Anda di halaman 1dari 3

AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. vs.

CAPULONG
GR No. L-82380, April 29, 1988
GR No. L-82398, April 29, 1988

Parties:

GR No. L-82380, April 29, 1988

Petitioner:

a. AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD- McElroys movie production company


b. McELROY & McELROY FILM PRODUCTIONS

Respondents:

a. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Makati Branch 134)
b. Juan ponce Enrile

GR No. L-82398, April 29, 1988

Petitioner:

a. HAL McELROY- an Australian Film maker

Respondents:

a. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong (in his capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC Makati Branch 134)
b. Juan ponce Enrile

FACTS:

Petitioner McElroy, an Australian Film maker, and AYER PRODUCTIONS, his movie production
company envisioned, 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.

Private Respondent Ponce 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 is unlawfully intruded.

Petitioner contended that:

a. the freedom to produce and film includes in the freedom of speech and expression; and
b. the subject matter of the motion picture is one of public interest and concern and not on the
individual private life of respondent Senator.

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:

a. W/N the Freedom of Speech/ Expression includes freedom to film and produce motion pictures.

b. W/N Right to Privacy of Respondent Enrile is violated by the Motion Picture of Four Day
Revolution.

RULING:

a. Yes. Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and to
exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television. Along with
press, radio and television, motion pictures constitute a principal medium of mass
communication for information, education and entertainment.

This freedom of Speech is available in our country both to locally-owned and to foreign-owned
motion picture companies.

b. The projected motion picture The Four Day Revolution does not constitute an unlawful
intrusion upon private respondents right of privacy. Whether the balancing of interest test or
the clear and present danger test be applied in respect of the instant Petitions, the Court
believes that a different conclusion must here be reached.

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 that private respondent could lawfully assert.

The subject matter of The Four Day Revolution relates to the non-bloody change of
government which took place at EDSA. Clearly such subject matter is one of public interest
and concern or even international interest. The subject matter relates to a highly critical state
in the history of this country and thus passed into the public domain and as an appropriate
subject for speech and expression and coverage by any form of mass media. The synopsis
provided by petitioner does not relate to the individual life and certainly not the private life of
respondent Ponce Enrile. The Four Day Revolution is not principally about, nor is it focused
upon, the man Juan Ponce Enrile.

Moreso, Private respondent Enrile is a public figure (which gives the public a legitimate interest
of his doings, his affairs, his character and has become a public personage), in other words
he is a celebrity. To be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of
reputation by appearing before the public. This includes public officers, famous inventors and
explorers, war heroes and even ordinary soldiers, an infant prodigy, in short anyone who has
arrived at a position where public is focused upon him as a person. Private respondent Enrile
is a public figure because of his participation as principal action in the culminating events of
the change of government. The right of privacy of a public figure is necessarily narrower than
that of an ordinary citizen.

But it must be noted that the proposed motion picture is required to be fairly truthful and
historical in its presentation of events. This serves as a line of equilibrium in this case between
the constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the right of privacy. There must be
no presentation of the private life of the unwilling private respondent and certainly no
revelation of intimate or embarrassing personal facts. Portrayal of the participation of private
respondent in the EDSA Revolution should be related to the public facts of the EDSA
Revolution.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai