Mel Rose M.

Aguilar
MA Media Studies
2013- 78431

Media 230
Prof. Marichu Lambino

Ayer Productions Pty Ltd. Vs. Capulong & Enrile

Case Digest by Mel Aguilar

G.R. No. 82398 April 29, 1988

HAL MCELROY petitioner,
vs.
HON. IGNACIO M. CAPULONG, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134 and JUAN PONCE
ENRILE, respondents.
Ayer Productions Pty Ltd. sought to film the EDSA Revolution. They informed
Enrile regarding the motion picture and he wrote that he would not approve the
use, appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition of his name or picture or that
of any member of his family in any cinema.
FACTS
1. Hal McElroy owns the production company, Ayer Productions Pty Ltd.
Through this movie production company, he intended to make a movie
that would depict the historic peaceful struggle of the Filipinos at EDSA in
a six- hour mini-series.
2. The proposed motion picture is entitled The Four Day Revolution, and
was endorsed by the Movie Television Review and Classification Board as
well as the other government agencies consulted. General Fidel Ramos
also signified his approval of the intended film production. Petitioner
McElroy had likewise informed Juan Ponce Enrile about the projected
motion picture, enclosing a synopsis of it.
3. Enrile, envoking in the main right of privacy replied that he would not and
will not approve of the use, appropriation, reproduction and/or exhibition
of his name or picture or that of any member of his family in any cinema
or television production. Because of this, petitioners deleted the name of
Enrile in the movie script and proceeded to film the projected motion
picture. Despite of the deletion, Enrile still sought to enjoin
petitioners from producing the movie, which was later on granted.
ISSUE
Whether or Not freedom of expression was violated.
HELD
Yes. The EDSA revolution where private respondent (Enrile) is a major
character is of public interest. The respondent is a public figure due to his
participation in the culmination of the change of government. The right to privacy
of a public figure is necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen.

Mel Rose M. Aguilar

MA Media Studies
2013- 78431

Media 230
Prof. Marichu Lambino

RATIO DECIDENDI
1. Considering first petitioners' claim to freedom of speech and of expression
the Court would once more stress that this freedom includes the freedom to film
and produce motion pictures and to exhibit such motion pictures in theaters or to
diffuse them through television. In our day and age, motion pictures are a
universally utilized vehicle of communication and medium Of expression. Along
with the press, radio and television, motion pictures constitute a principal
medium of mass communication for information, education, entertainment and is
a medium of expression.
2. 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.
Sources:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1988/apr1988/gr_82380_1988.html
https://www.scribd.com/doc/254589389/4-Ayer-Productions-vs-Judge-Capulong160-Scra-86