MTRCB Clarifies Status of Pepsi Paloma Film Review
MTRCB – The Movie and Television Review and Classification Board has confirmed that the Pepsi Paloma movie is not currently under review due to incomplete submission requirements. This clarification was issued in response to false claims suggesting otherwise.
According to the MTRCB, its Registration Unit could not process materials submitted by a representative of PinoyFlix because the distributor had yet to provide three essential documents: a Certificate or Clearance of No Pending Criminal, Civil, or Administrative Case from the Regional Trial Court, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the City Prosecutor.
To ensure transparency and compliance with regulations, the MTRCB’s Legal Affairs Division has formally notified PinoyFlix Films and Entertainment Production of these missing requirements. This step upholds the guidelines set under Presidential Decree No. 1986 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
The MTRCB, which consists of 30 board members, a Vice Chairperson, and a Chairperson, follows a strict review process. Films undergo an initial evaluation by a three-member committee, with an additional five-member review panel if necessary. This thorough assessment ensures that all films meet content standards. The agency firmly opposes any misinformation that misrepresents its actions and warns that any attempt to mislead the public will be addressed under the law.
Meanwhile, a Muntinlupa court has ordered director Darryl Yap to remove the teaser for his film, The Rapists of Pepsi Paloma, while allowing the movie’s release to proceed. In a ruling issued on January 24 and made public on January 27, the court partially ruled in favor of actor Vic Sotto, who sought the removal of the teaser. Judge Liezel Aquiatan stated that the video misused information by depicting an unverifiable conversation between two deceased individuals.
Sotto argued that Yap used his name without permission and spread misleading claims about past allegations against him. Yap, however, maintained that the film is based on public records and has the consent of Paloma’s family. The court found that the teaser could mislead viewers into believing Sotto was guilty, but it did not ban the film, citing artistic freedom and public interest. Meanwhile, a separate criminal case filed by Sotto against Yap is still under investigation.