Shahira Karla R.

Belandres

Constitutional Law II

Ayer Productions PTY. LTD. And McElroy & McElroy Film Productions vs.

Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong and Juan Ponce Enrile

G.R. No. 82380 April 29, 1998

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Ayer Productions with an Urgent prayer for Preliminary
Injuction or Restraining Order.

Hal McElroy vs. Hon. Ignacio Capulong and Juan Ponce Enrile

G.R. No. 82398 April 29, 1998

This is a petition for certiorari filed by Hal McElroy with an Urgent prayer for Preliminary
Injuction or Restraining Order.

Facts:

Petitioner McElroy, an Australian film maker, and his movie production company, Ayer
Productions, proposed an envisioned motion picture of EDSA revolution entitled “The Four Day
Revolution”- a six-hour mini-series television play presented in docu-drama style of a four fictional
characters being in real events and actual documentary, which will be for commercial viewing for
Philippine and International release. It was then endorsed by Movie Television Review and Classification
Board (MTRCB) and other consulted government agencies. Morever, Gen. Fidel V. Ramos also approved
the intended film production.

Meanwhile, Private Respondent Enrile disapproved the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or
exhibition of his name, or picture, or any of his family members in any cinema, television production,
film or other medium for advertising or commercial exploitation. It was acceded by the petitioners by
deleting his name from the movie script as they proceed with the filming yet Respondent Enrile filed a
Complaint with application for Temporary Restraining Order and Wilt of Pretion with the Regional Trial
Court invoking his right to privacy is unlawfully intruded.

Petitioners asserted that the freedom to produce and film is included in the freedom of speech
and expression; and the subject matter of the motion picture is one of the public interest and concern
and not on the individual private life of Respondent Enrile. Petitioner McElroy filed a Motion to Dismiss
with Opposition to the Petition for Preliminary Injuction. Petitioner Ayer Productions also filed its own
Motion to Dismiss alleging lack of cause of action as the mini-series had not yet been completed.

Consequently, respondent court issued a writ of Preliminary Injunction against the petitioners to
cease and desist from producing and filming the said motion picture and from making any reference
whatsoever to plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious character in lieu of plaintiff.
Issues:

a) Whether or not the Freedom of Speech/Expression includes freedom to film and produce
motion pictures.

b) Whether or not the Right to Privacy of Respondent Enrile is violated by the Motion Picture
“Four Day Revolution”.

Held:

a) Yes. Both locally-owned and foreign-owned motion pictures companies in the Philippines are
covered with Freedom of Speech which includes the freedom to film and produce motion pictures and
to exhibit such motion pictures and to exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to diffuse them
through television.

b) No. “The Four Day Revolution” does not constitute an unlawful intrusion upon respondent
Enrile’s right of privacy.

The interests observable are the right to privacy asserted by respondent and the right of
freedom of expression invoked by the petitioner. It clearly shows that the limits of freedom of
expression are reached when expression touches upon matters of essentially private concern.

Whether the “balancing of interest test” which states courts should balance the public interest
served by legislation on one hand and freedom of the speech on the other, or the “clear and present
danger test” which states that words are used in such a circumstance and are of such nature as to create
a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantial evils that a lawyer has a right to
prevent, be applied in respect of the instant petitions, the Court believes that a different conclusion
must here be reached.

There was no “clear and present danger” of any violation of any right to privacy that private
respondent Enrile could lawfully assert because the subject matter of “The Four Day Revolution” is one
of the public interest concern or even international interest. In addition to that, the synopsis provided
by petitioner does not relate to the individual life and certainly private life of respondent Enrile who
exhibited a principal action in culminating events of the change of government, thus making him a public
figure who gives the public a legitimate interest of his doings, his affairs, his character that has become a
public personage. The right of privacy of a public figure is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary
citizen.

The line of equilibrium between constitutional freedom of speech and of expression and the
right of privacy will be shown as the proposed motion picture presents fairly truthful and historical
events in EDSA Revolution, without showing the private life of the unwilling private respondent.

The Petitions for Certiorari are granted due course and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction or
Restraining Order granted by the respondent court is set aside. Moreover, Petitions for Certiorari with
Prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order is set aside.