AYER PRODUCTIONS PTY. LTD.

and McELROY & McELROY FILM PRODUCTIONS, petitioners,

vs.
HON.IGNACIO M. CAPULONG and JUAN PONCE ENRILE, respondents

FACTS:
In a letter dated December 16, 1987, Australian film maker and petitioner Hal McElroy informed private respondent Juan Ponce Enrile
about the motion picture he intended to make, which was about the EDSA Revolution. The respondent did not approve of the showing of the film
and filed a complaint with application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on February 23, 1988. On February 24, 1988, the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 134, issued a TRO and set for hearing the application for preliminary injunction. In response, Hal McElroy filed a
motion to dismiss with opposition to the petition for preliminary injunction. Petitioner Ayer Productions also filed its own Motion to Dismiss,
alleging lack of cause of action as the mini-series had not yet been completed. In an order dated March 16 1988, respondent court issued a writ of
Preliminary Injunction against the petitioners. On March 22 1988, petitioner Ayer Productions filed a Petition for certiorari dated March 21 1988
with an urgent prayer for Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order. On March 23 1988, petitioner Hal McElroy also filed separate Petition for
certiorari with Urgent prayer for a Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction, dated March 22, 1988. By a Resolution dated March 24, 1988, the
petitions were consolidated and Enrile was required to file a consolidated answer. The Court also granted a TRO partially enjoining the
implementation of the respondent Judge's Order of March 16 1988 and the Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued therein, and allowing the
petitioners to resume producing and filming those portions of the projected film that do not make any reference to private respondent or his family
or to any fictitious character based on the respondent. As a result, Enrile filed his Consolidated Answer on April 6, 1988, invoking his right of
privacy. In a Manifestation dated March 30, 1988, petitioner Hal McElroy informed the Court that a TRO dated March 25, 1988, was issued by
Judge Teofilo Guadiz of the RTC of Makati, Branch 147, in Civil Case No. 88-413, entitled "Gregorio B. Honasan vs. Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd.,
McElroy Film Productions, Hal McElroy, Lope Juban and PMP Motion for Pictures Production. Private respondent filed a Counter-Manifestation
on April 13, 1988.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the production and filming of the projected mini-series would constitute an unlawful intrusion into the privacy of the private
respondent.

RESOLUTION:

The court concluded that the production and filming by petitioners of the projected motion picture "The Four Day Revolution" does not, in the
circumstances of the case, constitute an unlawful intrusion upon private respondent's "right of privacy."

a. The Petitions for Certiorari are granted due course, and the March 16, 1988 order of trial court granting a Writ of Preliminary Injunction is set
aside. The limited TRO granted by the Court on March 24, 1988 is modified, enjoining unqualifiedly the implementation of respondent Judge's
order of March 16, 1988 and made PERMANENT

b) Treating the Manifestations of petitioners dated March 30, 1988 and April 4, 1988 as separate Petitions for Certiorari with Prayer for
Preliminary Injunction or Restraining Order, the Court, in the exercise of its plenary and supervisory jurisdiction, required Judge Teofilo Guadiz
of the RTC of Makati, Branch 147, TO DISMISS Civil Case No. 88-413 and to set aside and dissolve his TRO dated March 25 1988 and any
Preliminary Injunction that may have been issued by him.

RATIONALE:

1. There was no "clear and present danger" or any violation of any right to privacy that private respondent could lawfully assert.
2. The subject relates to a highly critical stage in the history of this country and as such, must be regarded as having passed into the public
domain and as an appropriate subject for speech and expression and coverage by any form of mass media.
3. The extent of the intrusion upon the life of private respondent Juan Ponce Enrile that would be entailed by the production and
exhibition of "The Four Day Revolution" would be limited in character.
4. The right of privacy of a "public figure" is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen. Private respondent has not retired into
the seclusion of simple private citizenship. He continues to be a "public figure.” He sits in a very public place, the Senate of the
Philippines.
5. 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.