MANILA, Philippines – There is no takedown order yet from the court on the controversial trailer of the film “The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma,” which television host Vic Sotto has petitioned against in court.

What the Muntinlupa City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 205 issued on Thursday, January 9, was a mere writ of habeas data. A writ is not the privilege yet. The order of Presiding Judge Liezel Aquiatan was for film director Darryl Yap to submit his response to Sotto’s petition.

Habeas data is an extraordinary legal remedy used by a party to compel another party to destroy or delete information that could cause harm to them. Usual procedures of a writ petition is the granting of the writ – which sets in motion the procedure like an order to respond – after which a hearing is held so the judge can determine if the privileges – a takedown or deletion in this case – will be granted.

Thursday’s order set the summary hearing for the petition at 8:30 am, on January 15, where the Sotto and Yap camps will present their evidence in relation to the petition.

Sotto’s lawyer Enrique dela Cruz maintains that the issuance of the writ is the same as temporarily granting what they prayed for – which is a takedown of the trailer.

“The court issued an order which directed the issuance of a writ of habeas data. Our interpretation is that our petition was sufficient in form and substance. That’s why our prayer should be temporarily followed as the court hears our petition on January 15,” Sotto’s lawyer Enrique dela Cruz told Rappler in a mix of Filipino and English.

But the rule on the writ of habeas data, or A.M No. 08-1-16-SC is clear – Section 7 mandates the judge to issue the writ on its face, after which the respondent files a return or response. Section 16 says only after the hearing is held will a judgment be made, which can be an order of deletion, destruction, or rectification.

Yap’s lawyer, Raymond Fortun, disagreed with the Sotto camp’s interpretation of the order: “The writ was issued, but it just merely asks Direk Yap to make a ‘return’ and to set a summary hearing on Wednesday. Court has not made any decision yet.”

Following the release of the trailer of Yap’s film depicting the life of Paloma, an actress during the 1980s, Sotto has filed his petition for the writ on January 7. The said trailer featured a scene where the actress depicting Paloma answered in affirmative after she was asked by another character if she was allegedly raped by Sotto.

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.

On January 9, Vic Sotto, who belongs to the powerful clan of entertainers and politicians, also filed a complaint against the director for 19 counts of cyber libel. He also included in the complaint a prayer of P35 million moral and exemplary damages.


Who is Pepsi Paloma, and why are people talking about her?

After filing the cyber libel complaint on Thursday, the Sotto camp also announced the supposed court order hinged on the habeas data petition that stopped Yap from posting his teasers and promotional materials.

How does writ of habeas data work?

The writ of habeas data may be filed by a 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.”

Habeas Data is extraordinary because it needs to reach a certain degree of urgency and gravity for speech to be regulated in that way. One of the last known cases where the court granted privileges was when the Court of Appeals ordered the Duterte administration to remove the name of former Leyte 3rd District Representative Vicente Veloso from the president’s public “narcolist.”

If Yap fails to submit a return, the court will then proceed to hear the petition basing on the petition only. The court may ask the petitioner to submit evidence based on its discretion.

If the court indeed grants Sotto the privileges of the writ, the language of such order will be interesting because the trailer has been reposted on social media by different people.

The Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of some parts of the Cybercrime Law says “aiding and abetting” an allegedly libelous content is not a crime, with the Court saying it wanted to prevent the “obvious chilling effect on the freedom of expression, especially since the crime of aiding or abetting ensnares all the actors in the cyberspace front in a fuzzy way.” – Rappler.com