Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 225 views

    Ayer Productions VS Capulong

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Mae Ogao-ogao
    The film producers wanted to make a movie about the 1986 People Power Revolution and asked for approval from General Ramos and Senator Enrile, who both played major roles. Enrile said he did not approve of any commercial exploitation and did not want any reference to him or his family in the film. The producers removed Enrile's name from the script but proceeded with the film. Enrile then sued the producers, claiming infringement on his right to privacy. The court ruled that while the film was protected under freedom of expression, Enrile's privacy rights were narrower as a public figure involved in a matter of public interest like the revolution. As long as the film limited itself to portraying Enrile's reasonably related public acts,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ayer Productions VS Capulong

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Mae Ogao-ogao
    225 views2 pages
    The film producers wanted to make a movie about the 1986 People Power Revolution and asked for approval from General Ramos and Senator Enrile, who both played major roles. Enrile said he did not approve of any commercial exploitation and did not want any reference to him or his family in the film. The producers removed Enrile's name from the script but proceeded with the film. Enrile then sued the producers, claiming infringement on his right to privacy. The court ruled that while the film was protected under freedom of expression, Enrile's privacy rights were narrower as a public figure involved in a matter of public interest like the revolution. As long as the film limited itself to portraying Enrile's reasonably related public acts,

    Original Description:

    K

    Original Title

    AYER PRODUCTIONS VS CAPULONG

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The film producers wanted to make a movie about the 1986 People Power Revolution and asked for approval from General Ramos and Senator Enrile, who both played major roles. Enrile said he did not approve of any commercial exploitation and did not want any reference to him or his family in the film. The producers removed Enrile's name from the script but proceeded with the film. Enrile then sued the producers, claiming infringement on his right to privacy. The court ruled that while the film was protected under freedom of expression, Enrile's privacy rights were narrower as a public figure involved in a matter of public interest like the revolution. As long as the film limited itself to portraying Enrile's reasonably related public acts,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    225 views2 pages

    Ayer Productions VS Capulong

    Uploaded by

    Alyssa Mae Ogao-ogao
    The film producers wanted to make a movie about the 1986 People Power Revolution and asked for approval from General Ramos and Senator Enrile, who both played major roles. Enrile said he did not approve of any commercial exploitation and did not want any reference to him or his family in the film. The producers removed Enrile's name from the script but proceeded with the film. Enrile then sued the producers, claiming infringement on his right to privacy. The court ruled that while the film was protected under freedom of expression, Enrile's privacy rights were narrower as a public figure involved in a matter of public interest like the revolution. As long as the film limited itself to portraying Enrile's reasonably related public acts,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    AYER PRODUCTIONS VS CAPULONG

    160 SCRA 861, April 29, 1988, G.R. No. 82380

    Facts:
    Petitioners: AYER Productions PTY. LTD. and McElroy & McElroy Film
    Productions.
    Respondent: HON. Ignacio M. Capulong and Juan Ponce Enrile

    In 1987, petitioner envisioned making a movie about the historic peaceful


    struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA. The petitioners asked the approval of General Fidel V.
    Ramos and Senator Juan Ponce Enrile who played major roles in the said revolution.

    Enrile said that he would not and will not approve of any commercial exploitation
    and further advised petitioners that 'in the production, airing, showing, distribution or
    exhibition of said or similar film, no reference whatsoever (whether written, verbal or
    visual) should not be made to [him] or any member of his family, much less to any
    matter purely personal to them.

    The petitioners agreed and removed the name of Enrile from the script, and
    proceeded in making the film.

    Respondent Sen. Enrile filed a case against private petitioners for the production
    and filming of the projected motion picture “The Four Day Revolution” for its unlawful
    intrusion upon his right to privacy.

    Petitioners' claim that in producing the film," they are exercising their freedom of
    speech and of expression while the private respondent asserts a right of privacy.

    Issue/s:
    Whether or not the projected motion picture is guaranteed under the right to free
    speech.
    Whether or not the projected motion constitute an unlawful intrusion upon private
    respondent's "right of privacy."

    Decision:
    Yes. The projected motion picture is a guaranteed because it is of public interest
    and as long as it limits itself in portraying the private respondent to the reasonably
    related public facts of the EDSA Revolution.

    No. The EDSA revolution where private respondent is a major character is one of
    public interest. Private respondent is a public figure due to his participation in the
    culmination of the change of government. The right of privacy of a “public figure” is
    necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen because they (1) had sought
    publicity and consented to it (2) that their personalities and their affairs has already
    public, and (3) the press had a privilege, under the Constitution, to inform the public
    about those who have become legitimate matters of public interest.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy