Always the victim: Pepsi Paloma

Image Source
This is a topic that i would never remain silent. Even though i don't have a laptop anymore, i'll write on my crappy mobile for this. It deserves all the attention it is getting.

The presently elected senate president of the Philippines by the name of Vicente "Tito" Castelo Sotto III has requested the removal of articles that acused him of whitewashing the rape case of Pepsi Paloma from the news website inquirer.net last May.

Since yesterday, the articles
The rape of Pepsi Paloma, Was Pepsi Paloma Murdered?, and Tito Sotto denies whitewashing Pepsi Paloma rape case are no longer accessible and is under 'review'. The first two articles are written by US-based columnist Rodel Rodis way back 2014 and 2015 and the third one was written by Totel de Jesus in 2016.

The case of Pepsi Paloma has always been a hot topic among filipino people. A lot of bloggers have also talked about this issue for these past few years like this one from filipiknow.

The rape case of Pepsi Paloma happened during the martial law era. One of the 'softdrinks beauties', Pepsi, only 14 that time, gained exposure to the industry of provocative movies during the early 80's. At 1982, she reported that she and guada guarin (fellow actress) were drugged and raped by famous TV personalities Vic Sotto, Joey De Leon, and Richie D'Horsey (Richie Reyes).

The three were at the age where they could pass as the actress' father.

What makes people furious about this case is the turn of events. Pepsi was reportedly missing while the lawyer (Cayetano offering his probono service) was preparing the case. She was eventually tracked down and reported to be held by “Ben Ulo”, a known associate of the Castelos and Sottos.

Pepsi signed an affidavit of desistance for nothing but a public apology in return (or at least that's what we know). Later accounts by Pepsi would reveal that she was coerced into signing with the help of the now Senate President wielding a gun at her.

This has always been denied by Sotto.

Years later, At May 31, 1985, the 17 year old Pepsi was found hanging in her closet. She allegedly committed suicide but even that was questioned.

Both sides makes sense.

Pepsi is now an icon that the general public wants to protect. With the dissppointment in the justice sytem of the country, there's a shared clamor for justice being served for Pepsi's case. With the take-down of such articles, journalists have shared their disappoinment with the country's "leading" newspaper (as they say) in kowtowing to the requests of someone in power.

However, rest assured, archival efforts have made the articles available for access by the general public. You could still view the articles of Was Pepsi Paloma Murdered, The rape of Pepsi Paloma, and Tito Sotto denies whitewashing Pepsi Paloma rape case for free.

My opinion

As much as I would like to take an unbiased approach, the evidences and accounts just doesn't favor the senator.

A valid affidavit of desistance signed by a 14 year old? This is the martial law era, an era of darkness for some and a golden time for the powerful. I just can't wrap my head around the validity of an affidavit of desistance signed but a mere minor. At that time, rape is punishable by the DEATH so the efforts to escape such fate makes more sense. I'm not an expert so perhaps someone could shed light to this. Later on, Sotto goes as far as saying that the rape case was just a 'gimmick' and that Pepsi killed herself because of drugs. Apparently they filed libel against 'someone' and the scandal resurfacing is all an attempt to get back at them.

However, the public never forgot. It is still a hot topic specially in universities. Just a simple mistake from them and eventually, the issue resurfaces. Fortunately or unfortunately, this would forever hunt them wherever they go.

For the inquirer's part, they should uphold journalism values. Before they publish a particular article, it should've been thouroughly checked. Words are powerful. They could serve as a catalyst for success or demise. The disappointment is magnified because they are asking a contributor to back up his claims years after the articles were published by them.

bullocks

This has created a sense of anxiety in the journalism realm.

The timing is off too. Giving the benefit of the doubt, the senator might've been making efforts to clear his name once and for all now that he's the senate president. But that sends a different message.

I think its about time that Pepsi's case should be investigated deeply. But constrictions on the law might make that impossible. It is also a challenge that it happened a long time ago.

I think that is what's best for both sides. The public wouldn't rest unless truth is revealed. The general belief is that the three as well as the senator is guilty. If you're not, its about time to prove it.