontation indeed took place,” the ruling said.
“The widely circulated teaser video could lead a reasonable person to conclude that the petitioner
is indeed a rapist, thereby violating his privacy rights and potentially threatening the life and security of his family,” it added.
The court’s reminders on the writ, particularly its point on unverifiable information, could give activists a fighting chance in their battle for protection. Progressive individuals are often red-tagged or linked to rebel and communist groups even without enough basis, putting their lives at risk and making them targets for harassment or even death.
No less than the Supreme Court defined in its landmark decision that red-tagging is an act that threatens a person’s constitutional right to life, liberty, and security.
Why only the teaser?
Still hinged on the unverifiable data argument, the court said the writ of habeas data can only be applied to the teaser because it had the unverifiable confrontation between two dead people who mentioned Sotto’s name.
The court said it cannot order the whole film’s takedown since it is based on Paloma’s life story, where Yap “secured the consent of the mother and brother, derived from public records like newspaper clippings, footages and is protected by artistic freedom and public interest.”
“That being said, the Court cannot disclose the full reasoning, aside from the misuse of data of unverifiable origin, for requiring the teaser’s removal, as doing so might diminish the excitement of moviegoers and risk revealing key aspects of the film’s content,” the ruling added.
Political motives have been imputed on the release of the trailer, and the film, as Vic’s son Vico is running for Pasig Mayor, and brother Tito is running for senator. Is there malice involved?
“… This Court cannot address the issues of malice and bad motive, as these are valid matters for determination in the criminal complaint for [cyber libel], which remains under investigation by the Office of the City Prosecutor,” the court said. – Rappler.com
![[The Wide Shot] ‘Our Father’ in The Hague](https://www.rappler.com/tachyon/2025/03/Wide-shot-duterte-our-father-hague-March-16-2025.jpg)
