Ayer Productions vs.

Capulong
160 SCRA 861
G.R. No. L-82380
April 29, 1988
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 has 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.
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.