Desidido ang kampo ni Marjorie Barretto na gumawa ng legal na hakbang laban sa mga taong nasa likod ng pagpapakalat ng "nude photos" ng actress-politician.
Naglabas ng statement ngayong araw, May 7, ang legal counsel ni Marjorie—ang Kapunan Garcia & Castillo Law Offices—kaugnay ng isyung ito.
Ayon sa kanila, ang pagkalat ng mga larawang ito sa Internet ay paglabag sa Republic Act No. 9995 o kilala rin bilang “Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.”
Wala raw pahintulot si Marjorie na i-post sa Internet ang “nude photos” na ito at hindi raw ito “for public consumption.”
Iniimbestigahan na raw ngayon ng National Bureau of Investigation ang isyung ito.
Tinitiyak naman ng kampo ni Marjorie na papanagutin nila ang sinumang may kinalaman sa “criminal action” na ito.
THE DENIAL. Isang araw bago ilabas ng kampo ni Marjorie ang statement na ito ay itinanggi ng outgoing councilor ng Caloocan City sa PEP.ph (Philippine Entertainment Portal) na siya ang babae sa mga larawang ito.
"No. That’s not me. I would never do something like that. That’s not my nature," sabi ni Marjorie sa eksklusibo niyang pahayag sa PEP.
Ito ay sinabi ni Marjorie nang hiningan siya ng PEP editor-in-chief na si Jo-Ann Maglipon ng statement tungkol sa mga litrato.
Nililinaw ni Jo-Ann na nang makausap niya si Marjorie, mukhang wala itong kamalay-malay sa mga litrato. Ang tanong pa ng huli, "Huh? What photos? Where are they seen?" at "Can you describe them to me?"
Inilarawan ni Jo-Ann ang itsura ng mga litrato, at base rito ay sinabi ni Marjorie na hindi siya iyon. Hiningi ni Jo-Ann ang kanyang email address upang ipadala sa kanya ang mga litrato, ngunit hindi na naipadala ni Marjorie ang address.
Ang sumunod na pangyayari ay ang pagpapatawag ng press conference ng mga abugado ni Marjorie ngayong araw, May 7.
(CLICK HERE to read related story.)
Upang linawin ang pagbabago ng pahayag ng kampo ni Marjorie ay nagpadala si Jo-Ann ng tanong via text message sa dating aktres ngayong hapon, May 7.
Hinihintay pa rin namin ang kanyang kasagutan.
MARJORIE’S FULL STATEMENT. Narito ang kabuuang pahayag ng kampo ni Marjorie:
“Over the weekend, two (2) private photos of our client, Ms. Marjorie Barretto, were uploaded and circulated in the internet. Eventually, these photos were passed on and reposted by bloggers and internet users.
“Our client did not authorize the posting of her nude photos and they were never intended for public consumption.
“Please note that the publication through the internet and other media formats of these photos is a clear violation of our client’s right to privacy, which is safeguarded by no less than the Philippine Constitution.
“Likewise, the dissemination of the said photos is a blatant defiance of Republic Act No. 9995 also known as the ‘Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.’
“The public should be reminded and warned that Republic Act No. 9995 clearly and categorically punishes the act of publishing or broadcasting, or causing to be published or broadcasted, whether in print or broadcast media or through the internet, the photo of a person showing her private areas.
“To emphasize, the subject photos were intended not to be made public and the dissemination of these private photos was without our client’s consent.
“The matter of the dissemination and uploading of the aforementioned photos is already the subject of an ongoing investigation by the National Bureau of Investigation.
"We are taking all legal steps to ensure that the right to privacy of our client is respected. We will pursue all the appropriate legal actions necessary to ensure that those principally responsible for this criminal action are punished.
“The penalty for violating RA 9995 is imprisonment of not less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years or a fine of not less than Php100,000.00 but not more than Php500,000.00 or both.
“If a juridical person is the violator (i.e. broadcasting company), its license or franchise shall be automatically be deemed revoked and the officers of the company shall be deemed liable as well.
“RA 9995 specifically identifies the ones who will be made liable -- editor and the reporter in case of print media and the station manager, editor and broadcaster in case of broadcast media.”
With reports by Arniel C. Serato