AYER PRODUCTIONS and McELROY & McELROY FILM PRODUCTIONS vs HON.

IGNACIO CAPULONG and JUAN PONCE ENRILE

G.R. No. 82380 | April 29, 1988

HAL McELROY vs HON. IGNACIO CAPULONG and JUAN PONCE ENRILE

G.R. No. 82398 | April 29, 1988

FACTS:
Hal McElroy, Australian film maker, sought to produce a 6-hour "docu-drama" depicting
the EDSA revolution, entitled "The Four Day Revolution." The project was consulted with and
endorsed by the MTRCB and other relevant government agencies. Fidel Ramos also gave his
approval.
Enrile, however, did not approve the use of his or his family's names or pictures in the film.
He asked that no reference whatsoever should be made to him or his family. McElroy and his
company acceded to his demand, and his name was deleted from the script.
However, Enrile was not appeased, and he filed a complaint arguing that the release of the
film without his consent violates his right to privacy. McElroy argued that the film would not be
about Enrile's life, and that a preliminary injunction (asked for by Enrile) would constitute prior
restraint on their right of free expression. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the right to freedom of speech and expression includes the right to film and
produce motion pictures
2. Whether the production of "The Four Day Revolution" violates Enrile's right to privacy

RULING/RATIO:
1. YES.
Along with the press, radio and television, motion pictures constitute a principal
medium of mass communication for information, education and entertainment. This
freedom is available in our country both to locally-owned and to foreign-owned motion
picture companies. The mere fact the production of movies is often a commercial activity
does not disqualify it from being part of protected speech.
Because of this, the temporary restraining order issued by the lower court against
Ayer Productions to restrain the filming of “The Four Day Revolution” was an invalid prior
restraint on Ayer’s and McElroy’s freedom of speech, there being no clear and present
danger of violating any right to privacy, as will be discussed below.

2. NO.
The right to free speech must, however, be balanced with the right to privacy. The
right of privacy or "the right to be let alone," like the right of free expression, is not an
absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as
permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited
from him or to be published about him constitute of a public character. Succinctly put, the
right of privacy cannot be invoked resist publication and dissemination of matters of public
interest. The interest sought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to be free

Prepared by: Marie-Chelle G. Panganiban

 from unwarranted publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and
activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.
"The Four Day Revolution" concerns the EDSA revolution, a matter of public
interest and concern, and even international interest. It does not relate to the individual nor
private life of Enrile. It is merely compelled, if it is to be historically accurate, to refer to
the role played by Enrile in the events of the revolution.
The extent of the instrusion upon the life of private respondent Juan Ponce Enrile
that would be entailed by the production and exhibition of "The Four Day Revolution"
would, therefore, be limited in character. Also, Enrile is what is considered a public
figure: "a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a
profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs,
and his character, has become a 'public personage.'...It includes, in short, anyone who has
arrived at a position where public attention is focused upon him as a person."
Public figures are held to have lost, to some extent, their right to privacy because:
(1) their personalities and their affairs has already public, and could no longer be regarded
as their own private business; and (2) the press had a privilege, under the Constitution, to
inform the public about those who have become legitimate matters of public interest.
Enrile has not ceased to become a public figure simply because he has led a
relatively secluded and simple private life. After a successful political campaign during
which his participation in the EDSA Revolution was directly or indirectly referred to in the
press, radio and television, he sits in a very public place, the Senate of the Philippines.
The right to freedom of speech involved here, however, must be limited such that
the proposed motion picture must be fairly truthful and historical in its presentation
of events. There must also be no presentation of the private life of the unwilling private
respondent and certainly no revelation of intimate or embarrassing personal facts.

Prepared by: Marie-Chelle G. Panganiban