Marjorie Barretto photo scandal?

She may not be running for any political post in this year’s elections, but actress-turned-public servant Marjorie Barretto has not been spared from vicious intrigues. Over the weekend, sexy photos purportedly of the three-term councilor from Caloocan City was circulated online.

Barretto has denied that the woman in the picture is her, saying: “I would never do something like that. That’s not my nature.” She told Philippine Entertainment Portal that she will seek the assistance of the National Bureau of Investigation to determine the parties who distributed the photo.

marjorie barretto photo scandal

Marjorie Barretto has denied the said photo scandal. (Credits: www.BanderaBlogs.wordpress.com)

Prior to the recent (and very public) feud involving the Barretto clan, Marjorie has long been involved with Caloocan Mayor Enrico “Recom” Echiverri. Four years ago, it was even rumored that she gave birth to their love child in the United States, a claim her camp immediately shot down. The issue came to life once again with Echiverri’s son RJ running to succeed him as mayor.

UPDATE: Attorney Lorna Kapunan, Ms Barretto’s legal counsel, has posted two comments below. Barretto’s camp asked The Filipino Scribe to take down this write-up and her nude photo. We deleted the original photo used, but this blog post will remain.

Looking back, The Filipino Scribe acknowledges that it still could have published this piece without using Barretto’s photo.  We may be guilty of lapse in judgment and good taste, but we believe we did nothing criminal. All along, we were working under the assumption that it’s not Barretto in the picture. But based on what Atty. Kapunan is saying, we’re wrong. Read their camp’s official admission here.

Please “like” The Filipino Scribe on Facebook!

About

64 thoughts on “Marjorie Barretto photo scandal?

  1. Dear Mr. Blogger,

    We write on behalf of our client, Ms. Marjorie Barretto.

    We received information that you have made public a write-up and two (2) very private photos of her, which were not intended for public consumption.

    Please note that your publication of said article and the photos in your blog site is a clear violation of our client’s Constitutional right to privacy and a blatant defiance of Republic Act No. 9995 also known as the “Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009.” Be informed that RA 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 your dissemination of these private photos was without our client’s consent.

    The matter of the dissemination and uploading of the afore-mentioned photos is already the subject of an 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.

    In view of the foregoing, we ask that your write-up about our client and the subject photos be immediately taken down and removed from your site. Otherwise, we will also be constrained to file the necessary actions against you.

    We thank you in advance for your immediate attention on this matter.

    Very truly yours,

    KAPUNAN GARCIA & CASTILLO

    By:

    LORNA PATAJO-KAPUNAN

    1. Good afternoon, Atty. I may have misunderstood you but it seems by what you’re saying here that the photos are authentic. Are they? Im a local journalist. Thanks

    2. Dear Atty. Kapunan,

      Good day. Let me go straight to the point. I know the specific provision of RA 9995 you are citing since I’ve written about it before. When you said “To emphasize, the subject photos were intended not to be made public and your dissemination of these private photos was without our client’s consent,” you are effectively admitting that Marjorie Barretto is the one in the photo.

      In a statement to Philippine Entertainment Portal yesterday, your client denied that it’s her in the photo (http://www.interaksyon.com/entertainment/marjorie-barretto-on-photo-scandal-no-thats-not-me/). In fact, I mentioned that in this blog post. Who’s telling the truth between you and your client?

      I find nothing objectionable with the article. I am merely writing about a subject that’s been discussed by major media outlets like ABS-CBN (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/entertainment/05/06/13/marjorie-barretto-denies-sexy-photos) and GMA News (http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/307026/showbiz/showbizabroad/pep-exclusive-marjorie-barretto-denies-photo-scandal) the past few days. Are you also asking them to take down their published story on the issue? Asking me to take down an article without any sufficient basis violates my constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of expression. I am amenable to taking down the photo, nonetheless.

      I sent you a private correspondence regarding this matter, and I’m looking forward to hearing from you.

      Yours truly,

      Mr. Blogger

      1. Dear Mr. Blogger,

        Thank you for your reply. In response thereto, please note that Ms. Barreto informed us that she made the initial remark denying the photos before she actually saw them. Later, after seeing the photos, Ms. Barretto told us that it is her.

        We look forward that you will take down the photos soonest.

      2. Dear Atty. Kapunan,

        As requested, I have replaced the original image I used for this blog. I do hope your office can acknowledge my compliance to your legal request. Thank you so much.

