The Supreme Court ruled that the production of the motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" by Ayer Productions did not constitute an unlawful intrusion on the right to privacy of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. The Court applied the balancing of interests test and found that the public interest in freedom of expression regarding a matter of significant historical events outweighed Enrile's right to privacy as a public figure. However, the film was required to present events truthfully and not reveal private or intimate facts about Enrile. While Enrile's participation in the historical events could be depicted, the film must focus on public facts regarding the EDSA Revolution, not Enrile's individual private life. Therefore, Ayer Productions was allowed to proceed with
The Supreme Court ruled that the production of the motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" by Ayer Productions did not constitute an unlawful intrusion on the right to privacy of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. The Court applied the balancing of interests test and found that the public interest in freedom of expression regarding a matter of significant historical events outweighed Enrile's right to privacy as a public figure. However, the film was required to present events truthfully and not reveal private or intimate facts about Enrile. While Enrile's participation in the historical events could be depicted, the film must focus on public facts regarding the EDSA Revolution, not Enrile's individual private life. Therefore, Ayer Productions was allowed to proceed with
The Supreme Court ruled that the production of the motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" by Ayer Productions did not constitute an unlawful intrusion on the right to privacy of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile. The Court applied the balancing of interests test and found that the public interest in freedom of expression regarding a matter of significant historical events outweighed Enrile's right to privacy as a public figure. However, the film was required to present events truthfully and not reveal private or intimate facts about Enrile. While Enrile's participation in the historical events could be depicted, the film must focus on public facts regarding the EDSA Revolution, not Enrile's individual private life. Therefore, Ayer Productions was allowed to proceed with
AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD. vs. CAPULONG freedom of speech and expression; and GR No. L-82380, April 29, 1988 b. the subject matter of the motion picture is one GR No. L-82398, April 29, 1988 of public interest and concern and not on the individual private life of respondent Senator. DOCTRINE: The production and filming by petitioners of the projected motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" RTC Judge Ignacio Capulong ordered for the desistance does not, in the circumstances of this case, constitute of the movie production and making of any reference to an unlawful intrusion upon private respondent's "right plaintiff or his family and from creating any fictitious of privacy." character in lieu of plaintiff which nevertheless is based on, or bears substantial or marked resemblance to CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE – that words are used Enrile. Hence the appeal. in such a circumstance and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the ISSUES: substantial evils that a lawmaker has a right to prevent. a. Whether or not the Freedom of Speech/ Expression includes freedom to film and produce motion pictures. BALANCING OF INTERESTS TEST- the courts should b. Whether or not the Right to Privacy of Respondent balance the public interest served by legislation on one Enrile is violated by the Motion Picture of “Four Day hand and the freedom of speech (or any other Revolution”. constitutional right) on the other. The courts will then RULING: decide where the greater weight should be placed. a. Yes. Freedom of Speech includes the freedom FACTS: to film and produce motion pictures and to Petitioner McElroy, an Australian Film maker, exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to and AYER PRODUCTIONS, his movie production diffuse them through television. Along with company envisioned, for commercial viewing and for press, radio and television, motion pictures Philippine and International Release, the historic constitute a principal medium of mass peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. communication for information, education and The proposed Motion picture entitled "The Four entertainment. Day Revolution" was endorsed by the MTRCB and other government agencies consulted. This freedom of Speech is available in Ramos also signified his approval of the intended film our country both to locally-owned and to production. It is designed to be viewed in a six-hour foreign-owned motion picture companies. mini-series television play, presented in a "docu-drama" b. No. The projected motion picture “The Four Day style, creating four fictional characters interwoven with Revolution” does not constitute an unlawful real events, and utilizing actual documentary footage as intrusion upon private respondent’s right of background. privacy. David Williamson is Australia's leading In the case at bar, the interests playwright and Professor McCoy (University of New observable are the right to privacy asserted by South Wales) is an American historian have developed a respondent and the right of freedom of script. expression invoked by petitioner taking into Private Respondent Ponce Enrile declared that account the interplay of those interests, we he will not approve the use, appropriation, hold that under the particular circumstances reproduction and/or exhibition of his name, or picture, presented, and considering the obligations or that of any member of his family in any cinema or assumed in the Licensing Agreement entered television production, film or other medium for into by petitioner, the validity of such advertising or commercial exploitation. agreement will have to be upheld particularly Petitioners acceded to this demand and the because the limits of freedom of expression are name of Enrile was deleted from the movie script, and reached when expression touches upon matters petitioners proceeded to film the projected motion of essentially private concern." Whether the picture. However, a complaint was filed by Enrile “balancing of interest test” or the “clear and invoking his right to privacy is unlawfully intruded. present danger test” be applied in respect of Petitioner contended that: the instant Petitions, the Court believes that a Revolution should be related to the public facts different conclusion must here be reached. of the EDSA Revolution.
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