TOPIC : FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

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, 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.