Ayer V Capulong

Facts: Petitioner McElroy an Australian film maker, and

his movie production company, Ayer Productions,
envisioned, sometime in 1987, for commercial viewing and
for Philippine and international release, the historic
peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The proposed
motion picture entitled "The Four Day Revolution" was
endorsed by the MTRCB as and other government agencies
consulted. Ramos also signified his approval of the
intended film production.

It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour mini-series

television play, presented in a "docu-drama" style, creating
four fictional characters interwoven with real events, and
utilizing actual documentary footage as background. David
Williamson is Australia's leading playwright and Professor
McCoy (University of New South Wales) is an American
historian have developed a script.

Enrile declared that he will not approve the use,

appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition of his name,
or picture, or that of any member of his family in any
cinema or television production, film or other medium for
advertising or commercial exploitation. petitioners acceded
to this demand and the name of Enrile was deleted from
the movie script, and petitioners proceeded to film the
projected motion picture. However, a complaint was filed
by Enrile invoking his right to privacy. RTC ordered for the
desistance of the movie production and making of any
reference to plaintiff or his family and from creating any
fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is
based on, or bears substantial or marked resemblance to
Enrile. Hence the appeal.

Issue: Whether or Not freedom of expression was

violated.

Held: Yes. Freedom of speech and of expression includes

the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and
exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them
through television. Furthermore the circumstance that the
production of motion picture films is a commercial activity
expected to yield monetary profit, is not a disqualification
for availing of freedom of speech and of expression.

The projected motion picture was as yet uncompleted and

hence not exhibited to any audience. Neither private
respondent nor the respondent trial Judge knew what the
completed film would precisely look like. There was, in
other words, no "clear and present danger" of any violation
of any right to privacy. Subject matter is one of public
interest and concern. The subject thus relates to a highly
critical stage in the history of the country.

At all relevant times, during which the momentous events,

clearly of public concern, that petitioners propose to film
were taking place, Enrile was a "public figure:" Such public
figures were held to have lost, to some extent at least,
their right to privacy.

The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant

case between the constitutional freedom of speech and of
expression and the right of privacy, may be marked out in
terms of a requirement that the proposed motion picture
must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of
events.

Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. v. Capulong April 29, 1988

F: Pivate respondent Juan Ponce Enrile filed an action in the RTC of Makati to
enjoin the petitioners from producing the movie "The Four Day Revolution," a
documentary of the EDSA Revolution in 1986 on the ground that it violated his right
to privacy. Petitioners contended that the movie would not involve his private life
not that of his family. But the trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction and
ordered petitioners to desist from making the movie making reference whatsoever
to Ponce Enrile. This, this action for certiorari.

HELD: Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to produce motion

pictures and to exhibit them. What is involved is a prior restraint by the Judge upon
the exercise of speech and of expression by petitioners. Because of the preferred
character of speech and of expression, a weighty presumption of invalidity vitiates
measures of prior restraint. The Judge should have stayed his hand considering that
the movie was yet uncompleted and therefore there was no "clear and present
danger." The subject matter of the movie does not relate to the private life of Ponce
Enrile. The intrusion is no more than necessary to keep the film a truthful historical
account. He is, after all, a public figure. The line of equilibrium in the specific
context of the instant case between freedom of speech and of expression and the
right of privacy may be marked out in terms of a requirement that the proposed
motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation of facts.
There must be no showing of a reckless disregard of truth. VV.
 Notes: Ayer sought to produce a movie on the 4-day revolution. Enrile,
who had previously been asked for the use of his character in the movie and had
refused the offer, sued to enjoin the filming because he did not want any mention of
his and his family's name. The SC lifted the injunction issued by the lower court on
the ground that it amounted to prior restraint, which is no better if imposed by the
courts than if imposed by administrative bodies or by ecclesiatical officials.

In Ayer, the reference to Enrile is unavoidable because his name is part of

history and this cannot be changed or altered; thus his name can be used so long as
only his public life is dwelled only. But in Lagunzad, although Moises Padilla was
also a public figure, the movie dealth with both the public and private lives of
Moises Padilla.