AYER PRODUCTIONS VS. CAPULONG [160 SCRA 861; G.R.

NO. L-82380; 29 APR 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 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, acomplaint 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 notexhibited 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.