Filipino lawyer and activist Jesus Falcis shared his analysis on why filmmaker Darryl Yap lost the writ of habeas data case filed by veteran actor Vic Sotto over the controversial teaser trailer of The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma. According to Falcis, the Muntinlupa Regional Trial Court’s 20-page decision, penned by Judge Liezel Aquiatan, cited three key reasons behind the ruling.
Firstly, Vic Sotto successfully asserted his right to privacy, specifically the right to informational privacy. He presented evidence showing that the 1982 case filed by Pepsi Paloma accusing him of rape had been dismissed. This allowed him to argue that he had the right to control how this information was portrayed in public, especially in a manner that could cast him as a rapist.
“Sotto was able to emphasize that the case filed by Pepsi Paloma against him was dismissed in 1982,” Falcis explained. “He is entitled to control the information coming out about him as regards the dismissal of the case.”
Secondly, Sotto’s wife, Pauleen Luna, testified on the negative impact the teaser trailer had on their family. She detailed instances of online harassment, death threats, and even bullying faced by their 7-year-old daughter. This established a link between the violation of privacy and threats to their family’s safety, which justified the issuance of the writ.
“The nexus between the violation of the right to privacy and the right to life, liberty, and/or security was established,” Falcis noted.
Lastly, the court found Yap’s arguments weak or insufficient. While Yap claimed that the film and teaser were based on documents, personal research, and interviews with Pepsi Paloma’s mother and brother, he failed to connect this evidence to the controversial teaser. The court ruled that the teaser featured a conversation between deceased individuals, making it unverifiable and lacking credible basis.
“The judge primarily ruled that Yap had no basis because the teaser-trailer presented a ‘conversation between two persons who have long been dead, hence, unverifiable if this confrontation indeed took place,'” Falcis explained. He added that Yap missed key opportunities to argue for creative liberties or to emphasize that Pepsi Paloma had initially accused Sotto of rape before the case’s dismissal.
Falcis also pointed out that Yap faces other legal battles, including multiple cyber libel cases and possible challenges with the MTRCB. He speculated whether Yap’s film would see significant hurdles, especially since its original producer, Vic Del Rosario, reportedly declined to support the project.
“Round 1 pa lang, talo na si Darryl Yap,” Falcis concluded.
