{"id":167306,"date":"2018-06-17T17:34:29","date_gmt":"2018-06-17T21:34:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=167306"},"modified":"2018-06-17T17:35:31","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T21:35:31","slug":"sotto-asks-inquirer-to-remove-stories-on-pepsi-paloma-rape","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/06\/17\/sotto-asks-inquirer-to-remove-stories-on-pepsi-paloma-rape\/","title":{"rendered":"Sotto asks Inquirer to remove stories on Pepsi Paloma rape"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Senate<\/a>
Senate President Vicente \u201cTito\u201d Sotto III had asked Inquirer.net to remove from its website stories \u201cimplicating\u201d him to the alleged rape of the now deceased actress Pepsi Paloma. (File photo<\/a> by Joseph Vidal via Senate of the Philippines\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA, Philippines \u2014 Senate President Vicente \u201cTito\u201d Sotto III had asked Inquirer.net to remove from its website stories \u201cimplicating\u201d him to the alleged rape of the now deceased actress Pepsi Paloma.<\/p>\n

In a letter dated May 29 but was made public only on Saturday, June 16, Sotto said: \u201cI believe there was malicious imputation of a crime against me.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Sotto said that Rodis\u2019s \u2018The Rape of Pepsi Paloma\u2019 (March 5, 2014) and \u2018Was Pepsi Paloma Murdered?\u2019 (March 15, 2014) and de Jesus\u2019s \u2018Tito Sotto Denies Whitewashing Pepsi Paloma Rape Case\u2019 (March 3, 2016) are \u201cunverified articles that have been negatively affecting my reputation for the longest time.\u201d<\/p>\n

“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.<\/p>\n

The Senate President stressed that his request was made \u201cwithout the intention of trampling\u201d the freedom of speech and of the press.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Under Senate Bill No.1255, the coverage of the law was expanded to publishers, editors, and reporters of any publication.<\/p>\n

Rodis, who made Sotto\u2019s request public by posting it on his Facebook account, posited that \u201ca dangerous precedent will be set\u201d if Inquirer.net agrees to remove the articles Sotto cited.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuterte 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,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Well within his rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a statement published on Saturday, Inquirer.net\u2019s Publisher and Editor-in-Chief Abelardo S. Ulanday recognized Sotto\u2019s right to make such request, and confirmed that Sotto, through his staff, has earlier raised the same request to the news outlet.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have acted on these requests judiciously and made decisions based on our own investigation and based on our journalistic values and principles,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

As for Sotto\u2019s request, Ulanday said: \u201cINQUIRER.net has not made any decision.\u201d<\/p>\n

He further said that Rodis has been asked to comment on the request and the author has responded by email.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Ulanday clarified that Inquirer.net had nothing to do with Rodis\u2019s act of posting on social media Sotto\u2019s petition.<\/p>\n

\u2018Uphold freedom of the press\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s \u201cbrazen attempt to suppress freedom of the press and expression.\u201d<\/p>\n

The NUJP, calling Sotto\u2019s argument \u201cludicrous,\u201d said: \u201cWhile we can understand the senator\u2019s discomfiture with these articles, we feel he is overstepping his bounds by zeroing in on the Inquirer.net articles\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWe point out that all three articles Sotto wants taken down would not have been posted had they not gone through Inquirer.net\u2019s stringent vetting and editing,\u201d it added.<\/p>\n

The union also pointed out that Inquirer.net was not the first media agency to release news on Paloma\u2019s case and \u201cthose allegedly involved in her rape and the attempt to cover it up.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhy too, didn\u2019t 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?\u201d NUJP asked.<\/p>\n

It also took a swipe on Inquirer.net\u2019s \u201cequally disturbing\u201d statement on Sotto\u2019s request.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe cannot understand why the outfit has to bring up Rodis\u2019 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 \u201cit is within Sen. Sotto\u2019s right\u201d to request the takedowns even if he is not right at all to do so,\u201d NUJP said.<\/p>\n

Moreover, NUJP urged Inquirer.net to assert its independence and uphold freedom of the press and of expression, \u201cwhich are increasingly under siege today.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA, Philippines \u2014 Senate President Vicente \u201cTito\u201d Sotto III had asked Inquirer.net to remove from its website stories \u201cimplicating\u201d him …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":129761,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,95],"tags":[51997,51998,51999,51996,52000,4951,4950],"class_list":["post-167306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-inquirer-net","tag-national-union-of-journalists-of-the-philippines","tag-nujp","tag-pepsi-paloma","tag-rodel-rodis","tag-tito-sotto","tag-vicente-sotto","mauthors-katherine-padilla","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=167306"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/167306\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129761"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=167306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=167306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=167306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}