Sotto asks Inquirer to remove stories on Pepsi Paloma rape

Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III had asked Inquirer.net to remove from its website stories “implicating” him to the alleged rape of the now deceased actress Pepsi Paloma. (File photo by Joseph Vidal via Senate of the Philippines/Facebook)

MANILA, Philippines — Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III had asked Inquirer.net to remove from its website stories “implicating” him to the alleged rape of the now deceased actress Pepsi Paloma.

In a letter dated May 29 but was made public only on Saturday, June 16, Sotto said: “I believe there was malicious imputation of a crime against me.”

He was referring to three articles that was published on Inquirer.net in 2014 and 2016, two of which were authored by U.S.-based columnist Rodel Rodis and one by Totel V. De Jesus.

Sotto said that Rodis’s ‘The Rape of Pepsi Paloma’ (March 5, 2014) and ‘Was Pepsi Paloma Murdered?’ (March 15, 2014) and de Jesus’s ‘Tito Sotto Denies Whitewashing Pepsi Paloma Rape Case’ (March 3, 2016) are “unverified articles that have been negatively affecting my reputation for the longest time.”

“My efforts to clarify my side were somewhat ineffectual by reason of the above-cited articles were shared by your readers to the social media, and those readers who knew nothing about the issue took them as the version of truth considering that those reports came from a well-trusted company like Inquirer.net,” Sotto added.

The Senate President stressed that his request was made “without the intention of trampling” the freedom of speech and of the press.

To support this, he cited a bill he filed to amend Republic Act No. 53, a law that exempts print media journalists from disclosing the source of published news or information obtained in confidence.

Under Senate Bill No.1255, the coverage of the law was expanded to publishers, editors, and reporters of any publication.

Rodis, who made Sotto’s request public by posting it on his Facebook account, posited that “a dangerous precedent will be set” if Inquirer.net agrees to remove the articles Sotto cited.

“Duterte will demand that my articles denouncing him should also be removed by the Inquirer. Jinggoy, Bongbong, even China will also send their demand letters to Inquirer,” he said.

Well within his rights

In a statement published on Saturday, Inquirer.net’s Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Abelardo S. Ulanday recognized Sotto’s right to make such request, and confirmed that Sotto, through his staff, has earlier raised the same request to the news outlet.

Ulanday stated that Inquirer.net had and continues to receive requests of the same nature from people and organizations who petition that articles written about them be removed from their website due to various reasons.

“We have acted on these requests judiciously and made decisions based on our own investigation and based on our journalistic values and principles,” he said.

As for Sotto’s request, Ulanday said: “INQUIRER.net has not made any decision.”

He further said that Rodis has been asked to comment on the request and the author has responded by email.

Furthermore, Ulanday clarified that Inquirer.net had nothing to do with Rodis’s act of posting on social media Sotto’s petition.

‘Uphold freedom of the press’

While Inquirer.net assumed a diplomatic approach on the issue, The National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), on the other hand, released on Saturday a statement denouncing Sotto’s “brazen attempt to suppress freedom of the press and expression.”

The NUJP, calling Sotto’s argument “ludicrous,” said: “While we can understand the senator’s discomfiture with these articles, we feel he is overstepping his bounds by zeroing in on the Inquirer.net articles…”

“We point out that all three articles Sotto wants taken down would not have been posted had they not gone through Inquirer.net’s stringent vetting and editing,” it added.

The union also pointed out that Inquirer.net was not the first media agency to release news on Paloma’s case and “those allegedly involved in her rape and the attempt to cover it up.”

“Why too, didn’t he raise hell when the articles were first uploaded in 2014? Or does he believe his status and authority as Senate president give him better chances of having the stories taken down?” NUJP asked.

It also took a swipe on Inquirer.net’s “equally disturbing” statement on Sotto’s request.

“We cannot understand why the outfit has to bring up Rodis’ posting and then wash its hands of it, like it were something dishonest or devious when the writer was well with his right to do so just as Inquirer.net editor in chief Abelardo Ulanday acknowledges that “it is within Sen. Sotto’s right” to request the takedowns even if he is not right at all to do so,” NUJP said.

Moreover, NUJP urged Inquirer.net to assert its independence and uphold freedom of the press and of expression, “which are increasingly under siege today.”