  2. sa tingin ko photo edit to may isip naman siguro si miss barreto no.. at isa pa kung totoo man ito napaka walang kwenta ng nag lagay nito. lalo na kung lalake ito..

    1. At kong anoman ang katotohanan at bakit hindi tanggapin ang scadal na ito at yan ba ay dapat bang e deny mo kong toto o! At hwag kang ma guilty o mahiya kana lang at pakapalan mo nalang ang inyong mukha dahil sa ibang hindi pwedi na hindi ito ma bulgar na malaman ng ibang tao at ito ay fredom of speech.

  3. Hindi yata marunong umintindi at magbasa yung mga iba dito. At the same time nakakatawa nga kasi deny niya yung photos without actually seeng them after she saw the photos she said it was her.

  4. Read the lawyers letter…they admit that it’s her and the picture was not intended to be public. Who would say such thing if its not you?? We are not stupid

  5. She is a public figure.. on the first place she shouldn’t be doing that crazy thing… gagawa gawa ng kalokohan tapos ngayon ng rereklamo… papicture ng ganyan? for what? haha si funny… live with it there is nothing you can do…

  6. They’ve been sending the same demand letter to all bloggers, FB groups, news sites. Wow! Can someone explain to Atty. Lorna Kapunan how the web and this whole social media thing works? She really plans to take on the INTERNET for Marjorie Barretto? Once you upload a photo, it stays there forever – STUPID MOVE on their part

    1. Hi, Marjorie. I’ve gotten in touch with one blogger who received the same demand from Barretto’s camp. We decided to abide by their demand. Hope this settles it.

  7. The public deserves to see those photos after all she is a public official and also an actress. Millions already downloaded those photos. Its already a part of history.

    1. very true. But my question is, who took the photo? i think the public has also the right to know.

      1. are you sure that the one who took the photo was the one who circulated it? c’mon, it is hard to prove, you can ask maybe the assistance of the CIA and the FBI and maybe in your cover letter you can put a very interesting subject: MB’s WMD uncovered.

  8. alang hiya…walang kwenta yang demand deman na yan…google mo lang nakatiwangwang na si marjorie eh…tsk tsk tsk..nasa bundok pa din ba????

  9. Dear Mr. Blogger,

    Ms. Marjorie Barretto did not pay our fees, this signifies what I had stated earlier is null and void.

    You may now circulate the photos.

    We thank you in advance for your immediate spreading of this matter.

    Very truly yours,

    KAPUNAN GARCIA & CASTILLO

    By:

    LORNA PATAJO-KAPUNAN

  10. Because they cant file a suit of anti photo ek ek u less her client will admit that she is the one on the pic…tsk tsk!! NAHIHIYA SIGURO SYANG IPAKALAT YUNG PIC NYA KASI ANG TABA NYA, KUNG AKO YUN AT SEXY NAMAN AKO, KEBER!! MAGLAWAY KAYONG LAHAT.

  11. Inamin na xempre para makapag file ng kaso- that’s the point! u r a public figure marjorie- kung ayaw mong may lumabas na gaya nito wag kang gumawa ng mga bagay na ganito…

    1. True, Morion. As I’ve said before, mali itong taktika nila of running after us bloggers. Bakit hindi nila panagutin yung original uploader ng picture? What about yung liability ni Marjorie herself?

  12. I hope Atty. Kapunan will be able to find nemo este the one who upload the photos on the internet. Good luck!

    Kudos to the Filipino Scribe! specially to you “Mr. Blogger” :)

    -Local journo :D

  13. Mr. Blogger of TFS,

    I want to acknowledge your bravery regarding this issue. We’ll be here to support you as a co-blogger. :)

    All the best,

    Local Blogger

    1. Hi, LocalBlogger,

      Thank you for the support. Hope you left your name so I can acknowledge yo properly. Bloggers are easy targets for the powerful. It pays to know that you if you have something to stand on, there’s nothing to be needlessly afraid. :)

      Regards,
      TFS

  14. Marjorie ayus lng yn.22o nman eh.wagkna mahiya cung mtba ka.pra skn sexy kprin.ang sarap mo nga eh.sna sa su2nod sex video na

  15. Kht anung gwn mo dmuna mbu2ra sa isip ng mga tao yan.lhat nman ng tao malibog 2lad mo ang pinagkaiba nga lng artista ka.cla ndi tska ndi nman sex scandal gnwa mo kya ok lng yan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>