Ayer Production PTY Ltd.

V Capulong (1988)
Posted by Evelyn
F: 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.




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 the 4-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 andprivate lives of Moises Padilla.