Case 2A. b.

the subject matter of the motion picture is one

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