8/22/2019 D024 - Ayer Production PTY Ltd vs. Capulong

1/1

Ayer Production PTY Ltd. V Capulong (1988)

Facts: Pivate respondent Juan Ponce Enrile filed an action in the RTC of Makati to enjoin the

petitioners from producing the movie "The Four Day Revolution," a documentary of the EDSA

Revolution in 1986 on the ground that it violated his right to privacy. Petitioners contended that the

movie would not involve his private life not that of his family. But the trial court issued a writ of

preliminary injunction and ordered petitioners to desist from making the movie making reference

whatsoever to Ponce Enrile. This, this action for certiorari.

Issue:

Whether the freedom of speech includes freedom to product motion pictures depicting public

figures?

HELD: Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to produce motion pictures and to

exhibit them. What is involved is a prior restraint by the Judge upon the exercise of speech and of

expression by petitioners. Because of the preferred character of speech and of expression, a weighty

presumption of invalidity vitiates measures of prior restraint. The Judge should have stayed his hand

considering that the movie was yet uncompleted and therefore there was no "clear and present

danger." The subject matter of the movie does not relate to the private life of Ponce Enrile. The

intrusion is no more than necessary to keep the film a truthful historical account. He is, after all, a

public figure. The line of equilibrium in the specific context of the instant case between 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 facts. There

must be no showing of a reckless disregard of truth.Notes: Ayer sought to produce a movie on the4-day revolution. Enrile, who had previously been asked for the use of his character in the movie

and had refused the offer, sued to enjoin the filming because he did not want any mention of his and

his family's name. The SC lifted the injunction issued by the lower court on the ground that it

amounted to prior restraint, which is no better if imposed by the courts than if imposed by

administrative bodies or by ecclesiatical officials.In Ayer, the reference to Enrile is unavoidable

because his name is part of history and this cannot be changed or altered; thus his name can be used

so long as only his public life is dwelled only. But in Lagunzad, although Moises Padilla was also a

public figure, the movie dealth with both the public and private lives of Moises Padilla.

http://talkaboutphilippinelaw.weebly.com/1/post/2011/02/ayer-production-pty-ltd-v-capulong-1988.htmlhttp://talkaboutphilippinelaw.weebly.com/1/post/2011/02/ayer-production-pty-ltd-v-capulong-1988.html