Case Digest (G.R. No. 184836)
Facts:
In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. and McElroy & McElroy Film Productions v. Hon. Ignacio M. Capulong and Juan Ponce Enrile (Consolidated G.R. Nos. 82380 and 82398, April 29, 1988), Australian filmmaker Hal McElroy and petitioner Ayer Productions envisioned a six-hour “docu-drama” mini-series titled The Four Day Revolution, chronicling the peaceful People Power events of February 1986 on EDSA. In December 1987, McElroy submitted a detailed script synopsis to Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, one of the key actors in those events, who immediately refused consent for any use of his name or likeness, prompting petitioners to delete direct references to him. Despite that adjustment, on February 23, 1988 Enrile filed Civil Case No. 88-151 in the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 134, seeking a Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction to enjoin the production of the mini-series on grounds of invasion of privacy. The RTC issued an ex parte TRO on February 24 and, after hCase Digest (G.R. No. 184836)
Facts:
- Parties and Project
- Petitioners Hal McElroy (Australian filmmaker) and Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd. conceived in 1987 a six-hour mini-series entitled “The Four Day Revolution,” a docu-drama reenacting the peaceful 1986 EDSA Revolution for Philippine and international release.
- The screenplay by David Williamson and historian Al McCoy featured four fictitious protagonists woven into real events, supplemented by archival footage.
- Consultation and Approval
- Petitioners consulted local producer Lope V. Juban and government agencies, securing endorsements from the Movie Television Review and Classification Board and approval from General Fidel V. Ramos.
- On December 16, 1987, Hal McElroy sent Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile a detailed synopsis and formal notice of the project.
- Objection and Initial Compliance
- On December 21, 1987, Enrile objected to any use of his name, image, or family references for “advertising or commercial exploitation,” demanding deletion from the script.
- Petitioners excised his name from the screenplay and proceeded with filming.
- Trial Court Proceedings
- On February 23, 1988, Enrile filed Civil Case No. 88-151 in the RTC of Makati, Branch 134, for violation of his right to privacy, seeking TRO and preliminary injunction against production and any reference to him or similar characters.
- The RTC issued an ex-parte TRO on February 24, 1988, and, after hearing, a preliminary injunction on March 16, 1988, enjoining all production and reference to Enrile until bond was posted.
- Supreme Court Petitions
- On March 22–23, 1988, petitioners filed separate certiorari petitions (G.R. Nos. L-82380 & L-82398) before the Supreme Court, challenging the injunction as prior restraint on free expression.
- The Court consolidated the petitions, granted a limited TRO on March 24, 1988 (allowing production excluding any reference to Enrile or similar characters), and directed Enrile to file a consolidated answer, which he did on April 6, 1988.
Issues:
- Constitutional Freedoms vs. Privacy
- Whether petitioners’ First Amendment–protected freedom of speech and expression to film and exhibit motion pictures includes reenactment of the EDSA events.
- Whether Sen. Enrile’s asserted right of privacy may justify prior restraint of petitioners’ film production.
- Prior Restraint Doctrine
- Whether the trial court’s issuance of TRO and preliminary injunction constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint in the absence of a “clear and present danger.”
- Whether the injunction is overbroad, barring all references to Enrile even in his public capacity.
- Scope of Privacy for Public Figures
- Whether a public figure’s right to privacy can bar depiction of his role in events of overriding public interest.
- Whether petitioners’ docu-drama, which focuses on public historical events, intrudes unreasonably on Enrile’s private life.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)